From benschcoe at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  1 00:13:13 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Thu Nov  2 01:15:17 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <OFEC3A70CC.88B3A9DA-ON85257218.0048B73B-85257218.004A48D1@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F37B22E250CAE2C0A823901B7F90@phx.gbl>

Hi Rodger,

As far as wholeness is concerned — for me, I connect wholeness to 
transformation of consciousness. We can intellectualize it, even practice it 
or experiment with it through meditation, tai chi, yoga, etc., or experience 
it while looking at the ocean or by standing on top of the Alps, however, 
this is only a STATE of wholeness. I am talking about movement into a STAGE 
of wholeness.

Here is a story; part universal, part personal.
Many years ago, my husband and I risked every thing we had to send him to 
flight school. I stayed up north (New England) with two jobs and two kids. 
In my consulting job, I produced large-scale events (15,000 people) that 
connected employers to jobseekers. In my teaching job, I worked at a women’s 
college.

Shortly after he finished his training, my husband met someone else. (While 
this happens every day, when it happens personally, it is a shock.) I was in 
shock; I was a walking zombie. The first thing I did was take my sons with 
me into therapy.

I knew my husband’s affair would not last and I knew intuitively that our 
21-year marriage had to end. However, although I knew this intellectually, 
emotionally I was still very attached. Two decades  is a long time.

What we had at this point were two sons, bills, and a highly mortgaged 
century-old, in-need-of-repair Victorian house. I had three goals: one was 
to make sure my sons were OK; the other was to leave my husband with 
kindness (he did not want a divorce); and third, to end the marriage without 
filing bankruptcy.

The process took two years and here is how it went. I did not tell anyone 
including my family about our situation. I did not need a team of 
strategists to tell me how to cut off his legs.

Everyday around 6 AM, I drove to a reservoir in another town. It was during 
my four-mile run that I allowed myself to cry. And, I cried and cried, and 
felt pain that I had never knew could exist. As I was running, I felt as 
though my body was splitting in half. I ran during rain, sunshine, sleet, 
snow. Sometimes I made the first tracks in the snow, since no one else was 
crazy enough to enter the woods during blizzard-type weather. I ran prior to 
teaching my first class or prior to client meetings.

One day, after almost a year of crying and running, I came out of the woods 
and my face held no tears. Since it was raining that day, I wasn’t sure if 
the moisture on my face was rain or tears. The next day, I ran again. This 
time, it wasn’t raining and there were no tears. What happened was, in an 
unexpected moment, I felt profound gratitude and love for this man that I 
knew half of my life. It was a kind of love I had never felt before; it was  
a love of appreciation and gratitude. But here is the kicker, I felt this 
love towards everyone. I realized that all the sacrifices I had made for my 
husband, and for the nonprofit organizations I had worked for, was to win or 
get love. I had this CORE BELIEF that I could change someone — that I could 
make someone else successful or happy. In that moment of feeling this 
profound love or wholeness, I realized that the only person I could change 
is myself. In that moment, my whole world changed. I left the woods with 
clarity that I never envisioned was possible. There was no turning back. The 
veil was lifted and my whole life began.

Regina


>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:31:23 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger__hi Regina, I am interested in what you mean by experiencing
>wholeness.
>
>There are many experiences of wholeness, including fragmentation and
>separation. But my most whole-like experiences started with an experience
>of simply being conscious of being conscious, in absence of any thought of
>self-image, besides sensory/bodily self.
>
>But prior to having that experience there were many years of what seemed
>mostly involuntary dissolution of self images, starting with the most
>superficial and working inward from there._R
>.
>.
>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:26:12 -0500
>From: "Regina Bensch-Coe" <benschcoe@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
>Yes, but I suspect you can describe when and where you first experienced
>wholeness.
>.


>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com  Wed Nov  1 00:09:25 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Thu Nov  2 02:11:24 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F9D39F589D8F18503E3690A5FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C16D33C5.7BA6%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>

The roots of the word compassion simply mean feeling with & implies a peer
relationship.  Buddhists consider compassion to be unconditional love & so
the highest form of love.  Pity, according to Jack Kornfield, is the demonic
form of compassion, since it involves a feeling of superiority.  Then there
is what Ken Wilber calls "idiot compassion" which is like giving a case of
booze to an alcoholic.

Lynne
On 10/30/06 11:03 AM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Here, K is me.  Would it be better if I used Kay?  It's so easy just to hit
> the K key!
> 
> It's only one kind of love, and seems almost to imply that the one who has
> compassion for another is somehow superior.  That's why, when you responded
> to my email to Kris, by saying you'd like to have shown himer compassion, I
> was quick to clarify that my response had a different foundation.
> Particularly my Navajo experience taught me that people often don't want
> your compassion.  They consider it in the same category with an inferior
> status, and needing handouts - i.e. a putdown.
> 
> K or Kay
> 
> 
>> From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:45:02 -0800 (PST)
>> 
>> I'm confused. Normally when I see "K" I think Krishnamurti. Who is "K"
>> here?
>> 
>> And, I think it is interesting that compassion isn't enough for you. Why do
>> we have to split love and compassion? I really don't see any difference
>> myself!
>> 
>> Is one of our definitions larger/smaller?
>> 
>> kari
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:20:52 AM
>> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>> 
>> 
>> is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man?
>> 
>> K:  or the other way around?  Or are people who love on any level
>> considered
>> gullible and fair game for whatever in a competitive society?
>> Again, I have to ask if love is really possible in a competitive society.
>> Compassion is, I believe, and I guess that's a form of love.  But that's
>> not
>> enough for me.   k
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:35:10 -0500
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive -- they are
>> only
>>> indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life.
>>> 
>>> Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language, or level
>> of
>>> education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning?
>>> 
>>> When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond the range
>>> of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational by the
>>> man?
>>> 
>>> Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony
>> either
>>> is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love.
>>> Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen closer
>> to
>>> the surface.
>>> 
>>> In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right topics to
>>> learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining
>> understanding
>>> of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R
>>> .
>>> .
>>> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> .
>>> it mainly relates to the persons intent.
>>> 
>>> It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough.  k
>>> .
>>> .
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> 
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://space
> s.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 

-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
   208 376-1336
   www.lifedirectionscoach.com
    (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)


"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen


From oenthomas at gmail.com  Wed Nov  1 02:31:58 2006
From: oenthomas at gmail.com (Owen Thomas)
Date: Thu Nov  2 03:34:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,
	Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F20E08F994E722204796215A5FB0@phx.gbl>
References: <1dde854d0610290604j25cc3eaj8bacd5eaf7909f94@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY22-F20E08F994E722204796215A5FB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1dde854d0610311731p1acc78e8qe2e45b885d12bc33@mail.gmail.com>

Owen sometimes wants to communicate with an individual but the group
participation interferes with other messages. Owen remains on the periphery
because he has an issue with group participation with a topic which seems to
have no focus.

The issue is not anger at any individual of the group but it seems to be
similar to a disaffection for the process as practiced in this mail list.

On 10/29/06, Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please set me straight if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing from both of you
> is anger at the group.  Is there some way to work through that to get at
> deeper meaning?  k
>
>
> >From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,Issue 29
> The
> >Indivisible Whole
> >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:04:28 -1200
> >
> >Rogier,
> >I also sit on the periphery after attempting to explain success in
> Dialogue
> >in my home town of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. This list is not
> willing
> >to acknowledge our name "Unity in Diversity" as being a key to dialogue.
> >Bohm was so resistant to rules that this group refuses to consider Love
> or
> >even our guides in Mexico for respectful writing (an approach to love).
> The
> >list does not even respect a theme and if you wish to communicate with me
> >it
> >is necessary to email my address to avoid disruption by independent egos.
> >
> >On 10/28/06, Rogier Gregoire <gregoire@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it
> a
> >>dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community
> to
> >>come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same
> >>time
> >>too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace
> David
> >>Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following
> paradigm
> >>as
> >>a premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to respond
> >>or
> >>react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm
> by
> >>Meher Baba as originally posted:
> >>We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals,
> who
> >>have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole,
> on
> >>the other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them.
> >>
> >>And the Corollary:
> >>
> >>It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others
> which
> >>alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the
> >>whole).
> >>
> >>Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a
> universal
> >>experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least
> >>available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an
> >>ephemeral
> >>but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the
> >>participants
> >>on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience,
> >>reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral
> >>nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the
> >>game
> >>of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience.
> >>
> >>I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add
> my
> >>view of it and would like His statement considered rather than to
> trouble
> >>yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some
> >>recognition of this posting.
> >>Rogier Gregoire
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>info:
> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>
> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>dialogue facilitator:
> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>Administrator of the mailing list:
> >>admin@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >We are connected
> >
> >Owen
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
>
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>


-- 
We are connected

Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061031/bed3bfab/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  1 03:46:15 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov  2 04:48:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,
	Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <1dde854d0610311731p1acc78e8qe2e45b885d12bc33@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F5F32D7B037642F9D05690A5F80@phx.gbl>

Owen, it's possible to communicate with a person using their own email 
address.  I do it.
As for "no focus", since I don't see the group as unfocussed, perhaps you 
could give a concrete example, then suggestions as to how to stay focussed.  
Best, k


>From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,Issue 29 The 
>Indivisible Whole
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:31:58 -1200
>
>Owen sometimes wants to communicate with an individual but the group
>participation interferes with other messages. Owen remains on the periphery
>because he has an issue with group participation with a topic which seems 
>to
>have no focus.
>
>The issue is not anger at any individual of the group but it seems to be
>similar to a disaffection for the process as practiced in this mail list.
>
>On 10/29/06, Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Please set me straight if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing from both of you
>>is anger at the group.  Is there some way to work through that to get at
>>deeper meaning?  k
>>
>>
>> >From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com>
>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,Issue 29
>>The
>> >Indivisible Whole
>> >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:04:28 -1200
>> >
>> >Rogier,
>> >I also sit on the periphery after attempting to explain success in
>>Dialogue
>> >in my home town of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. This list is not
>>willing
>> >to acknowledge our name "Unity in Diversity" as being a key to dialogue.
>> >Bohm was so resistant to rules that this group refuses to consider Love
>>or
>> >even our guides in Mexico for respectful writing (an approach to love).
>>The
>> >list does not even respect a theme and if you wish to communicate with 
>>me
>> >it
>> >is necessary to email my address to avoid disruption by independent 
>>egos.
>> >
>> >On 10/28/06, Rogier Gregoire <gregoire@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it
>>a
>> >>dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community
>>to
>> >>come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same
>> >>time
>> >>too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace
>>David
>> >>Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following
>>paradigm
>> >>as
>> >>a premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to 
>>respond
>> >>or
>> >>react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm
>>by
>> >>Meher Baba as originally posted:
>> >>We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals,
>>who
>> >>have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole,
>>on
>> >>the other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them.
>> >>
>> >>And the Corollary:
>> >>
>> >>It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others
>>which
>> >>alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the
>> >>whole).
>> >>
>> >>Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a
>>universal
>> >>experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least
>> >>available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an
>> >>ephemeral
>> >>but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the
>> >>participants
>> >>on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience,
>> >>reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the 
>>integral
>> >>nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the
>> >>game
>> >>of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience.
>> >>
>> >>I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add
>>my
>> >>view of it and would like His statement considered rather than to
>>trouble
>> >>yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some
>> >>recognition of this posting.
>> >>Rogier Gregoire
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>info:
>> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>
>> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >>dialogue facilitator:
>> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >>Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >>admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >We are connected
>> >
>> >Owen
>>
>>
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >info:
>> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >
>> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> >dialogue facilitator:
>> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> >Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >admin@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
>>
>>http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>We are connected
>
>Owen


>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates 
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx

From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  1 03:47:26 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov  2 04:49:35 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <C16D33C5.7BA6%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F10A1740E4B4AEAD353C1A9A5F80@phx.gbl>

Interesting.  It helps.   k


>From: Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:09:25 -0600
>
>The roots of the word compassion simply mean feeling with & implies a peer
>relationship.  Buddhists consider compassion to be unconditional love & so
>the highest form of love.  Pity, according to Jack Kornfield, is the 
>demonic
>form of compassion, since it involves a feeling of superiority.  Then there
>is what Ken Wilber calls "idiot compassion" which is like giving a case of
>booze to an alcoholic.
>
>Lynne
>On 10/30/06 11:03 AM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here, K is me.  Would it be better if I used Kay?  It's so easy just to 
>hit
> > the K key!
> >
> > It's only one kind of love, and seems almost to imply that the one who 
>has
> > compassion for another is somehow superior.  That's why, when you 
>responded
> > to my email to Kris, by saying you'd like to have shown himer 
>compassion, I
> > was quick to clarify that my response had a different foundation.
> > Particularly my Navajo experience taught me that people often don't want
> > your compassion.  They consider it in the same category with an inferior
> > status, and needing handouts - i.e. a putdown.
> >
> > K or Kay
> >
> >
> >> From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
> >> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >> Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
> >> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:45:02 -0800 (PST)
> >>
> >> I'm confused. Normally when I see "K" I think Krishnamurti. Who is "K"
> >> here?
> >>
> >> And, I think it is interesting that compassion isn't enough for you. 
>Why do
> >> we have to split love and compassion? I really don't see any difference
> >> myself!
> >>
> >> Is one of our definitions larger/smaller?
> >>
> >> kari
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> >> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:20:52 AM
> >> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
> >>
> >>
> >> is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man?
> >>
> >> K:  or the other way around?  Or are people who love on any level
> >> considered
> >> gullible and fair game for whatever in a competitive society?
> >> Again, I have to ask if love is really possible in a competitive 
>society.
> >> Compassion is, I believe, and I guess that's a form of love.  But 
>that's
> >> not
> >> enough for me.   k
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
> >>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >>> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
> >>> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:35:10 -0500
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive -- they are
> >> only
> >>> indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life.
> >>>
> >>> Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language, or 
>level
> >> of
> >>> education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning?
> >>>
> >>> When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond the 
>range
> >>> of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational by 
>the
> >>> man?
> >>>
> >>> Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony
> >> either
> >>> is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love.
> >>> Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen 
>closer
> >> to
> >>> the surface.
> >>>
> >>> In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right topics to
> >>> learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining
> >> understanding
> >>> of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R
> >>> .
> >>> .
> >>> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> >>> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
> >>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >>> .
> >>> it mainly relates to the persons intent.
> >>>
> >>> It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough.  k
> >>> .
> >>> .
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> info:
> >> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>
> >> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> dialogue facilitator:
> >> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >> admin@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live 
>Spaces
> > 
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://space
> > 
>s.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
>    208 376-1336
>    www.lifedirectionscoach.com
>     (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>
>
>"Love is never earned . . .
>It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.  Get a free 90-day trial! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail

From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Nov  1 11:28:42 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Nov  2 12:30:55 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <C16D33C5.7BA6%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
References: <C16D33C5.7BA6%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <80FFBFFA-4961-49FA-92DE-29805393558C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

That's what it means to me, too. But how do we tell that to the  
Navajo. I guess what they want to hear is that we feel guilty, which,  
I guess, some of us do.
don
On 31 Oct 2006, at 23:09, Lynne Tolk wrote:

> The roots of the word compassion simply mean feeling with & implies  
> a peer
> relationship.  Buddhists consider compassion to be unconditional  
> love & so
> the highest form of love.  Pity, according to Jack Kornfield, is  
> the demonic
> form of compassion, since it involves a feeling of superiority.   
> Then there
> is what Ken Wilber calls "idiot compassion" which is like giving a  
> case of
> booze to an alcoholic.
>
> Lynne
> On 10/30/06 11:03 AM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here, K is me.  Would it be better if I used Kay?  It's so easy  
>> just to hit
>> the K key!
>>
>> It's only one kind of love, and seems almost to imply that the one  
>> who has
>> compassion for another is somehow superior.  That's why, when you  
>> responded
>> to my email to Kris, by saying you'd like to have shown himer  
>> compassion, I
>> was quick to clarify that my response had a different foundation.
>> Particularly my Navajo experience taught me that people often  
>> don't want
>> your compassion.  They consider it in the same category with an  
>> inferior
>> status, and needing handouts - i.e. a putdown.
>>
>> K or Kay
>>
>>
>>> From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:45:02 -0800 (PST)
>>>
>>> I'm confused. Normally when I see "K" I think Krishnamurti. Who  
>>> is "K"
>>> here?
>>>
>>> And, I think it is interesting that compassion isn't enough for  
>>> you. Why do
>>> we have to split love and compassion? I really don't see any  
>>> difference
>>> myself!
>>>
>>> Is one of our definitions larger/smaller?
>>>
>>> kari
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:20:52 AM
>>> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>
>>>
>>> is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man?
>>>
>>> K:  or the other way around?  Or are people who love on any level
>>> considered
>>> gullible and fair game for whatever in a competitive society?
>>> Again, I have to ask if love is really possible in a competitive  
>>> society.
>>> Compassion is, I believe, and I guess that's a form of love.  But  
>>> that's
>>> not
>>> enough for me.   k
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:35:10 -0500
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive --  
>>>> they are
>>> only
>>>> indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life.
>>>>
>>>> Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language,  
>>>> or level
>>> of
>>>> education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning?
>>>>
>>>> When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond  
>>>> the range
>>>> of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational  
>>>> by the
>>>> man?
>>>>
>>>> Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony
>>> either
>>>> is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love.
>>>> Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen  
>>>> closer
>>> to
>>>> the surface.
>>>>
>>>> In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right  
>>>> topics to
>>>> learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining
>>> understanding
>>>> of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> .
>>>> it mainly relates to the persons intent.
>>>>
>>>> It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough.  k
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live  
>> Spaces
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/? 
>> href=http://space
>> s.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/ 
>> friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
>    208 376-1336
>    www.lifedirectionscoach.com
>     (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>
>
> "Love is never earned . . .
> It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Wed Nov  1 12:14:29 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Nov  2 13:16:44 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
In-Reply-To: <20061102110003.97DE1243E9@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFFF19C6FD.7EA0C908-ON85257219.003B017B-85257219.003DC03A@dialogos.com>






Rodger __ hi Joachim, re: periphery -- please define how distances are
measured from what is believed as central to bohm_dialogue?

Since that measuring is applied to everyone, by way of conclussions drawn,
is it a conclussion we can each play our part in?

Or is everyone simply placed in specific locations according to the opinion
of whoever does the measuring?

How do you decide what defines the core and periphery of dialogue? _R
.
.
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:38:58 -0600
From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
Joachim

PS: are there any other people on the "periphery" who can/would like to
share their experience?
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/ae22a2d7/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Wed Nov  1 12:25:21 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Nov  2 13:27:38 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061102110003.97DE1243E9@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFD5662558.AD325886-ON85257219.003E3569-85257219.003EBF14@dialogos.com>






Rodger__ hmm, actually I can imagine this clash & crash experience is part
of the whole. Mainly because there is only the WHOLE within which the
clashing experiences can happen.

Is there somewhere outside of the WHOLE that you see as reserved for
unwholistic experiences? _R
.
.
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org

It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing could take place among
actual parts of the whole
(which are "guided" by the whole).

pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/9a0e8902/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Wed Nov  1 12:29:27 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Nov  2 13:31:43 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061102110003.97DE1243E9@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF8CCBBE26.7C81D0F8-ON85257219.003EDC89-85257219.003F1F4A@dialogos.com>






Rodger __Can I suggest rephrasing -Freedom means freedom from the whole-
INTO -Freedom means freedom from the whole, within the whole. _R
.
From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Freedom means freedom from the whole.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/07ff6ad9/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Wed Nov  1 12:51:35 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Nov  2 13:53:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject:  29 The Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061102110003.97DE1243E9@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFB10AEA52.F16FA282-ON85257219.003F5629-85257219.004125FB@dialogos.com>







Rodger__I think our definition of love causes inconveniences, not the LOVE
itself. Definitions of what it means to be loving tend to be given an
appearance of something valuable to others, but those definitions are
usually conceived to satisfy ones own needs.

Our loving will prove to be of value to others, to the degree our loving
PROVES to be of value to others. Regardless of whether or not we think they
should have found it of value.

Likewise there is a strong belief that material responsibility and LOVE are
incompatable -- maybe they are sometimes -- but usually its our definition
of love which stubbornly proves incompatable with the demands of a material
world. _R
.
.
From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject:  29 The Indivisible Whole
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
Well, having had a wonderful reputation for being a really loving,
generous person who expressed their love for other really well, there is
a social consequence. It means for me that because I put people first and
take care of them in a loving way, I don't make as much money as my
culture has defined that I need to get along in the world, provide for my
health care and live in a house.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/1d7db5e5/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Wed Nov  1 13:16:24 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Nov  2 14:23:33 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061102110003.97DE1243E9@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFB9820C5A.23A75C3F-ON85257219.0041A62C-85257219.00436BAA@dialogos.com>







Rodger __wow, thank you, now I understand a little more clearly, what you
meant by -whole-.  The experience you describe says a lot about you as a
woman. And I totally agree that the only person I can change -- is me.

I also know that experience of handling a crisisin a way that led me to
feeling free to be a more loving person, and clear minded about how being
more loving fits into a complex world.

The wholeness experience that I described previously happened as I was
returning to consciousness from being in a coma - people thought I was
still asleep -- and although I could hear myself reassuring them that I was
fine, no-one seemed hear me. _R
.
.
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:13:13 -0500
From: "Regina Bensch-Coe" <benschcoe@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
The veil was lifted and my whole life began.

Regina
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/f520eb33/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Wed Nov  1 13:23:50 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Nov  2 14:26:06 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <20061102110003.97DE1243E9@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF1A1EBFE7.AF0EA187-ON85257219.0043E00A-85257219.0044199C@dialogos.com>






Rodger __hi Lynne, yes, that is not a very subtle difference in the meaning
of compassion.

Compassion = to FEEL WITH, and does not mean to FEEL FOR. _R
.
.
From: Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
The roots of the word compassion simply mean feeling with & implies a peer
relationship.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/34a2542e/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Nov  1 13:24:47 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Nov  2 14:27:21 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <OF29E5D5E3.295C08D2-ON85257218.00420B5A-85257218.00441A34@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <007401c6fdb0$bfbcca10$9e5f153f@DL01>

Rodger__minds eye is a jargonistic term ... R_

Yes.  There's something mechanical about jargon.  It has very limited meaning. -- Don L



http://home1.gte.net/donlay
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:23 AM
  Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole


  Rodger__minds eye is a jargonistic term used to describe a capacity to view images in connection to thoughts within ones brain. 

  Even if you are a schizophrenic, the image you have of Lynne in your minds eye, at a time when you address Lynne, will be identical to the Lynne that you believe you are addressing.

  And because Lynne has an uncountable number of aspects, re: levels of self, which she herself is yet unaware of -just like any one of us- there is always a possibility that one of those aspects will correlate identically to the image in your minds eye. 

  And I never wrote that Lynne could possibly be identical to something in your head, I wrote of a possibility that an ASPECT of Lynne could be identical to a thought you might have of Lynne. Neither the aspect of Lynne, or the thought about Lynne, is Lynne, merely extremely small parts of the whole of Lynne._R
  .
  .
  Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:20:56 -0500
  From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
  Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
  To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
  .
  It is unclear what YOU know about MY " MINDS EYE". Does my mind's eye (perhaps meaning that I must imagine an eye in the mind seeing an image of Lynne) determine identity? Lynne's identity? 
  .
  .




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


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/766d4b96/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Nov  1 13:38:44 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Nov  2 14:41:38 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <OF83836F8F.1F99F4A3-ON85257218.0040214E-85257218.00414A2B@dialogos.com>
	<E0433901-7695-4D23-B783-A3F58FAACE20@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <009701c6fdb2$c01d27a0$9e5f153f@DL01>

some who think there is something wrong about it. don F

Could you elaborate?  I've not seen that.  Surely you are not conflating a sense of self, e.g., the response of dolphins and elephants to a mark on the forhead with the personal identity ... are you?  Bohm points out the difference.  That has been pointed out on this list at least 10-15 times.

Would a firm sense of self require someone to constantly talk about the self they are firm about?  

Does a weakened sense of self cause people to act and pretend an imagined self, perhaps use imagination about a purely imagined self for endorphin pleasure? -- think of Walter Mitty.  Surely we can see the difference between Damasio's sense of self and the imagination of Walter Mitty.

Don L


http://home1.gte.net/donlay
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Don Factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:20 AM
  Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole


  No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it. 


  But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we can add elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of self along with all the great apes including humans nd bottle nosed dolphins. The way we can tell is by putting a mark on their heads and then showing them how their image in a big mirror. Most animals would react as if it were another animal but elephants check out the mark with their trunks wondering, no doubt, what idiot put it there.


  don


  On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:


    Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a sense of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.

    What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation? Are people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in sensing self once establishment tells them to? _R
    .
    From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
    Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
    .
    So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of  consciousness, at least according to Damasio who is one of the major  
    figures in neuroscience.
    don
    .
    .

    _______________________________________________
    info:
    www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue


    post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net


    dialogue facilitator:
    facilitator@david-bohm.net


    Administrator of the mailing list:
    admin@david-bohm.net


    _______________________________________________








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


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/9a61e51a/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Nov  1 13:45:59 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Nov  2 14:48:11 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061031.151418.1060.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00c101c6fdb3$b15f6470$9e5f153f@DL01>

sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list? 
(I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here).  Pat

Neither have I.  Don L


From: ae.dropper@juno.com 

  It is correct to assume that this idea that there is something 
  wrong about a "sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list? 
  (I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here). Perhaps this is a reference to someone off list but I would just say
  that care with words, although being a good practice in general, is crucial
  in areas that are SO CLOSE to the "unspeakable," to areas that are beyond
  words. The area of "self" is one such area.

  A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image
   of self.

  Every [undamaged] manifestation of the whole has a 
  sense of self. Every [undamaged] body has a proprioceptive
  sense of where it begins and ends. This [sense] has nothing to do with
  thought. This has nothing [inherently] to do with images. This has nothing
  to do with time. (There is an immediacy in proprioception). This has 
  nothing to do with memory. This has nothing to do with language. 

  Defended and protected personal self image[s] however, 
  do have to do with thought, with time, with memory, 
  with language.

  Why (metaphorically speaking) do people "bump into
  each other?" Is this not the result of guidance by
  'dismembered' images. Is this not a manifestation
  of the clashing and crashing of images?

  It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
  could take place among actual parts of the whole
  (which are "guided" by the whole).

  pat

  On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:20:28 +0000 Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
    No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it. 


    But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we can add elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of self along with all the great apes including humans nd bottle nosed dolphins. The way we can tell is by putting a mark on their heads and then showing them how their image in a big mirror. Most animals would react as if it were another animal but elephants check out the mark with their trunks wondering, no doubt, what idiot put it there. 


    don


    On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:


      Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a sense of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.

      What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation? Are people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in sensing self once establishment tells them to? _R
      .
      From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
      Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
      .
      So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of  consciousness, at least according to Damasio who is one of the major  
      figures in neuroscience.
      don
      .
      .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/a799e65a/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Nov  1 13:57:27 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Nov  2 14:59:36 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061031.151418.1060.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00cb01c6fdb5$4b4b6ce0$9e5f153f@DL01>

A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image of self. -- Pat

Yes.  It is interesting that some have such difficulty with differentiating sense of self with the imagined identity -- the mask of persona.  

Maybe we need to say that animals do not have a persona idem because they do not or cannot use language symbols as does homo-sap.  Homo-saps can become confused about what they are.  Their sense of self can become conflated with the image, with  the imagined identity.  Then, seems to me, they act and pretend .., but their actions and pretense does not relate to what actually is. -- Don L


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ae.dropper@juno.com 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:14 PM
  Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole


  It is correct to assume that this idea that there is something 
  wrong about a "sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
  (I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here).

  Perhaps this is a reference to someone off list but I would just say
  that care with words, although being a good practice in general, is crucial
  in areas that are SO CLOSE to the "unspeakable," to areas that are beyond
  words. The area of "self" is one such area.

  A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image
   of self.

  Every [undamaged] manifestation of the whole has a 
  sense of self. Every [undamaged] body has a proprioceptive
  sense of where it begins and ends. This [sense] has nothing to do with
  thought. This has nothing [inherently] to do with images. This has nothing
  to do with time. (There is an immediacy in proprioception). This has 
  nothing to do with memory. This has nothing to do with language. 

  Defended and protected personal self image[s] however, 
  do have to do with thought, with time, with memory, 
  with language.

  Why (metaphorically speaking) do people "bump into
  each other?" Is this not the result of guidance by
  'dismembered' images. Is this not a manifestation
  of the clashing and crashing of images?

  It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
  could take place among actual parts of the whole
  (which are "guided" by the whole).

  pat

  On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:20:28 +0000 Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
    No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it. 


    But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we can add elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of self along with all the great apes including humans nd bottle nosed dolphins. The way we can tell is by putting a mark on their heads and then showing them how their image in a big mirror. Most animals would react as if it were another animal but elephants check out the mark with their trunks wondering, no doubt, what idiot put it there. 


    don


    On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:


      Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a sense of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.

      What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation? Are people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in sensing self once establishment tells them to? _R
      .
      From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
      Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
      .
      So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of  consciousness, at least according to Damasio who is one of the major  
      figures in neuroscience.
      don
      .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/9ed709fd/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Nov  1 14:09:46 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Nov  2 15:11:57 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <OF83836F8F.1F99F4A3-ON85257218.0040214E-85257218.00414A2B@dialogos.com>
	<E0433901-7695-4D23-B783-A3F58FAACE20@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <010e01c6fdb7$036dae40$9e5f153f@DL01>

Could a dolphin, elephant, ape begin to imagine their self with the marked head to the extent that it would interfere or prevent interaction with their group?  If so, perhaps we would need to consider their self-world view.

Would it be more appropriate to call it image-world view or imaginary world view?  There seems to be little problem or difficulty with what actually is.  However what is only imagined seems very often to be problematic. -- Don L




http://home1.gte.net/donlay
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Don Factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:20 AM
  Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole


  No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it. 


  But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we can add elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of self along with all the great apes including humans nd bottle nosed dolphins. The way we can tell is by putting a mark on their heads and then showing them how their image in a big mirror. Most animals would react as if it were another animal but elephants check out the mark with their trunks wondering, no doubt, what idiot put it there.


  don


  On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:


    Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a sense of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.

    What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation? Are people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in sensing self once establishment tells them to? _R
    .
    From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
    Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
    .
    So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of  consciousness, at least according to Damasio who is one of the major  
    figures in neuroscience.
    don
    .
    .

    _______________________________________________
    info:
    www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue


    post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net


    dialogue facilitator:
    facilitator@david-bohm.net


    Administrator of the mailing list:
    admin@david-bohm.net


    _______________________________________________








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


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/f026ef4b/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  1 14:37:10 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov  2 15:39:21 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <OF1A1EBFE7.AF0EA187-ON85257219.0043E00A-85257219.0044199C@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1850C2AEF2EA1D7AD5FE5FA5F80@phx.gbl>

That certainly clarifies my concept of compassion.  Thanks k


>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 07:23:50 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger __hi Lynne, yes, that is not a very subtle difference in the meaning
>of compassion.
>
>Compassion = to FEEL WITH, and does not mean to FEEL FOR. _R
>.
>.
>From: Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>.
>The roots of the word compassion simply mean feeling with & implies a peer
>relationship.
>.


>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from 
Microsoft Office Live 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  1 14:45:14 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov  2 15:47:26 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <80FFBFFA-4961-49FA-92DE-29805393558C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2112B0A1C93123483A5114A5F80@phx.gbl>

The Navajo could hear me only when I proposed we walk the Long Walk with 
them in honor of their ancestors.  I don't see that as guilt.  I see it as a 
symbolic gesture in the definition of compassion as "feeling with" them.  k


>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:28:42 +0000
>
>That's what it means to me, too. But how do we tell that to the  Navajo. I 
>guess what they want to hear is that we feel guilty, which,  I guess, some 
>of us do.
>don
>On 31 Oct 2006, at 23:09, Lynne Tolk wrote:
>
>>The roots of the word compassion simply mean feeling with & implies  a 
>>peer
>>relationship.  Buddhists consider compassion to be unconditional  love & 
>>so
>>the highest form of love.  Pity, according to Jack Kornfield, is  the 
>>demonic
>>form of compassion, since it involves a feeling of superiority.   Then 
>>there
>>is what Ken Wilber calls "idiot compassion" which is like giving a  case 
>>of
>>booze to an alcoholic.
>>
>>Lynne
>>On 10/30/06 11:03 AM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Here, K is me.  Would it be better if I used Kay?  It's so easy  just to 
>>>hit
>>>the K key!
>>>
>>>It's only one kind of love, and seems almost to imply that the one  who 
>>>has
>>>compassion for another is somehow superior.  That's why, when you  
>>>responded
>>>to my email to Kris, by saying you'd like to have shown himer  
>>>compassion, I
>>>was quick to clarify that my response had a different foundation.
>>>Particularly my Navajo experience taught me that people often  don't want
>>>your compassion.  They consider it in the same category with an  inferior
>>>status, and needing handouts - i.e. a putdown.
>>>
>>>K or Kay
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:45:02 -0800 (PST)
>>>>
>>>>I'm confused. Normally when I see "K" I think Krishnamurti. Who  is "K"
>>>>here?
>>>>
>>>>And, I think it is interesting that compassion isn't enough for  you. 
>>>>Why do
>>>>we have to split love and compassion? I really don't see any  difference
>>>>myself!
>>>>
>>>>Is one of our definitions larger/smaller?
>>>>
>>>>kari
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----
>>>>From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:20:52 AM
>>>>Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man?
>>>>
>>>>K:  or the other way around?  Or are people who love on any level
>>>>considered
>>>>gullible and fair game for whatever in a competitive society?
>>>>Again, I have to ask if love is really possible in a competitive  
>>>>society.
>>>>Compassion is, I believe, and I guess that's a form of love.  But  
>>>>that's
>>>>not
>>>>enough for me.   k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>>>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:35:10 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive --  they are
>>>>only
>>>>>indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language,  or 
>>>>>level
>>>>of
>>>>>education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning?
>>>>>
>>>>>When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond  the 
>>>>>range
>>>>>of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational  by 
>>>>>the
>>>>>man?
>>>>>
>>>>>Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony
>>>>either
>>>>>is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love.
>>>>>Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen  
>>>>>closer
>>>>to
>>>>>the surface.
>>>>>
>>>>>In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right  topics to
>>>>>learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining
>>>>understanding
>>>>>of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R
>>>>>.
>>>>>.
>>>>>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>>>Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>.
>>>>>it mainly relates to the persons intent.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough.  k
>>>>>.
>>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live  
>>>Spaces
>>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/? 
>>>href=http://space
>>>s.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/ 
>>>friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
>>    208 376-1336
>>    www.lifedirectionscoach.com
>>     (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>>
>>
>>"Love is never earned . . .
>>It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from 
Microsoft Office Live 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

From ae.dropper at juno.com  Wed Nov  1 15:20:44 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov  2 16:24:36 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061101.092045.1992.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>

From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
>could take place among actual parts of the whole
>(which are "guided" by the whole).

i have no difficulties imagining that clashing and crashing can take
place among parts. [The term "fragments" might better apply here - if
parts are considered to be "sub-wholes" (pat)]. The whole may be
"guiding" its parts, but parts are not forced by necessity to take such
guidance; they are equally capable of doing something else. [Yes, within
certain limits - and rather than saying "doing" I might say "trying"
(pat)]. Freedom means freedom from the whole. ["Freedom," interestingly
enough, is a term whose usage enjoys great "freedom" (pat)]. A free part
is a part that can decide for itself if it wants to follow the guidance
of the whole or not. A part that allows itself to be guided by the whole
is hardly worth being a part. The whole point of being a part is to be
relatively independent of the whole. When parts use their freedom then
obviously they can easily clash and crash, but that is a consequence of
freedom. Apparently, the only time when parts do not clash and crash
among them is when they allow themselves to be slaves of the whole, but
perhaps there is an as yet undiscovered alternative.

william

"Wholeness" means "Health" (etymologically). 'Slavery to health or
wholeness' is poetically interesting, although I
might choose "Service to health or wholeness" to state
this as a [less derogatory sounding] value. 

"Freedom" is another interesting (and long favored) term, but one I have
learned not to 'use in public'. The "freedom" of the fragment seems a
plastic freedom, and the "clashing and crashing," its feedback, its
declaration of its limitations.

Whereas the 'limits' within actual freedom (wholeness, health), self
annihilate (as "limits" - as sacrifices)  when their consequences
(dis-ease) reveal themselves in their immediacy.

pat
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/094f99a9/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Nov  1 15:56:44 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Nov  2 16:59:13 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061101.092045.1992.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <013401c6fdc5$f51d7190$9e5f153f@DL01>

is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
>could take place among actual parts of the whole
>(which are "guided" by the whole). -- Pat

Is it meaningful to conceive of THE WHOLE as miss-guiding the part?  Often we see or think of a persona being misguided.  

What about an elephant or dolphin, animals that do not have the word/image/identity symbol system?  Are they also, at times, misguided?  One may think of a wolf being scared off by animal display -- hairs on the back of wolf's neck; peacock display (although that may be more related to reproduction).  What of animal display of color, size, aggressive behavior, etc?

How is the concept of error to be conceived? -- dbl


  From: ae.dropper@juno.com 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:20 AM
  Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole


        From: ae.dropper@juno.com
        >It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
        >could take place among actual parts of the whole
        >(which are "guided" by the whole).

        i have no difficulties imagining that clashing and crashing can take place among parts. [The term "fragments" might better apply here - if parts are considered to be "sub-wholes" (pat)]. The whole may be "guiding" its parts, but parts are not forced by necessity to take such guidance; they are equally capable of doing something else. [Yes, within certain limits - and rather than saying "doing" I might say "trying" (pat)]. Freedom means freedom from the whole. ["Freedom," interestingly enough, is a term whose usage enjoys great "freedom" (pat)]. A free part is a part that can decide for itself if it wants to follow the guidance of the whole or not. A part that allows itself to be guided by the whole is hardly worth being a part. The whole point of being a part is to be relatively independent of the whole. When parts use their freedom then obviously they can easily clash and crash, but that is a consequence of freedom. Apparently, the only time when parts do not clash and crash among them is when they allow themselves to be slaves of the whole, but perhaps there is an as yet undiscovered alternative.

        william

        "Wholeness" means "Health" (etymologically). 'Slavery to health or wholeness' is poetically interesting, although I
        might choose "Service to health or wholeness" to state
        this as a [less derogatory sounding] value. 

        "Freedom" is another interesting (and long favored) term, but one I have learned not to 'use in public'. The "freedom" of the fragment seems a plastic freedom, and the "clashing and crashing," its feedback, its declaration of its limitations.

        Whereas the 'limits' within actual freedom (wholeness, health), self annihilate (as "limits" - as sacrifices)  when their consequences (dis-ease) reveal themselves in their immediacy.

        pat



       
               
       



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


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/9e61b0ae/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Nov  1 16:02:46 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Nov  2 17:05:10 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
References: <BAY22-F2112B0A1C93123483A5114A5F80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <013701c6fdc6$ccc0d7e0$9e5f153f@DL01>

Feeling 'with' rather than  'for'strikes me as relating to the Greek mind 
more than the Roman/Latin.  The significance is that the era of the Greek 
mind was prior to the so-called Eastern/Western split.

Perhaps at that time the Greek mind or "western thought" was quite closed to 
the Buddhist or "eastern thought".  That is, the East and West had not yet 
'diverged'. -- dbl



http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language


> The Navajo could hear me only when I proposed we walk the Long Walk with 
> them in honor of their ancestors.  I don't see that as guilt.  I see it as 
> a symbolic gesture in the definition of compassion as "feeling with" them. 
> k
>
>
>>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:28:42 +0000
>>
>>That's what it means to me, too. But how do we tell that to the  Navajo. I 
>>guess what they want to hear is that we feel guilty, which,  I guess, some 
>>of us do.
>>don
>>On 31 Oct 2006, at 23:09, Lynne Tolk wrote:
>>
>>>The roots of the word compassion simply mean feeling with & implies  a 
>>>peer
>>>relationship.  Buddhists consider compassion to be unconditional  love & 
>>>so
>>>the highest form of love.  Pity, according to Jack Kornfield, is  the 
>>>demonic
>>>form of compassion, since it involves a feeling of superiority.   Then 
>>>there
>>>is what Ken Wilber calls "idiot compassion" which is like giving a  case 
>>>of
>>>booze to an alcoholic.
>>>
>>>Lynne
>>>On 10/30/06 11:03 AM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here, K is me.  Would it be better if I used Kay?  It's so easy  just to 
>>>>hit
>>>>the K key!
>>>>
>>>>It's only one kind of love, and seems almost to imply that the one  who 
>>>>has
>>>>compassion for another is somehow superior.  That's why, when you 
>>>>responded
>>>>to my email to Kris, by saying you'd like to have shown himer 
>>>>compassion, I
>>>>was quick to clarify that my response had a different foundation.
>>>>Particularly my Navajo experience taught me that people often  don't 
>>>>want
>>>>your compassion.  They consider it in the same category with an 
>>>>inferior
>>>>status, and needing handouts - i.e. a putdown.
>>>>
>>>>K or Kay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
>>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>>>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:45:02 -0800 (PST)
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm confused. Normally when I see "K" I think Krishnamurti. Who  is "K"
>>>>>here?
>>>>>
>>>>>And, I think it is interesting that compassion isn't enough for  you. 
>>>>>Why do
>>>>>we have to split love and compassion? I really don't see any 
>>>>>difference
>>>>>myself!
>>>>>
>>>>>Is one of our definitions larger/smaller?
>>>>>
>>>>>kari
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message ----
>>>>>From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:20:52 AM
>>>>>Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man?
>>>>>
>>>>>K:  or the other way around?  Or are people who love on any level
>>>>>considered
>>>>>gullible and fair game for whatever in a competitive society?
>>>>>Again, I have to ask if love is really possible in a competitive 
>>>>>society.
>>>>>Compassion is, I believe, and I guess that's a form of love.  But 
>>>>>that's
>>>>>not
>>>>>enough for me.   k
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>>>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>>>>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:35:10 -0500
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive --  they are
>>>>>only
>>>>>>indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language,  or 
>>>>>>level
>>>>>of
>>>>>>education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond  the 
>>>>>>range
>>>>>>of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational  by 
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>man?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony
>>>>>either
>>>>>>is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love.
>>>>>>Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen 
>>>>>>closer
>>>>>to
>>>>>>the surface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right  topics 
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining
>>>>>understanding
>>>>>>of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>>>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>it mainly relates to the persons intent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough.  k
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>info:
>>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live 
>>>>Spaces
>>>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/? 
>>>>href=http://space
>>>>s.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/ 
>>>>friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
>>>    208 376-1336
>>>    www.lifedirectionscoach.com
>>>     (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>>>
>>>
>>>"Love is never earned . . .
>>>It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from 
> Microsoft Office Live 
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> 


From ae.dropper at juno.com  Wed Nov  1 15:37:46 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov  2 17:12:50 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061101.100827.1992.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>



On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 06:25:21 -0500 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes:
Rodger__ hmm, actually I can imagine this clash & crash experience is
part of the whole. Mainly because there is only the WHOLE within which
the clashing experiences can happen.

Is there somewhere outside of the WHOLE that you see as reserved for
unwholistic experiences? _R
No. The "clashing & crashing, the "fragmentation" occurs within the
whole. They are a part of the intelligence of the whole. They are
fragmentation's feedback. (Incidentally, none of this is intended
primarily, as a statement of "how it is." It is more, an attempt to align
language WITH "how it is," to sort of honor (by working with) the
integrity that is possible in language. A kind of "bow" of integrity TO
integrity.

When I used the term "Parts" I was using Bohm's meaning of "parts"
(sub-wholes) and imagining the "clashing and crashing" being among
the "fragments" (within the whole - Bohm again).

pat


From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org

It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing could take place among
actual parts of the whole
(which are "guided" by the whole).

pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/0515f668/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Wed Nov  1 16:05:20 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov  2 17:12:51 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061101.100827.1992.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>

Then, seems to me, they act and pretend .., but their 
actions and pretense does not relate to what actually is. -- Don L

Instead of "not relating" one might say "not aligning." There may be a
 "relationship" between the reflexive mask of the moment and "what is,"
[defensive or disharmonious for instance). Maybe the term "align"
makes this clearer? But then again, it's either clear or it isn't, isn't
it?
Words ABOUT this don't seem to matter a whit sometimes.
This reminds me of another [thought shape] poem.


                A
                 way
                   can be
                      found to
                        speak of a        
                         thing that is
                          not known, but
                           when  a  thing is
                           known, there are a
                           thousand easy ways
                           to  speak  the  thing.        


                               

                         pat







A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image of self. -- Pat

Yes.  It is interesting that some have such difficulty with
differentiating sense of self with the imagined identity -- the mask of
persona.  

Maybe we need to say that animals do not have a persona idem because they
do not or cannot use language symbols as does homo-sap.  Homo-saps can
become confused about what they are.  Their sense of self can become
conflated with the image, with  the imagined identity.  Then, seems to
me, they act and pretend .., but their actions and pretense does not
relate to what actually is. -- Don L


----- Original Message ----- 
From: ae.dropper@juno.com 
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole


It is correct to assume that this idea that there is something 
wrong about a "sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
(I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here).

Perhaps this is a reference to someone off list but I would just say
that care with words, although being a good practice in general, is
crucial
in areas that are SO CLOSE to the "unspeakable," to areas that are beyond
words. The area of "self" is one such area.

A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image
 of self.

Every [undamaged] manifestation of the whole has a 
sense of self. Every [undamaged] body has a proprioceptive
sense of where it begins and ends. This [sense] has nothing to do with
thought. This has nothing [inherently] to do with images. This has
nothing
to do with time. (There is an immediacy in proprioception). This has 
nothing to do with memory. This has nothing to do with language. 

Defended and protected personal self image[s] however, 
do have to do with thought, with time, with memory, 
with language.

Why (metaphorically speaking) do people "bump into
each other?" Is this not the result of guidance by
'dismembered' images. Is this not a manifestation
of the clashing and crashing of images?

It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
could take place among actual parts of the whole
(which are "guided" by the whole).

pat

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:20:28 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it. 


But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we can add
elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of self along with
all the great apes including humans nd bottle nosed dolphins. The way we
can tell is by putting a mark on their heads and then showing them how
their image in a big mirror. Most animals would react as if it were
another animal but elephants check out the mark with their trunks
wondering, no doubt, what idiot put it there. 


don


On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:


Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a sense
of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.

What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation? Are
people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in sensing self
once establishment tells them to? _R
.
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
.
So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of  consciousness,
at least according to Damasio who is one of the major  
figures in neuroscience.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/707401d0/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Wed Nov  1 16:45:39 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov  2 17:49:43 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061101.104543.1992.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>

How is the concept of error to be conceived? -- dbl

This might be an interesting question in general.

In "the end" it seems that the very concept of 
error is "in error." 

Another delicious paradox that
blasts consciousness "beyond opinion."

But "error" IS useful in the relative
sense. 'Truth uses illusion
in its service.'

"Error" seems to "come"
with inherent "correction."

But then for people, imagining or imaging
[false] danger, "fight or flight" kicks in, 
leaving error's correction either pummelled or
way 'behind'...

And the inherent "correction" for THIS
"error" ....   ???

Sit still. (Exhaustion will  have its way.)

(And maybe "look under the bed.")

pat




is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing 
>could take place among actual parts of the whole
>(which are "guided" by the whole). -- Pat

Is it meaningful to conceive of THE WHOLE as miss-guiding the part? 
Often we see or think of a persona being misguided.  

What about an elephant or dolphin, animals that do not have the
word/image/identity symbol system?  Are they also, at times, misguided? 
One may think of a wolf being scared off by animal display -- hairs on
the back of wolf's neck; peacock display (although that may be more
related to reproduction).  What of animal display of color, size,
aggressive behavior, etc?

How is the concept of error to be conceived? -- dbl


From: ae.dropper@juno.com 
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole


From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
>could take place among actual parts of the whole
>(which are "guided" by the whole).

i have no difficulties imagining that clashing and crashing can take
place among parts. [The term "fragments" might better apply here - if
parts are considered to be "sub-wholes" (pat)]. The whole may be
"guiding" its parts, but parts are not forced by necessity to take such
guidance; they are equally capable of doing something else. [Yes, within
certain limits - and rather than saying "doing" I might say "trying"
(pat)]. Freedom means freedom from the whole. ["Freedom," interestingly
enough, is a term whose usage enjoys great "freedom" (pat)]. A free part
is a part that can decide for itself if it wants to follow the guidance
of the whole or not. A part that allows itself to be guided by the whole
is hardly worth being a part. The whole point of being a part is to be
relatively independent of the whole. When parts use their freedom then
obviously they can easily clash and crash, but that is a consequence of
freedom. Apparently, the only time when parts do not clash and crash
among them is when they allow themselves to be slaves of the whole, but
perhaps there is an as yet undiscovered alternative.

william

"Wholeness" means "Health" (etymologically). 'Slavery to health or
wholeness' is poetically interesting, although I
might choose "Service to health or wholeness" to state
this as a [less derogatory sounding] value. 

"Freedom" is another interesting (and long favored) term, but one I have
learned not to 'use in public'. The "freedom" of the fragment seems a
plastic freedom, and the "clashing and crashing," its feedback, its
declaration of its limitations.

Whereas the 'limits' within actual freedom (wholeness, health), self
annihilate (as "limits" - as sacrifices)  when their consequences
(dis-ease) reveal themselves in their immediacy.

pat










_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/8e321e48/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  1 17:21:23 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov  2 18:23:40 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061101.104543.1992.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F91BDFF59D405A9A4F2707A5F80@phx.gbl>

>It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
>could take place among actual parts of the whole
>(which are "guided" by the whole).

In Eastern and Native American ideas, the clashing and crashing is part of 
the whole that is to be kept in balance - the latter, by living a life of 
hozhoon, the individual's personal responsibility - the normal life span is 
103 years.  The reward is a peacful crossing over, and enfolding into what 
we have called "chaos", Navajo call "folding darkness".  It is the 
northernmost of the four directions.  As you continue to walk the "pollen 
path", there is rebirth in the East, then South, West, and back to the 
North.         k


>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:45:39 -0500
>
>How is the concept of error to be conceived? -- dbl
>
>This might be an interesting question in general.
>
>In "the end" it seems that the very concept of
>error is "in error."
>
>Another delicious paradox that
>blasts consciousness "beyond opinion."
>
>But "error" IS useful in the relative
>sense. 'Truth uses illusion
>in its service.'
>
>"Error" seems to "come"
>with inherent "correction."
>
>But then for people, imagining or imaging
>[false] danger, "fight or flight" kicks in,
>leaving error's correction either pummelled or
>way 'behind'...
>
>And the inherent "correction" for THIS
>"error" ....   ???
>
>Sit still. (Exhaustion will  have its way.)
>
>(And maybe "look under the bed.")
>
>pat
>
>
>
>
>is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
> >could take place among actual parts of the whole
> >(which are "guided" by the whole). -- Pat
>
>Is it meaningful to conceive of THE WHOLE as miss-guiding the part?
>Often we see or think of a persona being misguided.
>
>What about an elephant or dolphin, animals that do not have the
>word/image/identity symbol system?  Are they also, at times, misguided?
>One may think of a wolf being scared off by animal display -- hairs on
>the back of wolf's neck; peacock display (although that may be more
>related to reproduction).  What of animal display of color, size,
>aggressive behavior, etc?
>
>How is the concept of error to be conceived? -- dbl
>
>
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:20 AM
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> >It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
> >could take place among actual parts of the whole
> >(which are "guided" by the whole).
>
>i have no difficulties imagining that clashing and crashing can take
>place among parts. [The term "fragments" might better apply here - if
>parts are considered to be "sub-wholes" (pat)]. The whole may be
>"guiding" its parts, but parts are not forced by necessity to take such
>guidance; they are equally capable of doing something else. [Yes, within
>certain limits - and rather than saying "doing" I might say "trying"
>(pat)]. Freedom means freedom from the whole. ["Freedom," interestingly
>enough, is a term whose usage enjoys great "freedom" (pat)]. A free part
>is a part that can decide for itself if it wants to follow the guidance
>of the whole or not. A part that allows itself to be guided by the whole
>is hardly worth being a part. The whole point of being a part is to be
>relatively independent of the whole. When parts use their freedom then
>obviously they can easily clash and crash, but that is a consequence of
>freedom. Apparently, the only time when parts do not clash and crash
>among them is when they allow themselves to be slaves of the whole, but
>perhaps there is an as yet undiscovered alternative.
>
>william
>
>"Wholeness" means "Health" (etymologically). 'Slavery to health or
>wholeness' is poetically interesting, although I
>might choose "Service to health or wholeness" to state
>this as a [less derogatory sounding] value.
>
>"Freedom" is another interesting (and long favored) term, but one I have
>learned not to 'use in public'. The "freedom" of the fragment seems a
>plastic freedom, and the "clashing and crashing," its feedback, its
>declaration of its limitations.
>
>Whereas the 'limits' within actual freedom (wholeness, health), self
>annihilate (as "limits" - as sacrifices)  when their consequences
>(dis-ease) reveal themselves in their immediacy.
>
>pat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________


>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!  
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline

From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Nov  1 17:42:59 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Nov  2 18:46:11 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <013701c6fdc6$ccc0d7e0$9e5f153f@DL01>
References: <BAY22-F2112B0A1C93123483A5114A5F80@phx.gbl>
	<013701c6fdc6$ccc0d7e0$9e5f153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <CB4D9CF3-3A0B-43A5-93E9-D9F1F8F95F1A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

Do you mean that they were closed off during the Greek period or that  
they got closed off during the Roman?

do
On 1 Nov 2006, at 15:02, Don Lay wrote:

> Perhaps at that time the Greek mind or "western thought" was quite  
> closed to the Buddhist or "eastern thought".  That is, the East and  
> West had not yet 'diverged'. -- dbl
>

From tubakari at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 17:52:39 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Thu Nov  2 18:54:56 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061101165239.56889.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>

This opinion about a part that is guided by the whole is hardly worth being a part just sounds weird. What is wrong with clashing and crashing? Is that not the way of nature to an extent? Like in storms and human development and rivers and oceans? Is nature wrong? Is the tide that is affected by the moon's gravitational pull not worth being a tide? I see relationships as an efficacious synergistic dance. How can a free part decide it doesn't want guidance? Hoe can I decide I am separate from anything?
 
I appreciate this post William because it is very provoking. In fact I appreciate this list and all the contributors, known and unknown.
 
peace,
kari
  


It is pretty obvious (to me) that there is an underlying inherent self-organization embedded in the what we see as chaos.
http://kari.zaadz.com



----- Original Message ----
From: william <w@david-bohm.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:56:52 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole

 
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
>could take place among actual parts of the whole
>(which are "guided" by the whole).
 
i have no difficulties imagining that clashing and crashing can take place among parts. The whole may be "guiding" its parts, but parts are not forced by necessity to take such guidance; they are equally capable of doing something else. Freedom means freedom from the whole. A free part is a part that can decide for itself if it wants to follow the guidance of the whole or not. A part that allows itself to be guided by the whole is hardly worth being a part. The whole point of being a part is to be relatively independent of the whole. When parts use their freedom then obviously they can easily clash and crash, but that is a consequence of freedom. Apparently, the only time when parts do not clash and crash among them is when they allow themselves to be slaves of the whole, but perhaps there is an as yet undiscovered alternative.
 
william
 
 
 
 



_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/47902680/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Nov  1 18:16:01 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Nov  2 19:18:49 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <00c101c6fdb3$b15f6470$9e5f153f@DL01>
References: <20061031.151418.1060.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
	<00c101c6fdb3$b15f6470$9e5f153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <DF8CAEED-1749-463C-B9E6-80AACC9D87E7@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

I suppose that what I was pointing at was that the difference between  
self image and sense of self, is questionable.
Can I have a sense of self without some idea of what that means? Or  
what it "is"?

If you ask, who am I? what would you answer. Would it be something  
like a point of awareness that keeps shifting or
would it be that I am a person of a particular age, nationality,  
gender, profession,etc. For most people it would be the
latter.

So a lot of it has to do with this notion of DonL's about acting and  
pretending,

And what I am really getting at is that all this "acting and  
pretending" is as much a part of the self as the crouching of a cat,
or the skittishness of a rabbit. These are also points of awareness.

But they are all about the self if not consciously as in humans then  
reflexively, as in other creatures.

I suppose, too, that without these attributes we would each be less  
than human and we would be denying our
place as parts of the whole.

But I hope that I am just flailing at straw men.

don

On 1 Nov 2006, at 12:45, Don Lay wrote:

> sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
> (I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here).  Pat
>
> Neither have I.  Don L
>
>
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>
> It is correct to assume that this idea that there is something
> wrong about a "sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
> (I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here). Perhaps this is a  
> reference to someone off list but I would just say
> that care with words, although being a good practice in general, is  
> crucial
> in areas that are SO CLOSE to the "unspeakable," to areas that are  
> beyond
> words. The area of "self" is one such area.
>
> A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image
>  of self.
>
> Every [undamaged] manifestation of the whole has a
> sense of self. Every [undamaged] body has a proprioceptive
> sense of where it begins and ends. This [sense] has nothing to do with
> thought. This has nothing [inherently] to do with images. This has  
> nothing
> to do with time. (There is an immediacy in proprioception). This has
> nothing to do with memory. This has nothing to do with language.
>
> Defended and protected personal self image[s] however,
> do have to do with thought, with time, with memory,
> with language.
>
> Why (metaphorically speaking) do people "bump into
> each other?" Is this not the result of guidance by
> 'dismembered' images. Is this not a manifestation
> of the clashing and crashing of images?
>
> It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
> could take place among actual parts of the whole
> (which are "guided" by the whole).
>
> pat
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:20:28 +0000 Don Factor  
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
> No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it.
>
> But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we can  
> add elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of self  
> along with all the great apes including humans nd bottle nosed  
> dolphins. The way we can tell is by putting a mark on their heads  
> and then showing them how their image in a big mirror. Most animals  
> would react as if it were another animal but elephants check out  
> the mark with their trunks wondering, no doubt, what idiot put it  
> there.
>
> don
>
> On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>
>> Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having  
>> a sense of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist  
>> confirms it.
>>
>> What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation?  
>> Are people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in  
>> sensing self once establishment tells them to? _R
>> .
>> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>> .
>> So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of   
>> consciousness, at least according to Damasio who is one of the major
>> figures in neuroscience.
>> don
>> .
>> .
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/0438f14c/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 18:20:19 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Thu Nov  2 19:22:32 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
Message-ID: <20061101172019.79100.qmail@web52908.mail.yahoo.com>

yeah me too. thanks!
kari
 

----- Original Message ----
From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 5:37:10 AM
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language


That certainly clarifies my concept of compassion.  Thanks k


>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 07:23:50 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger __hi Lynne, yes, that is not a very subtle difference in the meaning
>of compassion.
>
>Compassion = to FEEL WITH, and does not mean to FEEL FOR. _R
>.
>.
>From: Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>.
>The roots of the word compassion simply mean feeling with & implies a peer
>relationship.
>.


>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from 
Microsoft Office Live 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/bffff2a7/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 18:25:40 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Thu Nov  2 19:27:54 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061101172541.59884.qmail@web52915.mail.yahoo.com>

don and others,
have you seen this article about elephants or is that what started this? http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061030_elephant_mirror.html
 
 
How is the concept of error to be conceived? -- dbl
 
kari: the concept of error is quickly becoming meaningless to me...like it isnt possible to make an error. life is just a lot better that way.
 



----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 6:56:44 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole


is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing 
>could take place among actual parts of the whole
>(which are "guided" by the whole). -- Pat
 
Is it meaningful to conceive of THE WHOLE as miss-guiding the part?  Often we see or think of a persona being misguided.  
 
What about an elephant or dolphin, animals that do not have the word/image/identity symbol system?  Are they also, at times, misguided?  One may think of a wolf being scared off by animal display -- hairs on the back of wolf's neck; peacock display (although that may be more related to reproduction).  What of animal display of color, size, aggressive behavior, etc?
 
How is the concept of error to be conceived? -- dbl
 
 
From: ae.dropper@juno.com 
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole


From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
>could take place among actual parts of the whole
>(which are "guided" by the whole).
 
i have no difficulties imagining that clashing and crashing can take place among parts. [The term "fragments" might better apply here - if parts are considered to be "sub-wholes" (pat)]. The whole may be "guiding" its parts, but parts are not forced by necessity to take such guidance; they are equally capable of doing something else. [Yes, within certain limits - and rather than saying "doing" I might say "trying" (pat)]. Freedom means freedom from the whole. ["Freedom," interestingly enough, is a term whose usage enjoys great "freedom" (pat)]. A free part is a part that can decide for itself if it wants to follow the guidance of the whole or not. A part that allows itself to be guided by the whole is hardly worth being a part. The whole point of being a part is to be relatively independent of the whole. When parts use their freedom then obviously they can easily clash and crash, but that is a consequence of freedom. Apparently, the only time when parts do not clash and
 crash among them is when they allow themselves to be slaves of the whole, but perhaps there is an as yet undiscovered alternative.
 
william
 
"Wholeness" means "Health" (etymologically). 'Slavery to health or wholeness' is poetically interesting, although I
might choose "Service to health or wholeness" to state
this as a [less derogatory sounding] value. 
 
"Freedom" is another interesting (and long favored) term, but one I have learned not to 'use in public'. The "freedom" of the fragment seems a plastic freedom, and the "clashing and crashing," its feedback, its declaration of its limitations.
 
Whereas the 'limits' within actual freedom (wholeness, health), self annihilate (as "limits" - as sacrifices)  when their consequences (dis-ease) reveal themselves in their immediacy.
 
pat
 
 
 
 






_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/8b6c84b6/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Nov  1 18:35:15 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Nov  2 19:38:42 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
References: <BAY22-F2112B0A1C93123483A5114A5F80@phx.gbl>
	<013701c6fdc6$ccc0d7e0$9e5f153f@DL01>
	<CB4D9CF3-3A0B-43A5-93E9-D9F1F8F95F1A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <016301c6fddc$1a136930$9e5f153f@DL01>

Thanks Don.  That's a type error.  The sense is that the Greek mind would be 
'closer' to what is now Eastern thought, closer to Buddhism thought.  The 
reasoning is that the schism between Eastern and Western is language or 
man-made.

Again, consider P and H (if you can get beyond the water and fire) notion of 
the logos.  Their _logos_ was a universal principle -- not a Latin _persona 
idem_, not a personal identity as occurs with Rome, the Latin.  I believe 
there is correlate in the Greek of the Latin _persona idem_.  I.e., no _ego 
idem_ -- is there?

Of course they used the actuality of a "sense of self", and that it could be 
over used, abused.  I'm told that very much of Plato addressed the idea of 
'impersonal' leadership so that leaders would not make all the decisions on