From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 00:48:37 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 01:52:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,
Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F218493FD051DB035D08ACA5FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F13A6BC6432E163017B60EBA5F80@phx.gbl>
i dont know how far you can get here because of the varying degrees of
perceptions and ambiguity about what we are doing and what is possible in
the online format.
I would love to know what the various members of our group feel our purpose
is, and whether it is possible in the online format. I am going to think on
this, and post more. Particularly on the relatioinship to what is and isn't
possible in online format, and how we can better use online resources and
possibilities to enhance the things we are trying to say. Thanks for this.
k
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.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: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:50:44 -0600
>
>I will, Kari. There are other things in your post I most likely will
>respond to, but I need time to live with them first. k
>
>
>>From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.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: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:31:51 -0800 (PST)
>>
>>kathryn,
>>this would be an excellent question in dialogue. anger is always a pointer
>>to something deeper! even if the anger is misunderstand by us or the
>>people experiencing it, it can be a valuable aspect of dialogue. all
>>strong emotions potentially can be. i dont know how far you can get here
>>because of the varying degrees of perceptions and ambiguity about what we
>>are doing and what is possible in the online format. then we have all the
>>assumptions people make about what is said here. is anything personal? the
>>flow of meaning in dialogue is really impersonal, yet something we can all
>>personally potentially take part in. so whatever is said, though it may be
>>partially triggered by something else that is said, is really just a
>>branch on the tree or a drop in the stream or whatever. owen thinks we are
>>refusing to consider Love. i just dont see that as true. that is your
>>interpretation of what is happening. maybe it did or does in fact happen,
>>but not from my perspective. you say the
>> list does not respect a theme. i disagree. we respect all themes! how
>>can you say that? again, it is from your perspective. i dont say this
>>about perspectives to trivialize the content of your message, because all
>>of our perspectives are valid and can be useful. i am glad you posted that
>>message owen.
>>
>>i just want to encourage you, kathryn, to keep up with dialogue because i
>>can tell you have a knack for sensing the flow of meaning and where the
>>energy is. :)
>>
>>kari
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----
>>From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:04:05 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29
>>The Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Thu Nov 2 00:55:09 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 01:57:26 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F22DA46DA8DD103FF547870A5F90@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F98DE27F2CDB38A48D4157A5F80@phx.gbl>
Psychiatrists and therapists use the technique of having a person dialog
with different aspects of the self by setting up a chair for the person to
move into when one persona is to dialog with the others. The person changes
chairs when the other persona is ready to speak. Then William Faulkner
used to say his characters came alive only when he was able to get on a bus
with a bottle of whiskey, dialog with those characters, and they would
answer him back. Is this courting schizophrenia? If an artist friend said
something like that to you, would you worry? k
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:44:44 -0600
>
>Thanks for the good, clear explanation. I never thought of it this way.
>k
>
>
>>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 07:23:51 -0500
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 01:06:10 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 02:08:29 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <BAY22-F229DFD9474D9D034348D1CA5FF0@phx.gbl>
A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image of self.
My apologies to those who prefer no images, but it is essential for me to
post one as an attachment to this email if I am to respond to this question.
It is not something I do habitually.
The image conveys perfectly how I see at least one of my personas; probably
the dominant one. And the image has a history.
The image is not violent or derogatory. Do connect it to my email user's
name, a name my grandfather gave me.
>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: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:14:12 -0500
>
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>_______________________________________________
>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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ostrich-red.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 46332 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/79bec69d/ostrich-red.jpg
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 01:06:23 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 02:08:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061026204959.61664.qmail@web52902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01db01c6fe12$be217d10$9e5f153f@DL01>
are you asking would the feel of wholeness be mine? that seems ludicrous. who is there to have it? -- Kari
Kari, the pronoun who refers to person. Is feeling the property of personhood? What of the feelings of apes, elephants, dolphins, dogs, cats?
Obviously the who-word is useful, but surely it seems to me that when the Christians decided that people must be referenced as who's or as imaginary personas, they did not intend denying feeling to other creatures.
Is it possible that limiting feeling to the personal identity structure limits experience of being whole? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Karilen Mays
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
are you asking would the feel of wholeness be mine? that seems ludicrous. who is there to have it?
thanks, kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:14:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
Would that FEEL be adequately described as personal? Would it be mine, or would that word be inapplicable?
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
From: Don Lay
Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary personal identity?
When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity, is it possible to simultaneously to experience WHOLENESS? Is it possible to use words directing attentive awareness to a synthetic, separated personal identity and also FEEL and experience INDIVISIBILITY?
Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the INDIVISIBLE WHOLE in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
QUESTIONS: So what! Who cares? What kind of nut would improvise such questions? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then look at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
_______________________________________________
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/20061101/22e41879/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 01:10:16 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 02:12:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061026.113548.692.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<6E3DE095-736F-42BA-925D-A6218D4193FB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <01e001c6fe13$49217140$9e5f153f@DL01>
this is the case, and I agree that it probably is, then we can say that
dialogue works because, if much of each of us gets included in the rest of
us, then every one of us ends up sharing all of us with everyone they know,
and ad infinitum. -- don F
Maybe that's the way it is, and it only seems strange because that's what
we've always known. If it is all indivisible, if all is in all, etc., what
does it mean ... for my imaginary personal identity? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>>
>> We can find all of us in each of us. The one's that are "hardest" to
>> 'find' are the most revealing. The most freeing.
>>
>> pat
>
> if this is the case, and I agree that it probably is, then we can say
> that dialogue works because,
> if much of each of us gets included in the rest of us, then every one of
> us ends up sharing all of
> us with everyone they know, and ad infinitum.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 01:12:27 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 02:14:45 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F1850C2AEF2EA1D7AD5FE5FA5F80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F7ACB5D7EA92E95BD001DFA5FF0@phx.gbl>
It seems that if you "feel with", you also "feel for", because I believe
compassion only exists where there is suffering. k
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:37:10 -0600
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 01:25:23 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 02:27:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061026.113548.692.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <01ef01c6fe15$65701390$9e5f153f@DL01>
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
DON F: As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too judgemental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's personal identity or admitting its relative significance. (don)
PAT: Is there as much of a problem with the whole term "acting and pretending sameness?"
Don L: This seems a very important question because it seems we act and pretend identity without being aware of doing so, and without being aware tha identity means sameness, the same.
Always the quesiton occurs: the same as what? What are YOU the same as? Surely it is clear to those who look that the classical personal identity is not what it appears to be. For one thing, the classical has been declared to not be what actually is, maybe meaning it is presented with imagery. For the second thing, Bohm declares the quantum world is what actually is, rather than the classical view (QT, 1951). I really like this idea because it relates to the ideas of Spiritual actuality.
Pat: And what if it was not "you" that was "acting and pretending sameness" - would it seem as "judgmental," i.e., as "morally wrong?" What is it that is "responsible" for this "acting and pretending sameness?"
Don L: If it is not YOU, then WHO is it? Seems to me Bohm says very clearly in tas that it is mechanical systems operating without awareness. It is not a you or a who: it is mechanically evolved systems.-- Don L, aka dbl, dumb-ass, moron, stupid artist ....
Is "responsible" the best term here, where the term shifts so easily
into "blame."
Maybe it would be wise to use other than morally loaded terms
to speak of the action or the process or the mechanics of
"acting and pretending sameness."
And it is interesting as well, that speaking of "acting and pretending
sameness of self identity" by self identity*, easily ushers in the
limitations about which we attempt to speak - injecting
its inherent confusion into the dialogue. Quite the conundrum!
* "Self identity" here, meaning the assumptions of absolute necessity** underlying such, the reflexes that hold such in place (from various angles
at various moments).
**Assumptions that are held in place by even deeper assumptions
reflexively telling us of the dangers*** of not protecting the "sameness" of "me."
*** Some of the "dangers" being:
"Death"
"An undifferentiated mush"
"All that experience to no avail"
"No personal responsibility"
"No Ground"
"No Security"
"Boredom"
Just thoughts, every last one of them; thoughts believed.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061101/60e582ea/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 01:33:46 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 02:36:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
<013501c6f902$436ac780$826b153f@DL01>
<F8A6D485-EA82-4877-8F42-A417DE4A3BA8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <020d01c6fe16$91873250$9e5f153f@DL01>
As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too judgmental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's personal identity or admitting its relative significance. -- Factor, d
Seems to me the wrongness is acting and pretending the personal sameness without being aware that it is an act. Why? It is so limiting, trying to act the same as some THINGK. Some people actually do not know what they are supposed to act like, what role they should pretend.
When people ask who I am, I respond variously according to circumstances or context. If a cop asks for drivers license and asks if that is me (while looking at the image), I politely say yes.
What serious homo-sap has not stood in front of a mirror and been aware that he was not identical with THAT IMAGE. Who has looked at their drivers license photo and been aware that he/she was not that? -- Lay, Donald Britton
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too judgemental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's personal identity or admitting its relative significance. So, if I am busy acting and pretending in your sense I probably would not be experiencing unbroken wholeness. But if I am aware of - how can I put this? - my place in the universe, then I can certainly feel and experience that indivisibility. Maybe a better question might be, If we are really all implicitly patrs of one another and al that is, then why do we need mechanical means of communication? Why can't we carry on our dialogue with all the other parts, continuously wherever we are? Of course, there may be an answer to that which is, we are doing just that, but in all the complexity of parts and and subwholes, our conscious minds are not able to deal with it, so it works at a more subtle level. Whatever each of us does, thinks or says spreads throughout the universe, or connects non-localy with the rest of what is going on in the universal flux and it has its effect. If there is a lot of incoherence in the mix then we see a lot of incoherence in our world, and vice versa. But don't take this suggestion as truth, its just something I am playing with while I write this.
Actually, as I am thinking of all this, I begin to wonder who you are. I know who you pretend to be, but is there someone else hiding behind it all? Another Peter Krauss, pehaps? Or what about the rest of us? Maybe there is only me.
don
On 26 Oct 2006, at 14:25, Don Lay wrote:
Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary personal identity?
When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity, is it possible to simultaneously to experience WHOLENESS? Is it possible to use words directing attentive awareness to a synthetic, separated personal identity and also FEEL and experience INDIVISIBILITY?
Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the INDIVISIBLE WHOLE in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
QUESTIONS: So what! Who cares? What kind of nut would improvise such questions? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then look at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/e703b4e2/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Thu Nov 2 01:39:38 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Fri Nov 3 02:41:54 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
Message-ID: <20061102003938.99141.qmail@web52913.mail.yahoo.com>
right. i mean we are all connected through suffering at least! who among us hasnt suffered? so maybe feeling for isnt such a put down? i dont know if anyone actually said that, but it really doesnt matter. this is an interesting and potentially catalytically liberating thought.
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: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 4:12:27 PM
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
It seems that if you "feel with", you also "feel for", because I believe
compassion only exists where there is suffering. k
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:37:10 -0600
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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/f9bb837a/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 01:39:50 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 02:42:06 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
References: <c29.46c7193.324fd2b1@aol.com>
<000201c6ec71$c5f53980$7501a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<6BFCCF17-3307-4EA5-A23B-EE3707DE8E2B@mu6.com>
Message-ID: <021c01c6fe17$6a99e010$9e5f153f@DL01>
I keep looking at this. Though it seems important, it also seems something is misleading. Maybe it is the first sentence: "The persona - being the explicate element - is energetically connected with the implicate order/structure."
Is it not important to see that "the persona", the mask of identity or mask of sameness is arbitrary? What is YOUR mask the same as? Have you always been the same? What about when you were in the womb? What shall you be the same as when on the death bed?
Donald Lay
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Dirk Laureyssens
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
The persona - being the explicate element - is energetically connected with the implicate order/structure. These zillions of connections make the fundamental, constant process through which we are constantly interacting with the deeper structure. That is hierarchy, not quantum anarchy. The way we are able to resonate harmonically with the deeper energy structure will determinate if we will be creative. If we are disharmonic we close/block the gates to receive that energy/information. Creativity is related to the possibility to open such gates. Then we translate these deeper energies in our personal values/language/actions, like making music, a painting, etc.
Dirk
On 10 Oct 2006, at 14:45, Don Lay wrote:
When a musician writes,performs music ... do we say they explicate; i.e., the music unfolds from the implicate?
The graphic artist often says although he is present at the easel, somehow 'he' does not do the painting. Rather, it unfolds; i.e., art becomes explicated. Writers sometimes say "they" did not do the work .... Hemingway reread an earlier work, said: did I do that? Ed White (NY Times sports writer) said he went to the typewriter, pecked a bit and thirty minutes later the job was done.
Where does art come from? We say it comes from the person ..., but often they deny it. Maybe it is like the beating heart, breathing lungs and like Bohm says of tas: it's happening right here "in there", but I ain't doing it.
I'm trying to point to all the sub-systems, quantum systems ... neuronal and biological activity that must occur before I even know that I am, before self-consciousness occurs -- quite before persona reference is applicable. It seems to me that so long as we continue talking about the persona instead of instead of the processes, we continue to pollute experience. Reason-ance, logos-ance, ratio-ance? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
Interesting idea! And to me it agrees with my earlier thought: surely solo improvisation, recorded (presumably) on ones own, is not dialogue, it's monologue. Unless one's perhaps exploring the dialogue between different elements of one's personality perhaps... - hence why I said group dialogue as opposed to dialogue.
When the musician makes meaning, does she participate and interpret the meaning of the whole for homo-sap -- a partial meaning for a part of the whole?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/fc7170a3/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 01:50:34 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 02:52:53 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <20061102003938.99141.qmail@web52913.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2504D1BFD40B1B3F1EF200A5FF0@phx.gbl>
i mean we are all connected through suffering at least!
Absolutely. But the funny thing about my Navajo experience was - talk about
erroneous underlying assumptions - they had no idea we Biliganna had also
suffered until I told stories of my upbringing, then some of the history of
what prompted many Europeans to come to America. But then, is that so
strange? Don't many people think that no one else but them has suffered? k
>From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:39:38 -0800 (PST)
>
>right. i mean we are all connected through suffering at least! who among us
>hasnt suffered? so maybe feeling for isnt such a put down? i dont know if
>anyone actually said that, but it really doesnt matter. this is an
>interesting and potentially catalytically liberating thought.
>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: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 4:12:27 PM
>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>
>
>It seems that if you "feel with", you also "feel for", because I believe
>compassion only exists where there is suffering. k
>
> >From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
> >Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:37:10 -0600
> >
> >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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 01:53:30 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 02:55:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <020d01c6fe16$91873250$9e5f153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F245922117798F432BB9C8DA5FF0@phx.gbl>
So we are many personas in one, and we bring out the proper one at the
appropriate time? But we are in control so we know which one to command to
appear? Interesting. k
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:33:46 -0500
>
>As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too
>judgmental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's
>personal identity or admitting its relative significance. -- Factor, d
>
>Seems to me the wrongness is acting and pretending the personal sameness
>without being aware that it is an act. Why? It is so limiting, trying to
>act the same as some THINGK. Some people actually do not know what they
>are supposed to act like, what role they should pretend.
>
>When people ask who I am, I respond variously according to circumstances or
>context. If a cop asks for drivers license and asks if that is me (while
>looking at the image), I politely say yes.
>
>What serious homo-sap has not stood in front of a mirror and been aware
>that he was not identical with THAT IMAGE. Who has looked at their drivers
>license photo and been aware that he/she was not that? -- Lay, Donald
>Britton
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
> As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too
>judgemental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's
>personal identity or admitting its relative significance. So, if I am busy
>acting and pretending in your sense I probably would not be experiencing
>unbroken wholeness. But if I am aware of - how can I put this? - my place
>in the universe, then I can certainly feel and experience that
>indivisibility. Maybe a better question might be, If we are really all
>implicitly patrs of one another and al that is, then why do we need
>mechanical means of communication? Why can't we carry on our dialogue with
>all the other parts, continuously wherever we are? Of course, there may be
>an answer to that which is, we are doing just that, but in all the
>complexity of parts and and subwholes, our conscious minds are not able to
>deal with it, so it works at a more subtle level. Whatever each of us does,
>thinks or says spreads throughout the universe, or connects non-localy with
>the rest of what is going on in the universal flux and it has its effect.
>If there is a lot of incoherence in the mix then we see a lot of
>incoherence in our world, and vice versa. But don't take this suggestion
>as truth, its just something I am playing with while I write this.
>
>
> Actually, as I am thinking of all this, I begin to wonder who you are. I
>know who you pretend to be, but is there someone else hiding behind it all?
>Another Peter Krauss, pehaps? Or what about the rest of us? Maybe there is
>only me.
>
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Oct 2006, at 14:25, Don Lay wrote:
>
>
> Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary personal
>identity?
>
> When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity, is
>it possible to simultaneously to experience WHOLENESS? Is it possible to
>use words directing attentive awareness to a synthetic, separated personal
>identity and also FEEL and experience INDIVISIBILITY?
>
> Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the INDIVISIBLE
>WHOLE in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
>
> QUESTIONS: So what! Who cares? What kind of nut would improvise
>such questions? -- Don L
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
> Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just
>exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then look
>at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses wholeness
>as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole. Is it? --
>Don L
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 01:45:26 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 03:00:12 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <BAY22-F98DE27F2CDB38A48D4157A5F80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <000201c6fe19$e65e3910$0d45153f@DL01>
Thanks for the good, clear explanation.
Are you kidding?
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:55 PM
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
> Psychiatrists and therapists use the technique of having a person dialog
> with different aspects of the self by setting up a chair for the person to
> move into when one persona is to dialog with the others. The person
> changes chairs when the other persona is ready to speak. Then William
> Faulkner used to say his characters came alive only when he was able to
> get on a bus with a bottle of whiskey, dialog with those characters, and
> they would answer him back. Is this courting schizophrenia? If an artist
> friend said something like that to you, would you worry? k
>
>>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:44:44 -0600
>>
>>Thanks for the good, clear explanation. I never thought of it this way.
>>k
>>
>>
>>>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 07:23:51 -0500
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 02:11:36 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 03:13:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <BAY22-F245922117798F432BB9C8DA5FF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <003801c6fe1b$da868960$0d45153f@DL01>
> So we are many personas in one, and we bring out the proper one at the
> appropriate time? But we are in control so we know which one to command to
> appear? Interesting. -- k
I've acted and pretended many personas. Which is the real Don L? Who
knows? The older I get, the more I like the idea of being indivisible with
all that is. Thusly, the persona death and dying has little meaning when
viewed in context with the whole. -- Don L
>
>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:33:46 -0500
>>
>>As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too
>>judgmental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's
>>personal identity or admitting its relative significance. -- Factor, d
>>
>>Seems to me the wrongness is acting and pretending the personal sameness
>>without being aware that it is an act. Why? It is so limiting, trying to
>>act the same as some THINGK. Some people actually do not know what they
>>are supposed to act like, what role they should pretend.
>>
>>When people ask who I am, I respond variously according to circumstances
>>or context. If a cop asks for drivers license and asks if that is me
>>(while looking at the image), I politely say yes.
>>
>>What serious homo-sap has not stood in front of a mirror and been aware
>>that he was not identical with THAT IMAGE. Who has looked at their
>>drivers license photo and been aware that he/she was not that? -- Lay,
>>Donald Britton
>>
>>
>>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Factor
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>> As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too
>> judgemental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's
>> personal identity or admitting its relative significance. So, if I am
>> busy acting and pretending in your sense I probably would not be
>> experiencing unbroken wholeness. But if I am aware of - how can I put
>> this? - my place in the universe, then I can certainly feel and
>> experience that indivisibility. Maybe a better question might be, If we
>> are really all implicitly patrs of one another and al that is, then why
>> do we need mechanical means of communication? Why can't we carry on our
>> dialogue with all the other parts, continuously wherever we are? Of
>> course, there may be an answer to that which is, we are doing just that,
>> but in all the complexity of parts and and subwholes, our conscious minds
>> are not able to deal with it, so it works at a more subtle level.
>> Whatever each of us does, thinks or says spreads throughout the universe,
>> or connects non-localy with the rest of what is going on in the universal
>> flux and it has its effect. If there is a lot of incoherence in the mix
>> then we see a lot of incoherence in our world, and vice versa. But don't
>> take this suggestion as truth, its just something I am playing with while
>> I write this.
>>
>>
>> Actually, as I am thinking of all this, I begin to wonder who you are.
>> I know who you pretend to be, but is there someone else hiding behind it
>> all? Another Peter Krauss, pehaps? Or what about the rest of us? Maybe
>> there is only me.
>>
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26 Oct 2006, at 14:25, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>
>> Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary personal
>> identity?
>>
>> When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity,
>> is it possible to simultaneously to experience WHOLENESS? Is it possible
>> to use words directing attentive awareness to a synthetic, separated
>> personal identity and also FEEL and experience INDIVISIBILITY?
>>
>> Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the
>> INDIVISIBLE WHOLE in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
>>
>> QUESTIONS: So what! Who cares? What kind of nut would improvise
>> such questions? -- Don L
>>
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Lay
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>> Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just
>> exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then
>> look at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses
>> wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole.
>> Is it? --
>>Don L
>>
>>
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 02:16:04 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 03:18:20 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <BAY22-F98DE27F2CDB38A48D4157A5F80@phx.gbl>
<000201c6fe19$e65e3910$0d45153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <003d01c6fe1c$7a7b05e0$0d45153f@DL01>
K, have you read much or any of Dan Alford, the 'quantum linguist'? He's
also a Bohm enthusiast who lived with an American Indian tribe. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
> Thanks for the good, clear explanation.
>
> Are you kidding?
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:55 PM
> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
>>
>> Psychiatrists and therapists use the technique of having a person dialog
>> with different aspects of the self by setting up a chair for the person
>> to move into when one persona is to dialog with the others. The person
>> changes chairs when the other persona is ready to speak. Then William
>> Faulkner used to say his characters came alive only when he was able to
>> get on a bus with a bottle of whiskey, dialog with those characters, and
>> they would answer him back. Is this courting schizophrenia? If an
>> artist friend said something like that to you, would you worry? k
>>
>>>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:44:44 -0600
>>>
>>>Thanks for the good, clear explanation. I never thought of it this way.
>>>k
>>>
>>>
>>>>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 07:23:51 -0500
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 02:46:12 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 03:48:33 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <003d01c6fe1c$7a7b05e0$0d45153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F254FD1979A56B1B8285B30A5FF0@phx.gbl>
Thanks for the referral>
"We were very saddened to hear of Moonhawk's passing on to the Spirit World.
At the same time we know he has gone to a place of beauty, peace and
harmony.
We were cheered somewhat by Leroy and Amethyst's scenario of Moonhawk
arriving in the Spirit World and being immediately greeted by David Bohm and
Einstein, who said they had been waiting impatiently for his arrival. What
discussions they must be having!"
I love that Indian sense of humor! k
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:16:04 -0500
>
>K, have you read much or any of Dan Alford, the 'quantum linguist'? He's
>also a Bohm enthusiast who lived with an American Indian tribe. -- dbl
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:45 PM
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
>>Thanks for the good, clear explanation.
>>
>>Are you kidding?
>>
>>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:55 PM
>>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Psychiatrists and therapists use the technique of having a person dialog
>>>with different aspects of the self by setting up a chair for the person
>>>to move into when one persona is to dialog with the others. The person
>>>changes chairs when the other persona is ready to speak. Then William
>>>Faulkner used to say his characters came alive only when he was able to
>>>get on a bus with a bottle of whiskey, dialog with those characters, and
>>>they would answer him back. Is this courting schizophrenia? If an
>>>artist friend said something like that to you, would you worry? k
>>>
>>>>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:44:44 -0600
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the good, clear explanation. I never thought of it this way.
>>>>k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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 07:23:51 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 02:48:31 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 03:50:49 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <20061102003938.99141.qmail@web52913.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F24F9D845C8D912AA5D19C1A5FF0@phx.gbl>
Kari - how nice to have a face and a profile to go with the words. k
>From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:39:38 -0800 (PST)
>
>right. i mean we are all connected through suffering at least! who among us
>hasnt suffered? so maybe feeling for isnt such a put down? i dont know if
>anyone actually said that, but it really doesnt matter. this is an
>interesting and potentially catalytically liberating thought.
>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: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 4:12:27 PM
>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>
>
>It seems that if you "feel with", you also "feel for", because I believe
>compassion only exists where there is suffering. k
>
> >From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
> >Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:37:10 -0600
> >
> >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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 03:18:50 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 04:21:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] beautiful, Don L. thank you - Dan Moonhawk Alfred
Message-ID: <BAY22-F115C91ABB4DAC9E13FCAE4A5FF0@phx.gbl>
Moonhawk was a man of words, yet on his crossing, I have memories, images,
senses of time and experiences. My words are few, for they don't seem to
matter just now. What matters is the vision my friend Moonhawk had, vision
that he shared generously with other minds. Moonhawk saw how differences in
ways of knowing the world were reflected in the languages, and he talked
about these. Are Songs Alive?, he would say, voice like butterscotch, look
in his eye that told you he knew. "That was [my friend's] song," the Elder
in his story would say. "Haven't heard it in oh, 80, 90 years. I guess it
must have been getting lonely."
Must've been getting lonely, so it came back and plopped itself, alive and
vibrant, in someone else's head. These are stories of endless possibility,
the stories of Moonhawk's beliefs, of his vision, of a reality he shared
that was not limited by the sure, the visible, the measurable. It was a
world that opened to the possibility of Phoenician travellers in Canada, to
the possibility that language differences were based on culture and ways of
seeing.
Moonhawk is not gone, just in another dimension, just on the other side of
the veil. His work will live on to inspire others, not only directly in and
through his writings and teachings, but in the ways he inspired those he
touched, those he brought into his circle.
I was one of those, one of the ones he encouraged, one of those who shared
his vision, and his view of what was possible. And for the time he spent in
my life, as my friend, my mentor, someone who challenged and encouraged me,
I will always be grateful.
This is a small item from Moonhawk's list, Relational Languaging. It shows
so much of who and how we were. . . . in loving memory:
A One-act Play
Language lives as a spirit inside a people... all of whom are joined by a
common understanding, a "group knowledge" if you will. One day, a herald
comes with a trumpet and a parchment. He says that from that day forth, all
the people may speak only from the left side of their brains... for it has
been determined that this is the side closest to "god" and therefore the
"best"...
And language can no longer move about, for it has lost its feet, and it can
no longer feel, for it has lost its hands and its heart, language can no
longer sound happy or sad, no longer offer solace for woe or companionship
in joy and gladness, for it has lost its voice. Language can now only run in
circles, for it has too much energy for its task, and it can only consider
"disembodied" information, and has no way of validating it, for it has lost
its "body of knowledge". And language becomes lonely and dispirited. It
lives alone in the minds of those who are left, unable to reach its
companions. And having lost its connection with others, it begins to lose
its connection with itself, for it has lost its balance and its joy. ... And
alone, it dies.
. . . , I think it's truly excellent, Mia! Especially the running -- not the
slower walking speed, in circles -- perfect for unbridled, ungrounded left
brain as Emperor.
warm regards, moonhawk
Mia Kalish
11/03/02
for more, go to www.enformy.com/alford_community.htm
_________________________________________________________________
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 Thu Nov 2 09:28:42 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 11:04:28 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061102.035959.3720.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Nice. Beautiful. Relevant. Reminiscent (of one or two of "my own" rather
dominant,
dynamic, and extremely powerful, self images - and another or others too,
of
the more subtle side of "me" - the night spider, quietly lowering myself
from the "eaves" to hear everything better. Her name - Ann Eavesdropper.
Could have done worse in the image selection area).
pat
A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image of self.
My apologies to those who prefer no images, but it is essential for me to
post one as an attachment to this email if I am to respond to this
question.
It is not something I do habitually.
The image conveys perfectly how I see at least one of my personas;
probably
the dominant one. And the image has a history.
The image is not violent or derogatory. Do connect it to my email user's
name, a name my grandfather gave me.
>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: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:14:12 -0500
>
>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
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 09:42:38 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 11:04:29 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
Message-ID: <20061102.035959.3720.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
i mean we are all connected through suffering at least!
Absolutely. But the funny thing about my Navajo experience was - talk
about
erroneous underlying assumptions - they had no idea we Biliganna had also
suffered until I told stories of my upbringing, then some of the history
of
what prompted many Europeans to come to America. But then, is that so
strange? Don't many people think that no one else but them has suffered?
k
Yes. For instance, I was amazed as an older adult, to have found out
(gradually)
that grade school was extremely painful for practically everyone.
Also, it seems that there is an equality to [degrees of] suffering. I
know that this
goes against the given logic, but I feel certain that my moments of
greatest suffering
were no greater than anyone else's moments of greatest suffering (and
vice verse of course).
Maybe too, suffering 'equalizes' itself sometimes by:
"milder" but "longer term"
"stronger" but "shorter term."
pat
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 09:58:41 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 11:04:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] beautiful, Don L. thank you - Dan Moonhawk Alfred
Message-ID: <20061102.035959.3720.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
"... And having lost its connection with others, it begins to lose its
connection with itself, for it has lost its balance and its joy. . "
(k. - Moonhawk)
This is the "loss" of proprioception of thought - the "loss" of the
"self aware movement of thought."
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/ffbe7287/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 11:48:39 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 12:51:45 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <BAY22-F254FD1979A56B1B8285B30A5FF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <000a01c6fe6c$82cb6a50$7b79153f@DL01>
"We were very saddened to hear of Moonhawk's passing on to the Spirit World.
How shocking! I had no idea. Do you know anything about his passing? don
L
> Thanks for the referral>
>
> "We were very saddened to hear of Moonhawk's passing on to the Spirit
> World. At the same time we know he has gone to a place of beauty, peace
> and harmony.
>
> We were cheered somewhat by Leroy and Amethyst's scenario of Moonhawk
> arriving in the Spirit World and being immediately greeted by David Bohm
> and Einstein, who said they had been waiting impatiently for his arrival.
> What discussions they must be having!"
>
> I love that Indian sense of humor! k
>
>
>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:16:04 -0500
>>
>>K, have you read much or any of Dan Alford, the 'quantum linguist'? He's
>>also a Bohm enthusiast who lived with an American Indian tribe. -- dbl
>>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 13:12:24 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 14:15:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <01e001c6fe13$49217140$9e5f153f@DL01>
References: <20061026.113548.692.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<6E3DE095-736F-42BA-925D-A6218D4193FB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<01e001c6fe13$49217140$9e5f153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <E54CDE9A-EA89-4AD4-9699-1A166CA8245A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
It ought to mean nothing more than that the thing hanging off your
left shoulder is called an arm. It is no less a part of the subwhole
that is you than your name.
don
On 2 Nov 2006, at 00:10, Don Lay wrote:
> this is the case, and I agree that it probably is, then we can say
> that dialogue works because, if much of each of us gets included in
> the rest of us, then every one of us ends up sharing all of us
> with everyone they know, and ad infinitum. -- don F
>
> Maybe that's the way it is, and it only seems strange because
> that's what we've always known. If it is all indivisible, if all
> is in all, etc., what does it mean ... for my imaginary personal
> identity? -- Don L
>
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Factor"
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> We can find all of us in each of us. The one's that are "hardest" to
>>> 'find' are the most revealing. The most freeing.
>>>
>>> pat
>>
>> if this is the case, and I agree that it probably is, then we can
>> say that dialogue works because,
>> if much of each of us gets included in the rest of us, then every
>> one of us ends up sharing all of
>> us with everyone they know, and ad infinitum.
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 13:14:54 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 14:17:55 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F7ACB5D7EA92E95BD001DFA5FF0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F7ACB5D7EA92E95BD001DFA5FF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <15C9C090-A789-477A-8388-0233FF534EAD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 2 Nov 2006, at 00:12, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
> It seems that if you "feel with", you also "feel for", because I
> believe compassion only exists where there is suffering. k
Wnat about the collective suffering - often well concealed - of all
those who are aware that they participate in an imperfect world?
don
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 13:33:11 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 14:35:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <01ef01c6fe15$65701390$9e5f153f@DL01>
References: <20061026.113548.692.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<01ef01c6fe15$65701390$9e5f153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <9BD7A3D9-407B-4BFC-9653-CB7B1A3EB74B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 2 Nov 2006, at 00:25, Don Lay wrote:
> Always the quesiton occurs: the same as what? What are YOU the
> same as? Surely it is clear to those who look that the classical
> personal identity is not what it appears to be. For one thing, the
> classical has been declared to not be what actually is, maybe
> meaning it is presented with imagery. For the second thing, Bohm
> declares the quantum world is what actually is, rather than the
> classical view (QT, 1951). I really like this idea because it
> relates to the ideas of Spiritual actuality.
>
I think your use of "classical" here is confused. Of course there is
no argument that the personal identity is not what it appears to be,
but then we can conclude that this is the same with everything. Our
sensory organs are limited, as is our thought process.
But classical? What do you mean by classical personal identity. If,
of course, you are comparing it to, say, romantic personal identity,
or baroque then it may be an interesting point. But in the context of
quantum theory and Bohm's world view, it makes no sense. First, Bohm
never declared that the quantum world is what actually is. The
quantum world so far as we know is made up of probabilities and
approximations. Bohm made an important contribution to an ontological
interpretation and demonstrated mathematically that Heisenberg's
probabllity theorem was not the end of the line. But many questions
are still open. What Bohm did say was that there were different
domains or categories in which we can deduce or guess something of
"what is" in that particular domain. But that "what is" in another
domain might look very different. This is why he emphasised the point
that is generally fruitful to ask what something means rather than to
ask what something is.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/0c748bf2/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 13:34:53 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 14:37:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <020d01c6fe16$91873250$9e5f153f@DL01>
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
<013501c6f902$436ac780$826b153f@DL01>
<F8A6D485-EA82-4877-8F42-A417DE4A3BA8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<020d01c6fe16$91873250$9e5f153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <E9BED1E8-F129-43B0-8E1E-2D50AD8D42BD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Nothingk to disagree with here,
don
On 2 Nov 2006, at 00:33, Don Lay wrote:
> As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too
> judgmental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's
> personal identity or admitting its relative significance. -- Factor, d
>
> Seems to me the wrongness is acting and pretending the personal
> sameness without being aware that it is an act. Why? It is so
> limiting, trying to act the same as some THINGK. Some people
> actually do not know what they are supposed to act like, what role
> they should pretend.
>
> When people ask who I am, I respond variously according to
> circumstances or context. If a cop asks for drivers license and
> asks if that is me (while looking at the image), I politely say yes.
>
> What serious homo-sap has not stood in front of a mirror and been
> aware that he was not identical with THAT IMAGE. Who has looked at
> their drivers license photo and been aware that he/she was not
> that? -- Lay, Donald Britton
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
> As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too
> judgemental, as if there was something wrong with attending to
> one's personal identity or admitting its relative significance. So,
> if I am busy acting and pretending in your sense I probably would
> not be experiencing unbroken wholeness. But if I am aware of - how
> can I put this? - my place in the universe, then I can certainly
> feel and experience that indivisibility. Maybe a better question
> might be, If we are really all implicitly patrs of one another and
> al that is, then why do we need mechanical means of
> communication? Why can't we carry on our dialogue with all the
> other parts, continuously wherever we are? Of course, there may be
> an answer to that which is, we are doing just that, but in all the
> complexity of parts and and subwholes, our conscious minds are not
> able to deal with it, so it works at a more subtle level. Whatever
> each of us does, thinks or says spreads throughout the universe, or
> connects non-localy with the rest of what is going on in the
> universal flux and it has its effect. If there is a lot of
> incoherence in the mix then we see a lot of incoherence in our
> world, and vice versa. But don't take this suggestion as truth,
> its just something I am playing with while I write this.
>
> Actually, as I am thinking of all this, I begin to wonder who you
> are. I know who you pretend to be, but is there someone else hiding
> behind it all? Another Peter Krauss, pehaps? Or what about the rest
> of us? Maybe there is only me.
>
> don
>
>
> On 26 Oct 2006, at 14:25, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary
>> personal identity?
>>
>> When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image
>> identity, is it possible to simultaneously to experience
>> WHOLENESS? Is it possible to use words directing attentive
>> awareness to a synthetic, separated personal identity and also
>> FEEL and experience INDIVISIBILITY?
>>
>> Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the
>> INDIVISIBLE WHOLE in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
>>
>> QUESTIONS: So what! Who cares? What kind of nut would improvise
>> such questions? -- Don L
>>
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Lay
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>> Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just
>> exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might
>> then look at the question for meaning and see that the question
>> addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things
>> within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
>>
>>
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061102/97936216/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 13:42:52 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 14:45:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061026.113548.692.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<6E3DE095-736F-42BA-925D-A6218D4193FB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<01e001c6fe13$49217140$9e5f153f@DL01>
<E54CDE9A-EA89-4AD4-9699-1A166CA8245A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <003001c6fe7c$7ca92ee0$7b79153f@DL01>
> It ought to mean nothing more than that the thing hanging off your left
> shoulder is called an arm. It is no less a part of the subwhole that is
> you than your name. -- don f
Perhaps. However, the imaginary thing 'hanging off me' is not referenced in
every sentence, and sometimes, 2-4 times per sentence. The troublesome
thing about the personal identity is the reflexive, mechanical use without
awareness of 'what the word does'. For example, those referencing their
personal identity at the rate of 40 times per minute are almost never aware
of it. The average for many people seems to be around 20 times per
minute -- again with little or "no awareness of what the word does".
Does that not seem excessive? It might be that those having a weakened or
threatened "sense of self" do it the most. It may be that the awareness
that their identity is imaginary seems a threat.
Often it seems those who feel threatened think of feel others are someTHINGK
and they are noTHINGK such that they act and pretend being someTHINGK so as
to avoid the anxiety of non being. Donald lay
> On 2 Nov 2006, at 00:10, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> this is the case, and I agree that it probably is, then we can say that
>> dialogue works because, if much of each of us gets included in the rest
>> of us, then every one of us ends up sharing all of us with everyone
>> they know, and ad infinitum. -- don F
>>
>> Maybe that's the way it is, and it only seems strange because that's
>> what we've always known. If it is all indivisible, if all is in all,
>> etc., what does it mean ... for my imaginary personal identity? -- Don L
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Factor"
>> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:03 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can find all of us in each of us. The one's that are "hardest" to
>>>> 'find' are the most revealing. The most freeing.
>>>>
>>>> pat
>>>
>>> if this is the case, and I agree that it probably is, then we can say
>>> that dialogue works because,
>>> if much of each of us gets included in the rest of us, then every one
>>> of us ends up sharing all of
>>> us with everyone they know, and ad infinitum.
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 14:04:05 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 15:06:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <003001c6fe7c$7ca92ee0$7b79153f@DL01>
References: <20061026.113548.692.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<6E3DE095-736F-42BA-925D-A6218D4193FB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<01e001c6fe13$49217140$9e5f153f@DL01>
<E54CDE9A-EA89-4AD4-9699-1A166CA8245A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<003001c6fe7c$7ca92ee0$7b79153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <114882E6-D800-4D7E-8DD6-F573428A143E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I see your point but the general use of it can also mean that it is a
limiting device. "I think" means that the writer has a particular
point of view and it ought to be read as limited to his/her
perspective. To leave it out would be to imply, "this is what is and
therefore it is the truth." in Bohm's terms, a proposal rather than a
profession of fact or truth.
So, I wonder what you think the word (I imagine you are talking about
the personal pronoun first person singular) actually does?
Just as a query, could this be a red herring or a strawman? MIght
there be something even more interesting beneath this POV?
don
On 2 Nov 2006, at 12:42, Don Lay wrote:
>
>
>> It ought to mean nothing more than that the thing hanging off
>> your left shoulder is called an arm. It is no less a part of the
>> subwhole that is you than your name. -- don f
>
> Perhaps. However, the imaginary thing 'hanging off me' is not
> referenced in every sentence, and sometimes, 2-4 times per
> sentence. The troublesome thing about the personal identity is the
> reflexive, mechanical use without awareness of 'what the word
> does'. For example, those referencing their personal identity at
> the rate of 40 times per minute are almost never aware of it. The
> average for many people seems to be around 20 times per minute --
> again with little or "no awareness of what the word does".
>
> Does that not seem excessive? It might be that those having a
> weakened or threatened "sense of self" do it the most. It may be
> that the awareness that their identity is imaginary seems a threat.
>
> Often it seems those who feel threatened think of feel others are
> someTHINGK and they are noTHINGK such that they act and pretend
> being someTHINGK so as to avoid the anxiety of non being. Donald lay
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 2 Nov 2006, at 00:10, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>> this is the case, and I agree that it probably is, then we can
>>> say that dialogue works because, if much of each of us gets
>>> included in the rest of us, then every one of us ends up
>>> sharing all of us with everyone they know, and ad infinitum. --
>>> don F
>>>
>>> Maybe that's the way it is, and it only seems strange because
>>> that's what we've always known. If it is all indivisible, if
>>> all is in all, etc., what does it mean ... for my imaginary
>>> personal identity? -- Don L
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Factor"
>>> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:03 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We can find all of us in each of us. The one's that are
>>>>> "hardest" to
>>>>> 'find' are the most revealing. The most freeing.
>>>>>
>>>>> pat
>>>>
>>>> if this is the case, and I agree that it probably is, then we
>>>> can say that dialogue works because,
>>>> if much of each of us gets included in the rest of us, then
>>>> every one of us ends up sharing all of
>>>> us with everyone they know, and ad infinitum.
>>>>
>>>> don
>>