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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 14:25:56 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 15:28:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061026.113548.692.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<01ef01c6fe15$65701390$9e5f153f@DL01>
<9BD7A3D9-407B-4BFC-9653-CB7B1A3EB74B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <005901c6fe82$80b6e030$7b79153f@DL01>
First, Bohm never declared that the quantum world is what actually is. df
I believe he do. "In the last analysis all processes are, of course, quantum-mechanical in nature ..." Quantum Theory, p165, 1952. dl
What do you mean by classical personal identity. df
One thing I mean by "classical" is that activity which acts and pretends a view of reality described, defined by word/image/identity -- as if that is all that is. dl
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/d73e9897/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 14:33:49 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 15:36:14 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>
<003001c6fe7c$7ca92ee0$7b79153f@DL01>
<114882E6-D800-4D7E-8DD6-F573428A143E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <007d01c6fe83$8a47f3e0$7b79153f@DL01>
Just as a query, could this be a red herring or a strawman? MIght there be
something even more interesting beneath this POV? -- df
Absolutely! -- dl
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>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
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 14:43:24 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 15:46:05 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>
<003001c6fe7c$7ca92ee0$7b79153f@DL01>
<114882E6-D800-4D7E-8DD6-F573428A143E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <008001c6fe84$e0a4e940$7b79153f@DL01>
> So, I wonder what you think the word (I imagine you are talking about the
> personal pronoun first person singular) actually does? -- df
It seems I actually experience what Bohm says it does. He indicates when a
word is used it comes with FEELS and is then used as proof that it is what
actually is, etc.
Maybe the important thing is that the I-word comes with imagery 'as if' it
is what actually is ALL THAT IS.
It seems vitally important that the imagery or imagined self-worldview
occurring with the I-word replaces a far greater, far more important
actuality than the I-word experience.
Also, it seems the I-word comes with a hidden endorphin hit which becomes
problematic with those having a weakened sense of self or a threatened
position.
It also often seems great confusion occurs with the over-repeated hits of
endorphins occurring with I-word use. -- dl
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 14:49:45 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 15:52:12 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
Message-ID: <BAY22-F590A052078BB957F871B4A5FF0@phx.gbl>
All part of the whole. k
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 12:14:54 +0000
>
>
>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
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Thu Nov 2 14:58:24 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 16:01:07 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061103110003.A2B962447F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF3703B2AD.ABBFD68B-ON8525721A.004B89B2-8525721A.004CC229@dialogos.com>
Rodger __hi pat, dont you think the clash-and-crash of parts as fragments
within the whole might be -to consciousness- as essential as continental
shifts within the planet or comets from afar that strike our planet -- are
to the stages of Earths evolution?
They may be very disruptive and discordant, in a short term perspective,
but the ice age led to this and so on. And yes, we each still have
responsibility to Love and Live to our highest vision. _R
.
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
When I used the term "Parts" I was using Bohm's meaning of "parts"
(sub-wholes) and imagining the "clashing and crashing" being among
the "fragments" (within the whole - Bohm again).
pat
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/5ba4e9bc/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 15:01:08 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 16:03:33 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <000a01c6fe6c$82cb6a50$7b79153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1805F10D193E64C7D229E6A5FF0@phx.gbl>
No - I Googled Moonhawk, and found the page referred to at the bottom of my
other post on Moonhawk. I would like to read things he has written. Can
you give me titles? Where was he teaching? I can Google that. At least
two of the people who contributed to the page were Navajo, and well known to
educators in the Navajo Nation. I would really like to know how he connected
Bohm with his approach to language. 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: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 05:48:39 -0500
>
>"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
>>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 15:29:52 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 16:32:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <005901c6fe82$80b6e030$7b79153f@DL01>
References: <20061026.113548.692.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<01ef01c6fe15$65701390$9e5f153f@DL01>
<9BD7A3D9-407B-4BFC-9653-CB7B1A3EB74B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005901c6fe82$80b6e030$7b79153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <36F7067A-E83F-42A9-8F80-10D708EDF5B1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
This is one of the problems with quoting people without some
knowledge of the context in which the statement was made. Back in the
early fifties that statement meant something quite different from
what it would have meant later years after he developed his ideas
about orders and especially the implicate order. You might though
want to read the whole paragraph (22) on the page you quoted which
goes on to say that the whole process he is describing can be more
conveniently described using classical theory alone. Also, the book
you quote was written by him in an attempt to overcome his own
dissatisfaction with the standard interpretation. So he, as carefully
as he could, used Bohr interpretation as his basis so as to make
certain that he understood it well enough to test the validity of his
own dissatisfactions. After writing it he still was dissatisfied and
this is what motivated all his later work. Actually you might also
refer to the first paragraph in Chapter 23 of the same book (page
624) where he begins to get into his own views
Anyway, in those days, the last analysis was one where the quantum
world was made up only of possibilities. You could predict the odds
of a particle appearing at a given point at a given time, that was
it. There was nothing more that you could say so it would hardly have
been possible to attribute "what is" to that. All you had were the
shadows on the wall of Plato's cave described mathematically. In the
standard interpretation also known as the Copenhagen interpretation,
the whole of everything is described by what is called the wave
function. This was supposed to represent all possibilities but it is
said to collapse at the point of any observation. In the real world
it would have to be collapsing constantly. That's where these notions
of the world splitting apart come from. And such ideas were
considered so far fetched that Bohr persuaded everyone that it would
be meaningless to attribute an ontological basis to any of it.
don
You might enjoy reading David Peat's biography of Bohm.
On 2 Nov 2006, at 13:25, Don Lay wrote:
> First, Bohm never declared that the quantum world is what actually
> is. df
>
> I believe he do. "In the last analysis all processes are, of
> course, quantum-mechanical in nature ..." Quantum Theory, p165,
> 1952. dl
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/e5d5c1f0/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 15:47:20 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 16:49:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <008001c6fe84$e0a4e940$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$7b79153f@DL01>
<114882E6-D800-4D7E-8DD6-F573428A143E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<008001c6fe84$e0a4e940$7b79153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <6D3A841C-3EDD-4A53-A548-4A3FCECB204E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 2 Nov 2006, at 13:43, Don Lay wrote:
>> So, I wonder what you think the word (I imagine you are talking
>> about the personal pronoun first person singular) actually does?
>> -- df
>
> It seems I actually experience what Bohm says it does. He
> indicates when a word is used it comes with FEELS and is then used
> as proof that it is what actually is, etc.
Well, yes, but this is not to be taken too literally. Bohm also said
elsewhere - I can't give you a reference because it was on a tape -
that much of the troubles in the world were the result of literal
thinking.
>
> Maybe the important thing is that the I-word comes with imagery 'as
> if' it is what actually is ALL THAT IS.
I can understand your point, but this "all that is" portion of it,
if this were always the case, would tie things up in knots, wouldn't
it? I mean, if I say that I am going to the store. Where does "all
that is" fit in? Even if I said, "I believe there is one God and his
name is Allah." The condition of "I believe" may have some of that
universal quality but it is still a qualifier. To make it a statement
about absolute truth it would have to be said without any qualifier
or limitation.
So, so far in this response I have used the I word 7 times and at no
point have i felt anything like "this is all that is" or even that
what I have written is anything more profound than an opinion or a
proposal.
>
> It seems vitally important that the imagery or imagined self-
> worldview occurring with the I-word replaces a far greater, far
> more important actuality than the I-word experience.
>
> Also, it seems the I-word comes with a hidden endorphin hit which
> becomes problematic with those having a weakened sense of self or a
> threatened position.
>
> It also often seems great confusion occurs with the over-repeated
> hits of endorphins occurring with I-word use. -- dl
When I write something even without the I word and I am happy with
what I have written that is a sign of an endorphin hit. But my
question still is, So what? If the "I word" were so potent I could
just sit around and get high by repeating at a mantra, like
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII inhale
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. Hmm. I did get a bit of
pleasure writing this last bit. I may have to try it again. But for
present I will have to postpone that satisfaction.
>
don
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Thu Nov 2 16:00:53 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 17:05:54 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061103110003.A2B962447F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFC299B930.81CD1F4E-ON8525721A.004D5444-8525721A.00527AAD@dialogos.com>
Rodger__If actions and pretense appear unrelated to what-actually-is, then
the observing does not include the parts of what-actually-is that the
actions relate to. _R
.
.
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Message-ID: <20061101.100827.1992.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Then, seems to me, they act and pretend .., but their
actions and pretense does not relate to what actually is. -- Don L
Instead of "not relating" one might say "not aligning." -pat-
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/8b4ce74e/attachment.html
From joachimfaust at earthlink.net Thu Nov 2 16:31:04 2006
From: joachimfaust at earthlink.net (Joachim Faust)
Date: Fri Nov 3 17:33:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <20061103110002.D324724248@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
References: <20061103110002.D324724248@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <DC5294C8-2195-4EC0-BB92-C54B64B0DA09@earthlink.net>
Hi Rodger,
Well, I think your question could lead to some interesting insights
into the nature of Bohm-Dialogue. My "line of
thinking" was: initially, some people here (Rogier, Owen, Gill)
identified themselves as being on the periphery of this
e-mail dialogue. I am of course not sure what each of them means by
this, and probably they all mean something slightly
(or even totally) different, but anyway, this act of "self-
localization" rang a bell with me. So did the fact that all three of
them
seemed to have some sort of "concern" about this dialogue (e.g.
Gill's heart vs. mind-dichotomy).
In any case, this seems to indicate there is such a thing here, a
core and a periphery.
How can this be measured? Well, perhaps it's not a matter of
distance, as you seem to suggest, but one of other quantifiable
properties:
the core could be defined as a certain level of activity (such as how
often to you participate, how many words, messages you are producing,
etc.)
Katherine responded to my initial post saying something like "as far
as I am concerned, you don't have to be on the
periphery," which could lead one to conclude that there is no need
for the periphery, every participant could/should be in the core.
It seems to me that everywhere in nature (and culture) there is core
and periphery (the sun and its planets; the nucleus
of the atom vs. the electrons orbiting it; London vs. the rest of
England, etc.) Both depend on each other, and each have different
functions, which contribute
to the whole.
Now, if people on the periphery of this dialogue have concerns about
it (that are not heard, perhaps?), then what does this
tell us about this particular (natural/cultural) process?
I am aware that a lot of what I say here is based on my speculation
about what the other people on the periphery actually mean,
which is why I suggested a "dialogue of the periphery."
Joachim
On 03.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
> Rodger __ hi Joachim, re: periphery -- please define how distances
> are measured from what is believed as central to bohm_dialogue?
>
> Since that measuring is applied to everyone, by way of conclussions
> drawn, is it a conclussion we can each play our part in?
>
> Or is everyone simply placed in specific locations according to the
> opinion of whoever does the measuring?
>
> How do you decide what defines the core and periphery of dialogue? _R
> .
> .
> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:38:58 -0600
> From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> .
> Joachim
>
> PS: are there any other people on the "periphery" who can/would
> like to share their experience?
> .
Joachim Faust
joachimfaust@earthlink.net
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Thu Nov 2 16:38:11 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 17:40:50 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <20061103110003.A2B962447F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF04352471.0DE9397A-ON8525721A.00542D9E-8525721A.0055E4E0@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ I agree, and looked up some words;
Compassion = sympathy for another.
Sympathy = the feelings of somebody who ENTERS INTO or shares or
understands anothers feelings.
Understand = to know or be able to explain TO YOURSELF the nature of
somebody or something, or the meaning or cause of something.
End of quotes.
I dont know about anyone else, but for me, there seems to be a constant
deepening to the meaning of the word compassion. A meaning which calls for
a sense of oneness WITH the one WITH whom I share compassion. I believe
compassion is a two-way experience.
Good intentions aside, if my compassion is causing misunderstandings it is
sometimes because my feelings FOR a person or situation are not coming from
a common ground or proportionate amount of oneness._R
.
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:12:27 -0600
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
It seems that if you "feel with", you also "feel for", because I believe
compassion only exists where there is suffering. k
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/452c9e2e/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 16:44:40 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 17:47:05 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <OF04352471.0DE9397A-ON8525721A.00542D9E-8525721A.0055E4E0@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F67204BEC1D8BE866AC2A6A5FF0@phx.gbl>
I dont know about anyone else, but for me, there seems to be a constant
deepening to the meaning of the word compassion. A meaning which calls for a
sense of oneness WITH the one WITH whom I share compassion.
K: for me, also.
I believe compassion is a two-way experience.
K: my experience tells me this would be ideal, something to attain to, but
frequently not the case. I suspect this deeper insight will influence my
future thinkg (if I am using this last word correctly).
>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:38:11 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger __ I agree, and looked up some words;
>
>Compassion = sympathy for another.
>
>Sympathy = the feelings of somebody who ENTERS INTO or shares or
>understands anothers feelings.
>
>Understand = to know or be able to explain TO YOURSELF the nature of
>somebody or something, or the meaning or cause of something.
>
>End of quotes.
>
>I dont know about anyone else, but for me, there seems to be a constant
>deepening to the meaning of the word compassion. A meaning which calls for
>a sense of oneness WITH the one WITH whom I share compassion. I believe
>compassion is a two-way experience.
>
>Good intentions aside, if my compassion is causing misunderstandings it is
>sometimes because my feelings FOR a person or situation are not coming from
>a common ground or proportionate amount of oneness._R
>.
>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:12:27 -0600
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>.
>It seems that if you "feel with", you also "feel for", because I believe
>compassion only exists where there is suffering. k
>.
>.
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 17:05:33 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 18:07:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <DC5294C8-2195-4EC0-BB92-C54B64B0DA09@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F17F08D811D731E7681D69AA5FF0@phx.gbl>
>about what the other people on the periphery actually mean,
>which is why I suggested a "dialogue of the periphery."
K: I would welcome a dialog on that topic. Certainly pooling our divergent
ideas to create a larger understanding is consonant with dialog as I
understand it. I'd really like to get rid of "I" with the understanding
that we all know our individual comments come from the "I" of the moment!
Perhaps we could consider that you have started the thread, and keep it
going.
I'll respond as soon as I have thought about it a little more, and also get
back from the chiropractor.
>From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:31:04 -0600
>
>Hi Rodger,
>
>Well, I think your question could lead to some interesting insights into
>the nature of Bohm-Dialogue. My "line of
>thinking" was: initially, some people here (Rogier, Owen, Gill) identified
>themselves as being on the periphery of this
>e-mail dialogue. I am of course not sure what each of them means by this,
>and probably they all mean something slightly
>(or even totally) different, but anyway, this act of "self- localization"
>rang a bell with me. So did the fact that all three of them
>seemed to have some sort of "concern" about this dialogue (e.g. Gill's
>heart vs. mind-dichotomy).
>
>In any case, this seems to indicate there is such a thing here, a core and
>a periphery.
>How can this be measured? Well, perhaps it's not a matter of distance, as
>you seem to suggest, but one of other quantifiable properties:
>the core could be defined as a certain level of activity (such as how
>often to you participate, how many words, messages you are producing,
>etc.)
>Katherine responded to my initial post saying something like "as far as I
>am concerned, you don't have to be on the
>periphery," which could lead one to conclude that there is no need for
>the periphery, every participant could/should be in the core.
>
>It seems to me that everywhere in nature (and culture) there is core and
>periphery (the sun and its planets; the nucleus
>of the atom vs. the electrons orbiting it; London vs. the rest of England,
>etc.) Both depend on each other, and each have different functions, which
>contribute
>to the whole.
>
>Now, if people on the periphery of this dialogue have concerns about it
>(that are not heard, perhaps?), then what does this
>tell us about this particular (natural/cultural) process?
>
>I am aware that a lot of what I say here is based on my speculation about
>what the other people on the periphery actually mean,
>which is why I suggested a "dialogue of the periphery."
>
>
>Joachim
>
>
>On 03.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
>>Rodger __ hi Joachim, re: periphery -- please define how distances are
>>measured from what is believed as central to bohm_dialogue?
>>
>>Since that measuring is applied to everyone, by way of conclussions
>>drawn, is it a conclussion we can each play our part in?
>>
>>Or is everyone simply placed in specific locations according to the
>>opinion of whoever does the measuring?
>>
>>How do you decide what defines the core and periphery of dialogue? _R
>>.
>>.
>>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:38:58 -0600
>>From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>.
>>Joachim
>>
>>PS: are there any other people on the "periphery" who can/would like to
>>share their experience?
>>.
>
>Joachim Faust
>joachimfaust@earthlink.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 donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 17:05:57 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 18:09:00 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <BAY22-F1805F10D193E64C7D229E6A5FF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <009501c6fe98$cb860580$7b79153f@DL01>
> No - I Googled Moonhawk, and found the page referred to at the bottom of
> my other post on Moonhawk. I would like to read things he has written.
> Can you give me titles? Where was he teaching? I can Google that. At
> least two of the people who contributed to the page were Navajo, and well
> known to educators in the Navajo Nation. I would really like to know how
> he connected Bohm with his approach to language. k
He was teaching at UC Hayward, I believe living in Hayward. You are going
to love what you find at his web site -- I especially found very meaningful
his take on the origin of Einstein's relativity:
http://www.enformy.com/alford.htm
Enjoy. DonL
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
> No - I Googled Moonhawk, and found the page referred to at the bottom of
> my other post on Moonhawk. I would like to read things he has written.
> Can you give me titles? Where was he teaching? I can Google that. At
> least two of the people who contributed to the page were Navajo, and well
> known to educators in the Navajo Nation. I would really like to know how
> he connected Bohm with his approach to language. 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: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 05:48:39 -0500
>>
>>"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
>>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
> Microsoft Office Live
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 2 17:17:56 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 18:21:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061026.113548.692.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<01ef01c6fe15$65701390$9e5f153f@DL01>
<9BD7A3D9-407B-4BFC-9653-CB7B1A3EB74B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005901c6fe82$80b6e030$7b79153f@DL01>
<36F7067A-E83F-42A9-8F80-10D708EDF5B1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <00a601c6fe9a$77965f40$7b79153f@DL01>
From: Don Factor
This is one of the problems with quoting people without some knowledge of the context in which the statement was made. [dbl: This is insulting, you clown! And you see my immediate response for which, I apologize. ] Back in the early fifties that statement meant something quite different from what it would have meant later years after he developed his ideas about orders and especially the implicate order. You might though want to read the whole paragraph [dbl: Further insulting! You clown. Please be advised that henceforth, I will insult back. {How childish!} ] (22) on the page you quoted which goes on to say that the whole process he is describing can be more conveniently described using classical theory alone. [dbl: Yes. Are you suggesting the classical description adequately describes experience? That's laughable. ] Also, the book you quote was written by him in an attempt to overcome his own dissatisfaction with the standard interpretation. So he, as carefully as he could, used Bohr interpretation as his basis so as to make certain that he understood it well enough to test the validity of his own dissatisfactions. After writing it he still was dissatisfied and this is what motivated all his later work. Actually you might also refer to the first paragraph in Chapter 23 of the same book (page 624) where he begins to get into his own views
Anyway, in those days, the last analysis was one where the quantum world was made up only of possibilities. You could predict the odds of a particle appearing at a given point at a given time, that was it. There was nothing more that you could say so it would hardly have been possible to attribute "what is" to that. [dbl: OK. ] All you [dbl: Sad! ] had were the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave described mathematically. In the standard interpretation also known as the Copenhagen interpretation, the whole of everything is described by what is called the wave function. This was supposed to represent all possibilities but it is said to collapse at the point of any observation. In the real world it would have to be collapsing constantly. That's where these notions of the world splitting apart come from. And such ideas were considered so far fetched that Bohr persuaded everyone that it would be meaningless to attribute an ontological basis to any of it.
don
You might enjoy reading David Peat's biography of Bohm.
On 2 Nov 2006, at 13:25, Don Lay wrote:
First, Bohm never declared that the quantum world is what actually is. df
I believe he do. "In the last analysis all processes are, of course, quantum-mechanical in nature ..." Quantum Theory, p165, 1952. dl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/b270f7d6/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 17:24:41 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 18:33:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061102.112823.2980.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I am reminded of the poem "How do I love thee -
Let me count the ways."
Paraphrased: How do I miss the point -
Let me count the ways."
And now, frequently, under the guise
of "I get your point."
Of course, thinking that the point has
been "gotten" is an inherent part
of missing it.
Maybe better than asking "What is the
point" is "Where is the point?"
What is offered with the descriptive words
are possible entryways [to "where"].
The "point" is beyond these - as though
"in a room." "Entryways" seem to need
to be exactly "tailored," no less than a
perfectly fitting piece of clothing. Don Lay
is obviously (as of yet) not Don F's "Tailor."
Although, because of the nature of group dialogue,
pat here is much appreciative of this fact, because of
the way it draws Don L out.
pat
On 2 Nov 2006, at 13:43, Don Lay wrote:
>> So, I wonder what you think the word (I imagine you are talking
>> about the personal pronoun first person singular) actually does?
>> -- df
>
> It seems I actually experience what Bohm says it does. He
> indicates when a word is used it comes with FEELS and is then used
> as proof that it is what actually is, etc.
Well, yes, but this is not to be taken too literally. Bohm also said
elsewhere - I can't give you a reference because it was on a tape -
that much of the troubles in the world were the result of literal
thinking.
>
> Maybe the important thing is that the I-word comes with imagery 'as
> if' it is what actually is ALL THAT IS.
I can understand your point, but this "all that is" portion of it,
if this were always the case, would tie things up in knots, wouldn't
it? I mean, if I say that I am going to the store. Where does "all
that is" fit in? Even if I said, "I believe there is one God and his
name is Allah." The condition of "I believe" may have some of that
universal quality but it is still a qualifier. To make it a statement
about absolute truth it would have to be said without any qualifier
or limitation.
So, so far in this response I have used the I word 7 times and at no
point have i felt anything like "this is all that is" or even that
what I have written is anything more profound than an opinion or a
proposal.
>
> It seems vitally important that the imagery or imagined self-
> worldview occurring with the I-word replaces a far greater, far
> more important actuality than the I-word experience.
>
> Also, it seems the I-word comes with a hidden endorphin hit which
> becomes problematic with those having a weakened sense of self or a
> threatened position.
>
> It also often seems great confusion occurs with the over-repeated
> hits of endorphins occurring with I-word use. -- dl
When I write something even without the I word and I am happy with
what I have written that is a sign of an endorphin hit. But my
question still is, So what? If the "I word" were so potent I could
just sit around and get high by repeating at a mantra, like
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII inhale
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. Hmm. I did get a bit of
pleasure writing this last bit. I may have to try it again. But for
present I will have to postpone that satisfaction.
>
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/c43a1c38/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 17:07:15 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 18:33:25 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061102.112823.2980.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
There is no problem with fragmentation (hi Rodger). No problem with
clashing and crashing - from the perspective of awareness. In which case,
the "clashing and crashing" [as metaphor for human conflict in all
stages of its violence] becomes 'self annihilating', i.e., awareness
annuls or neutralizes the violence.
By "awareness" is meant "awareness that the experienced [suffered]
fragment
is not the whole - as it presents itself (by definition, and by
chemistry) to be."
All this is irrelevant where suffering is not
at all, seen to be problematic or undesirable.
Interestingly, this [as stated] can be seen to be
either an enlightened, or a vulgar perspective.
pat
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 08:58:24 -0500 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes:
Rodger __hi pat, dont you think the clash-and-crash of parts as fragments
within the whole might be -to consciousness- as essential as continental
shifts within the planet or comets from afar that strike our planet --
are to the stages of Earths evolution?
They may be very disruptive and discordant, in a short term perspective,
but the ice age led to this and so on. And yes, we each still have
responsibility to Love and Live to our highest vision. _R
.
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
When I used the term "Parts" I was using Bohm's meaning of "parts"
(sub-wholes) and imagining the "clashing and crashing" being among
the "fragments" (within the whole - Bohm again).
pat
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/90307719/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 16:26:02 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 18:33:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
Message-ID: <20061102.112823.2980.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
A critically related question is: What does suffering do?
What are its actions (in any given moment)?
What is included in its range of possible actions
(in any given moment)?
Do I notice any human violence for which
suffering [pain plus resistance] is not the source?
pat
~~
Let's see if we can clarify what is meant by "believed self image as
problematic, as being a significant (if not total) source of suffering."
Let's see if this can be done by giving one example out
of a thousand possibilities [as many possibilities as there are
"human characteristics" - each can come in a "believed in image" form.
Each can serve as an idol, bidding "worship".]
Let's say that one of the things I see myself as is "a good person."
Someone comes along and says "You are a bad person."
"Good person" refers to an image/idol of myself.
Upon hearing "bad person" meaning "me,"
the "good person" image/idol will reflexively
defend itself. There will be stress in
the system. It may manifest simply
as toxic chemistry or it may manifest
as outward anger or a crying spell,
or an argument or avoidance.
In reality, the totality of "what I am" is
neither a good person or a bad person or
a combination of both, or none of the above
or all of the above. I am not simply and completely
a "good person," as the image/idol that is being defended for
its [effective] absolute truth would clearly indicate.
Maybe I am Mother Theresa, still, the "good person"
image, when "acted and pretended" by the system, and
believed by 'me', to be the entirety of 'my' identity - in a given moment
(and that is the key point), will be a source of
[Mother Theresa's] suffering (in that moment of suffering).
So far so good? Let's take this slowly
because 'skipping stepping stones' makes for
a shaky foundation.
And words will not reveal what this is about
without attention being given in a moment of
suffering - hopefully mild suffering -
as to its source in thought.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/fcd32550/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 16:19:07 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 18:33:28 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061102.112823.2980.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Let's see if we can clarify what is meant by "believed self image as
problematic, as being a significant (if not total) source of suffering."
Let's see if this can be done by giving one example out
of a thousand possibilities [as many possibilities as there are
"human characteristics" - each can come in a "believed in image" form.
Each can serve as an idol, bidding "worship".]
Let's say that one of the things I see myself as is "a good person."
Someone comes along and says "You are a bad person."
"Good person" refers to an image/idol of myself.
Upon hearing "bad person" meaning "me,"
the "good person" image/idol will reflexively
defend itself. There will be stress in
the system. It may manifest simply
as toxic chemistry or it may manifest
as outward anger or a crying spell,
or an argument or avoidance.
In reality, the totality of "what I am" is
neither a good person or a bad person or
a combination of both, or none of the above
or all of the above. I am not simply and completely
a "good person," as the image/idol that is being defended for
its [effective] absolute truth would clearly indicate.
Maybe I am Mother Theresa, still, the "good person"
image, when "acted and pretended" by the system, and
believed by 'me', to be the entirety of 'my' identity - in a given moment
(and that is the key point), will be a source of
[Mother Theresa's] suffering (in that moment of suffering).
So far so good? Let's take this slowly
because 'skipping stepping stones' makes for
a shaky foundation.
And words will not reveal what this is about
without attention being given in a moment of
suffering - hopefully mild suffering -
as to its source in thought.
pat
I suppose that what I was pointing at was that the difference between
self image and sense of self, is questionable.
Can I have a sense of self without some idea of what that means? Or what
it "is"?
If you ask, who am I? what would you answer. Would it be something like a
point of awareness that keeps shifting or
would it be that I am a person of a particular age, nationality, gender,
profession,etc. For most people it would be the
latter.
So a lot of it has to do with this notion of DonL's about acting and
pretending,
And what I am really getting at is that all this "acting and pretending"
is as much a part of the self as the crouching of a cat,
or the skittishness of a rabbit. These are also points of awareness.
But they are all about the self if not consciously as in humans then
reflexively, as in other creatures.
I suppose, too, that without these attributes we would each be less than
human and we would be denying our
place as parts of the whole.
But I hope that I am just flailing at straw men.
don
On 1 Nov 2006, at 12:45, Don Lay wrote:
sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
(I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here). Pat
Neither have I. Don L
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
It is correct to assume that this idea that there is something
wrong about a "sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
(I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here). Perhaps this is a
reference to someone off list but I would just say
that care with words, although being a good practice in general, is
crucial
in areas that are SO CLOSE to the "unspeakable," to areas that are beyond
words. The area of "self" is one such area.
A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image
of self.
Every [undamaged] manifestation of the whole has a
sense of self. Every [undamaged] body has a proprioceptive
sense of where it begins and ends. This [sense] has nothing to do with
thought. This has nothing [inherently] to do with images. This has
nothing
to do with time. (There is an immediacy in proprioception). This has
nothing to do with memory. This has nothing to do with language.
Defended and protected personal self image[s] however,
do have to do with thought, with time, with memory,
with language.
Why (metaphorically speaking) do people "bump into
each other?" Is this not the result of guidance by
'dismembered' images. Is this not a manifestation
of the clashing and crashing of images?
It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
could take place among actual parts of the whole
(which are "guided" by the whole).
pat
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:20:28 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it.
But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we can add
elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of self along with
all the great apes including humans nd bottle nosed dolphins. The way we
can tell is by putting a mark on their heads and then showing them how
their image in a big mirror. Most animals would react as if it were
another animal but elephants check out the mark with their trunks
wondering, no doubt, what idiot put it there.
don
On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a sense
of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.
What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation? Are
people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in sensing self
once establishment tells them to? _R
.
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
.
So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of consciousness,
at least according to Damasio who is one of the major
figures in neuroscience.
don
.
.
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/ad62b7bc/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 17:33:29 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 18:38:21 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F67204BEC1D8BE866AC2A6A5FF0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F67204BEC1D8BE866AC2A6A5FF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42EC6A9A-A280-4F5D-9E2F-653621BD36D0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I wonder if compassion may be a more meaningful term - in the context
of this list - than koinonia? It seems to me that both can be
impersonal as in impersonal fellowship and a sense of oneness with
the oppressed. I like Rodger's version which doesn't mention
suffering. But on the other hand, suffering doesn't necessarily mean
something painful. It can mean patience as in "suffer the little
children". A compassionate person for instance is usually a patient
person.
don
On 2 Nov 2006, at 15:44, Morgan Jett wrote:
> I dont know about anyone else, but for me, there seems to be a
> constant deepening to the meaning of the word compassion. A meaning
> which calls for a sense of oneness WITH the one WITH whom I share
> compassion.
>
> K: for me, also.
>
>
> I believe compassion is a two-way experience.
>
> K: my experience tells me this would be ideal, something to attain
> to, but frequently not the case. I suspect this deeper insight
> will influence my future thinkg (if I am using this last word
> correctly).
>
>
>> From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:38:11 -0500
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rodger __ I agree, and looked up some words;
>>
>> Compassion = sympathy for another.
>>
>> Sympathy = the feelings of somebody who ENTERS INTO or shares or
>> understands anothers feelings.
>>
>> Understand = to know or be able to explain TO YOURSELF the nature of
>> somebody or something, or the meaning or cause of something.
>>
>> End of quotes.
>>
>> I dont know about anyone else, but for me, there seems to be a
>> constant
>> deepening to the meaning of the word compassion. A meaning which
>> calls for
>> a sense of oneness WITH the one WITH whom I share compassion. I
>> believe
>> compassion is a two-way experience.
>>
>> Good intentions aside, if my compassion is causing
>> misunderstandings it is
>> sometimes because my feelings FOR a person or situation are not
>> coming from
>> a common ground or proportionate amount of oneness._R
>> .
>> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:12:27 -0600
>> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> .
>> It seems that if you "feel with", you also "feel for", because I
>> believe
>> compassion only exists where there is suffering. k
>> .
>> .
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 17:40:49 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 18:43:17 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <009501c6fe98$cb860580$7b79153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F109243E2936F7C9BA8BCE7A5FF0@phx.gbl>
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you so much. 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: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:05:57 -0500
>
>>No - I Googled Moonhawk, and found the page referred to at the bottom of
>>my other post on Moonhawk. I would like to read things he has written.
>>Can you give me titles? Where was he teaching? I can Google that. At
>>least two of the people who contributed to the page were Navajo, and well
>>known to educators in the Navajo Nation. I would really like to know how
>>he connected Bohm with his approach to language. k
>
>He was teaching at UC Hayward, I believe living in Hayward. You are going
>to love what you find at his web site -- I especially found very meaningful
>his take on the origin of Einstein's relativity:
>
>http://www.enformy.com/alford.htm
>
>Enjoy. DonL
>
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:01 AM
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
>>No - I Googled Moonhawk, and found the page referred to at the bottom of
>>my other post on Moonhawk. I would like to read things he has written.
>>Can you give me titles? Where was he teaching? I can Google that. At
>>least two of the people who contributed to the page were Navajo, and well
>>known to educators in the Navajo Nation. I would really like to know how
>>he connected Bohm with his approach to language. 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: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 05:48:39 -0500
>>>
>>>"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
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 17:43:58 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 18:47:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <00a601c6fe9a$77965f40$7b79153f@DL01>
References: <20061026.113548.692.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<01ef01c6fe15$65701390$9e5f153f@DL01>
<9BD7A3D9-407B-4BFC-9653-CB7B1A3EB74B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005901c6fe82$80b6e030$7b79153f@DL01>
<36F7067A-E83F-42A9-8F80-10D708EDF5B1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00a601c6fe9a$77965f40$7b79153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <DEDC1C29-6444-4C38-B206-C7BDA5FDE817@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> re you suggesting the classical description adequately describes
> experience? That's laughable.
And yes. Laugh away because there exists no quantum language with
which to describe it.
I'm afraid tha the best I can give you here is a C-
professor don.
ps. this is also a dig at all of our use of authority to justify our
statements. That may be okay for lawyers or academics but we are here
presumably to use our own intelligence
On 2 Nov 2006, at 16:17, Don Lay wrote:
> From: Don Factor
>
> This is one of the problems with quoting people without some
> knowledge of the context in which the statement was made. [dbl:
> This is insulting, you clown! And you see my immediate response
> for which, I apologize. ] Back in the early fifties that
> statement meant something quite different from what it would have
> meant later years after he developed his ideas about orders and
> especially the implicate order. You might though want to read the
> whole paragraph [dbl: Further insulting! You clown. Please be
> advised that henceforth, I will insult back. {How childish!} ]
> (22) on the page you quoted which goes on to say that the whole
> process he is describing can be more conveniently described using
> classical theory alone. [dbl: Yes. Are you suggesting the
> classical description adequately describes experience? That's
> laughable. ] Also, the book you quote was written by him in an
> attempt to overcome his own dissatisfaction with the standard
> interpretation. So he, as carefully as he could, used Bohr
> interpretation as his basis so as to make certain that he
> understood it well enough to test the validity of his own
> dissatisfactions. After writing it he still was dissatisfied and
> this is what motivated all his later work. Actually you might
> also refer to the first paragraph in Chapter 23 of the same book
> (page 624) where he begins to get into his own views
>
> Anyway, in those days, the last analysis was one where the quantum
> world was made up only of possibilities. You could predict the
> odds of a particle appearing at a given point at a given time, that
> was it. There was nothing more that you could say so it would
> hardly have been possible to attribute "what is" to that. [dbl:
> OK. ] All you [dbl: Sad! ] had were the shadows on the wall of
> Plato's cave described mathematically. In the standard
> interpretation also known as the Copenhagen interpretation, the
> whole of everything is described by what is called the wave
> function. This was supposed to represent all possibilities but it
> is said to collapse at the point of any observation. In the real
> world it would have to be collapsing constantly. That's where these
> notions of the world splitting apart come from. And such ideas were
> considered so far fetched that Bohr persuaded everyone that it
> would be meaningless to attribute an ontological basis to any of it.
>
> don
>
> You might enjoy reading David Peat's biography of Bohm.
> On 2 Nov 2006, at 13:25, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> First, Bohm never declared that the quantum world is what actually
>> is. df
>>
>> I believe he do. "In the last analysis all processes are, of
>> course, quantum-mechanical in nature ..." Quantum Theory, p165,
>> 1952. dl
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061102/6a5eab2a/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 17:58:27 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 19:02:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061102.112823.2980.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061102.112823.2980.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <0E6B8418-C9B3-459A-A4F1-4DCFCBA9F6F4@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 2 Nov 2006, at 16:24, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Maybe better than asking "What is the
> point" is "Where is the point?"
Might not asking "what do you mean?" be even more helpful?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/b07fdd3f/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 18:00:12 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 19:03:08 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061102.112823.2980.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061102.112823.2980.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <2328B4D5-F7E9-422E-86F3-D623BD0F1F49@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I am trying to go with this.
First, I am thinking of the kind thing that gives us: I am a doctor
trust me, Or I am a lawyer, therefore.....
But don't think we here are subject to that extreme. So what about a
being a good person. I can see that probably most of us have that as
a tacit assumption. I have read that even serial killers see
themselves as good people. My own tendency would be, if someone told
me i was a bad person, to feel a certain amount of pain and to then
wonder what I had done that was bad. Since accepting the attribution
would remain unthinkable. Rather what I would be reacting to would be
a false accusation, unless I knew that I had done something wrong. Do
you see the difference that I see? One, your definition is directed
to an image that you have of yourself. But mine would be that I am
accused of something I didn't do. It is the accusation that puts me
on the defensive and the idea of good and bad re: my self image
doesn't arise, at least not consciously. However, I do feel attacked,
unjustly attacked. But, okay, so long as I am not being physically
attacked I must be reacting to some sort of imaginary attack. But its
not as simple as you make it. Or is it?
don
On 2 Nov 2006, at 15:19, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Let's see if we can clarify what is meant by "believed self image
> as problematic, as being a significant (if not total) source of
> suffering."
>
> Let's see if this can be done by giving one example out
> of a thousand possibilities [as many possibilities as there are
> "human characteristics" - each can come in a "believed in image" form.
> Each can serve as an idol, bidding "worship".]
>
> Let's say that one of the things I see myself as is "a good person."
> Someone comes along and says "You are a bad person."
>
> "Good person" refers to an image/idol of myself.
>
> Upon hearing "bad person" meaning "me,"
> the "good person" image/idol will reflexively
> defend itself. There will be stress in
> the system. It may manifest simply
> as toxic chemistry or it may manifest
> as outward anger or a crying spell,
> or an argument or avoidance.
>
> In reality, the totality of "what I am" is
> neither a good person or a bad person or
> a combination of both, or none of the above
> or all of the above. I am not simply and completely
> a "good person," as the image/idol that is being defended for
> its [effective] absolute truth would clearly indicate.
>
> Maybe I am Mother Theresa, still, the "good person"
> image, when "acted and pretended" by the system, and
> believed by 'me', to be the entirety of 'my' identity - in a given
> moment
> (and that is the key point), will be a source of
> [Mother Theresa's] suffering (in that moment of suffering).
>
> So far so good? Let's take this slowly
> because 'skipping stepping stones' makes for
> a shaky foundation.
>
> And words will not reveal what this is about
> without attention being given in a moment of
> suffering - hopefully mild suffering -
> as to its source in thought.
>
> pat
>
>
>
> I suppose that what I was pointing at was that the difference
> between self image and sense of self, is questionable.
> Can I have a sense of self without some idea of what that means? Or
> what it "is"?
>
> If you ask, who am I? what would you answer. Would it be something
> like a point of awareness that keeps shifting or
> would it be that I am a person of a particular age, nationality,
> gender, profession,etc. For most people it would be the
> latter.
>
> So a lot of it has to do with this notion of DonL's about acting
> and pretending,
>
> And what I am really getting at is that all this "acting and
> pretending" is as much a part of the self as the crouching of a cat,
> or the skittishness of a rabbit. These are also points of awareness.
>
> But they are all about the self if not consciously as in humans
> then reflexively, as in other creatures.
>
> I suppose, too, that without these attributes we would each be less
> than human and we would be denying our
> place as parts of the whole.
>
> But I hope that I am just flailing at straw men.
>
> don
>
> On 1 Nov 2006, at 12:45, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
>> (I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here). Pat
>>
>> Neither have I. Don L
>>
>>
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>
>> It is correct to assume that this idea that there is something
>> wrong about a "sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
>> (I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here). Perhaps this is
>> a reference to someone off list but I would just say
>> that care with words, although being a good practice in general,
>> is crucial
>> in areas that are SO CLOSE to the "unspeakable," to areas that are
>> beyond
>> words. The area of "self" is one such area.
>>
>> A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image
>> of self.
>>
>> Every [undamaged] manifestation of the whole has a
>> sense of self. Every [undamaged] body has a proprioceptive
>> sense of where it begins and ends. This [sense] has nothing to do
>> with
>> thought. This has nothing [inherently] to do with images. This has
>> nothing
>> to do with time. (There is an immediacy in proprioception). This has
>> nothing to do with memory. This has nothing to do with language.
>>
>> Defended and protected personal self image[s] however,
>> do have to do with thought, with time, with memory,
>> with language.
>>
>> Why (metaphorically speaking) do people "bump into
>> each other?" Is this not the result of guidance by
>> 'dismembered' images. Is this not a manifestation
>> of the clashing and crashing of images?
>>
>> It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
>> could take place among actual parts of the whole
>> (which are "guided" by the whole).
>>
>> pat
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:20:28 +0000 Don Factor
>> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it.
>>
>> But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we
>> can add elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of
>> self along with all the great apes including humans nd bottle
>> nosed dolphins. The way we can tell is by putting a mark on their
>> heads and then showing them how their image in a big mirror. Most
>> animals would react as if it were another animal but elephants
>> check out the mark with their trunks wondering, no doubt, what
>> idiot put it there.
>>
>> don
>>
>> On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>
>>> Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having
>>> a sense of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist
>>> confirms it.
>>>
>>> What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation?
>>> Are people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in
>>> sensing self once establishment tells them to? _R
>>> .
>>> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>> .
>>> So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of
>>> consciousness, at least according to Damasio who is one of the major
>>> figures in neuroscience.
>>> don
>>> .
>>> .
>> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/29e1c363/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 18:05:27 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 19:10:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
Message-ID: <20061102.120527.2980.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I am aware that a lot of what I say here is based on my speculation
about what the other people on the periphery actually mean,
which is why I suggested a "dialogue of the periphery."
Joachim
I am enjoying, and shall enjoy for however long "it" lasts,
being on the perifery of the core/perifery dialogue
thread.
pat
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Thu Nov 2 17:14:53 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Fri Nov 3 19:17:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <008001c6fe84$e0a4e940$7b79153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <C16F759D.7C12%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
In my own experience, what I "mean" by my own personal identity has not been
static, but has changed and evolved over time. When I was younger, "I" felt
definitely threatened by ideas that challenged "my" existence. I was afraid
of death, even more afraid of living. Now I have the feeling of being a
part of the whole (without quite understanding the nature of that "whole").
Fear has been replaced by curiosity. I still say "I" and still think of
this individual self, but I don't mean something SEPARATE by it.
Lynne
On 11/2/06 7:43 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>> So, I wonder what you think the word (I imagine you are talking about the
>> personal pronoun first person singular) actually does? -- df
>
> It seems I actually experience what Bohm says it does. He indicates when a
> word is used it comes with FEELS and is then used as proof that it is what
> actually is, etc.
>
> Maybe the important thing is that the I-word comes with imagery 'as if' it
> is what actually is ALL THAT IS.
>
> It seems vitally important that the imagery or imagined self-worldview
> occurring with the I-word replaces a far greater, far more important
> actuality than the I-word experience.
>
> Also, it seems the I-word comes with a hidden endorphin hit which becomes
> problematic with those having a weakened sense of self or a threatened
> position.
>
> It also often seems great confusion occurs with the over-repeated hits of
> endorphins occurring with I-word use. -- dl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
From oenthomas at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 18:27:51 2006
From: oenthomas at gmail.com (Owen Thomas)
Date: Fri Nov 3 19:30:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <20061102.120527.2980.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061102.120527.2980.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <1dde854d0611020927u550d8565s7a458d812f2b903b@mail.gmail.com>
Owen, from the periphery, explains.
I remain quiet most of the time, on the periphery, because the postings do
not entice me to join. Many topics seem to me to lack a coherent subject or
else just do not catch my current interest.
On 11/2/06, ae.dropper@juno.com <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> I am aware that a lot of what I say here is based on my speculation
> about what the other people on the periphery actually mean,
> which is why I suggested a "dialogue of the periphery."
>
>
> Joachim
>
> I am enjoying, and shall enjoy for however long "it" lasts,
> being on the perifery of the core/perifery dialogue
> thread.
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
--
We are connected
Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/9da5d470/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 18:15:35 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 20:21:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061102.131738.2980.15.ae.dropper@juno.com>
"And words will not reveal what this is about
without attention being given in a moment of
suffering - hopefully mild suffering -
as to its source in thought."
"Where" is not literally a "locality"
although stating it in terms of "locality"
(such as "Internally" or "In the movement of thought
as a system") may, if heard as intended,
direct attention appropriately, even if it only[?]
succeeds in directing attention AWAY
from the analytical layer - even for
the barest moment...
pat
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:58:27 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 2 Nov 2006, at 16:24, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Maybe better than asking "What is the
point" is "Where is the point?"
Might not asking "what do you mean?" be even more helpful?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/737ec101/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 19:17:33 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 20:21:35 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061102.131738.2980.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Thankyou for going with this, don.
The "image" is implicit.
"The implicate just acts." It is a reflex. Automatic. All this stuff
about "images"
is a way of suggesting relevant, imaginable, parts of the sort of
"anatomical structuring" of the reflexive process. All we need is a
moment of [what is often seen in retrospect as an] irrational and/or
overblown reaction against something.
Firstly, one would need to be dissatisfied with such reflexive responses.
One would need to not want to spend an entire lifetime being driven
by a reflex popping out of seemingly nowhere (until rationalized
[layered over] that it popped directly, without passing GO,
without collecting $200.00, out of someone else's behavior,
[someone else's responsibility] ). (pat)
My own tendency would be, if someone told me i was a bad person, to feel
a certain amount of pain and to then wonder what I had done that was bad.
(don)
This's IT. That's the "Where." The point of "pain." That's "where"
to look for the so called "image" of "good person don."
It is within THAT PAIN (no matter how many other things
that can be construed from the fact of it) that is found
"the image" that AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT, is simultaneously
a conviction (experienced throughout the entire system, and blocking out
any and everything else, no matter how much else is taking place in that
moment),
that this "image of good person" (now rubbing painfully against this
image of "bad person") IS (in THAT moment) the totality of
[and sensed as, deeply endangered] reality.
Is it possible not to remember such moments?
But then, memory is only the entrance
to the "where" that the "point" can be seen.
This is what Bohm's "thought affecting
perception" (by way of feelings, chemistry, etc)
is about. It's about the "you done me wrong"
syndrome.
It's about how it's not "you" and it's not
"me" that is "doing me wrong."
It's about the ACTUAL source
[however "tiny" seeming] of the wars that never end, big ones,
little ones, old ones, new ones (although
"new" is a misnomer). (pat)
Do you see the difference that I see? One, your definition is directed to
an image that you have of yourself. But mine would be that I am accused
of something I didn't do. (don)
In order to see this in terms of image, take the "I" that is accused
and imagine it as an image - just to get a sense of what has been meant
by
"Image." "Concept" works as well for me - the concept of "innocent me."
(Which is not meant to say that I am not innocent - we are speaking
of thoughts here, concepts, images, symbols, that "just act"
from the implicit order. What is suggested is a possible means
of bringing these into the explicate order - where their
100% power to control my behavior and feelings,
is punctured. And to puncture is to deflate). (pat)
my self image doesn't arise, at least not consciously. (don)
Exactly! So why is this phenomenon called "self image?"
It is adequately (if not literally) descriptive for some.
We name these things after we isolate them
(or maybe simultaneously). But the (pre) description
may well not be literally adequate.
It is the PAIN though, that is a fairly
universally recognized "alert" flag.
(Although some of us resist pain so
fiercely or run so rapidly, that
even pain is not readily acknowledged).
And because I am ["imagine" myself as]
such a "word" person, "self/world concept"
can work better than "self/world image." (pat)
However, I do feel attacked, unjustly attacked. But, okay, so long as I
am not being physically attacked I must be reacting to some sort of
imaginary attack. But its not as simple as you make it. Or is it? (don)
The simplicity is utter in the seeing of it - but NEVER
in the language renderings of it. Except, perhaps, when the "poetic"
is tapped.
You have had the experience, I am sure, where there was
criticism of don and there was no kind of "blow of attack"
sensation? This need not be an isolated experience.
This is "WHERE" things get REALLY interesting.
This expansion of this possibility opens up an ENTIRELY*
new world. A "world" with its own 'set' of topics
never touched upon, never possible, in the "old"
world of continuous war potential.
*Although, paradoxically, ENTIRELY "every day."
pat
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:00:12 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
I am trying to go with this.
First, I am thinking of the kind thing that gives us: I am a doctor trust
me, Or I am a lawyer, therefore.....
But don't think we here are subject to that extreme. So what about a
being a good person. I can see that probably most of us have that as a
tacit assumption. I have read that even serial killers see themselves as
good people. My own tendency would be, if someone told me i was a bad
person, to feel a certain amount of pain and to then wonder what I had
done that was bad. Since accepting the attribution would remain
unthinkable. Rather what I would be reacting to would be a false
accusation, unless I knew that I had done something wrong. Do you see the
difference that I see? One, your definition is directed to an image that
you have of yourself. But mine would be that I am accused of something I
didn't do. It is the accusation that puts me on the defensive and the
idea of good and bad re: my self image doesn't arise, at least not
consciously. However, I do feel attacked, unjustly attacked. But, okay,
so long as I am not being physically attacked I must be reacting to some
sort of imaginary attack. But its not as simple as you make it. Or is it?
don
On 2 Nov 2006, at 15:19, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Let's see if we can clarify what is meant by "believed self image as
problematic, as being a significant (if not total) source of suffering."
Let's see if this can be done by giving one example out
of a thousand possibilities [as many possibilities as there are
"human characteristics" - each can come in a "believed in image" form.
Each can serve as an idol, bidding "worship".]
Let's say that one of the things I see myself as is "a good person."
Someone comes along and says "You are a bad person."
"Good person" refers to an image/idol of myself.
Upon hearing "bad person" meaning "me,"
the "good person" image/idol will reflexively
defend itself. There will be stress in
the system. It may manifest simply
as toxic chemistry or it may manifest
as outward anger or a crying spell,
or an argument or avoidance.
In reality, the totality of "what I am" is
neither a good person or a bad person or
a combination of both, or none of the above
or all of the above. I am not simply and completely
a "good person," as the image/idol that is being defended for
its [effective] absolute truth would clearly indicate.
Maybe I am Mother Theresa, still, the "good person"
image, when "acted and pretended" by the system, and
believed by 'me', to be the entirety of 'my' identity - in a given moment
(and that is the key point), will be a source of
[Mother Theresa's] suffering (in that moment of suffering).
So far so good? Let's take this slowly
because 'skipping stepping stones' makes for
a shaky foundation.
And words will not reveal what this is about
without attention being given in a moment of
suffering - hopefully mild suffering -
as to its source in thought.
pat
I suppose that what I was pointing at was that the difference between
self image and sense of self, is questionable.
Can I have a sense of self without some idea of what that means? Or what
it "is"?
If you ask, who am I? what would you answer. Would it be something like a
point of awareness that keeps shifting or
would it be that I am a person of a particular age, nationality, gender,
profession,etc. For most people it would be the
latter.
So a lot of it has to do with this notion of DonL's about acting and
pretending,
And what I am really getting at is that all this "acting and pretending"
is as much a part of the self as the crouching of a cat,
or the skittishness of a rabbit. These are also points of awareness.
But they are all about the self if not consciously as in humans then
reflexively, as in other creatures.
I suppose, too, that without these attributes we would each be less than
human and we would be denying our
place as parts of the whole.
But I hope that I am just flailing at straw men.
don
On 1 Nov 2006, at 12:45, Don Lay wrote:
sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
(I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here). Pat
Neither have I. Don L
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
It is correct to assume that this idea that there is something
wrong about a "sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
(I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here). Perhaps this is a
reference to someone off list but I would just say
that care with words, although being a good practice in general, is
crucial
in areas that are SO CLOSE to the "unspeakable," to areas that are beyond
words. The area of "self" is one such area.
A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image
of self.
Every [undamaged] manifestation of the whole has a
sense of self. Every [undamaged] body has a proprioceptive
sense of where it begins and ends. This [sense] has nothing to do with
thought. This has nothing [inherently] to do with images. This has
nothing
to do with time. (There is an immediacy in proprioception). This has
nothing to do with memory. This has nothing to do with language.
Defended and protected personal self image[s] however,
do have to do with thought, with time, with memory,
with language.
Why (metaphorically speaking) do people "bump into
each other?" Is this not the result of guidance by
'dismembered' images. Is this not a manifestation
of the clashing and crashing of images?
It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
could take place among actual parts of the whole
(which are "guided" by the whole).
pat
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:20:28 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it.
But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we can add
elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of self along with
all the great apes including humans nd bottle nosed dolphins. The way we
can tell is by putting a mark on their heads and then showing them how
their image in a big mirror. Most animals would react as if it were
another animal but elephants check out the mark with their trunks
wondering, no doubt, what idiot put it there.
don
On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a sense
of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.
What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation? Are
people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in sensing self
once establishment tells them to? _R
.
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
.
So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of consciousness,
at least according to Damasio who is one of the major
figures in neuroscience.
don
.
.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/81a7269d/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 20:01:48 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 3 21:04:15 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061102.131738.2980.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061102.131738.2980.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <D719B723-4BB8-4863-B129-98063E19C3F3@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 2 Nov 2006, at 18:17, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> You have had the experience, I am sure, where there was
> criticism of don and there was no kind of "blow of attack"
> sensation? This need not be an isolated experience.
Yes, kirsten served to get me very good at it. But I have to admit
that once she was gone
I felt a lightness, I felt free to say things here that I wouldn't
have wanted to say when she
was around because I could practically write her responses ahead of
time and I felt inhibited.
So, obviously I was having to protect something.
On the other hand, I have always felt that these feelings were useful
signals telling me whatever.
Usually useful,
But I don't know about fixed images in this context. My self image is
valuable but I would be
hard pressed to try and define it and I doubt that if I could it
would be the same tomorrow
as it is today.
don
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/b3b9df66/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Thu Nov 2 21:40:01 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Fri Nov 3 22:42:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
References: <20061102.112823.2980.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <454A57A1.000003.02196@VAIO-584793128F>
Pat:
>Do I notice any human violence for which
>Suffering [pain plus resistance] is not the source?
Don Factor:
>...suffering doesn't necessarily mean something painful.
>It can mean patience as in "suffer the little children". A
>compassionate person for instance is usually a patient
>person.
As far as I know, 'patience' is derived from the same root as 'passion' and
pathos'. It is the Latin equivalent to 'let'. I think it was probably
supposed to mean something like; let it be, let it go. To me, it conveys a
sense of allowing, accepting, letting, suffering. This would be in contrast
to resisting or reacting or fighting. Hence, passion could be thought of as
a form of non-reaction, non-resistance, or (in Bohmian jargon) 'suspension'.
Such passion or suspension goes somewhat against the grain and therefore
requires a very high degree of attention, and awareness. Once could almost
say that letting (suffering in this sense of passion) is a form of art, or
skill at least.
But if resistance is the source of human violence then passion could perhaps
dry that source.
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/99442af8/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 21:45:45 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 22:48:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <454A57A1.000003.02196@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F6A11916327C712C332B39A5FF0@phx.gbl>
K: is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek", or
don't defend yourself is desirable? k
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:40:01 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>Pat:
> >Do I notice any human violence for which
> >Suffering [pain plus resistance] is not the source?
>
>Don Factor:
> >...suffering doesn't necessarily mean something painful.
> >It can mean patience as in "suffer the little children". A
> >compassionate person for instance is usually a patient
> >person.
>
>
>As far as I know, 'patience' is derived from the same root as 'passion' and
>pathos'. It is the Latin equivalent to 'let'. I think it was probably
>supposed to mean something like; let it be, let it go. To me, it conveys a
>sense of allowing, accepting, letting, suffering. This would be in contrast
>to resisting or reacting or fighting. Hence, passion could be thought of as
>a form of non-reaction, non-resistance, or (in Bohmian jargon)
>'suspension'.
>
>Such passion or suspension goes somewhat against the grain and therefore
>requires a very high degree of attention, and awareness. Once could almost
>say that letting (suffering in this sense of passion) is a form of art, or
>skill at least.
>But if resistance is the source of human violence then passion could
>perhaps
>dry that source.
>
>william
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 21:45:44 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 3 22:48:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061026.113548.692.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<01ef01c6fe15$65701390$9e5f153f@DL01>
<9BD7A3D9-407B-4BFC-9653-CB7B1A3EB74B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005901c6fe82$80b6e030$7b79153f@DL01>
<36F7067A-E83F-42A9-8F80-10D708EDF5B1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00a601c6fe9a$77965f40$7b79153f@DL01>
<DEDC1C29-6444-4C38-B206-C7BDA5FDE817@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <008f01c6febf$e953cdf0$de72153f@DL01>
I give you a B+ at acting and pretending importance for having a few drinks with someone famous. Ten to one you bought the whiskey to pay for grandiose feels. dl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
re you suggesting the classical description adequately describes experience? That's laughable.
And yes. Laugh away because there exists no quantum language with which to describe it.
I'm afraid tha the best I can give you here is a C-
professor don.
ps. this is also a dig at all of our use of authority to justify our statements. That may be okay for lawyers or academics but we are here presumably to use our own intelligence
On 2 Nov 2006, at 16:17, Don Lay wrote:
From: Don Factor
This is one of the problems with quoting people without some knowledge of the context in which the statement was made. [dbl: This is insulting, you clown! And you see my immediate response for which, I apologize. ] Back in the early fifties that statement meant something quite different from what it would have meant later years after he developed his ideas about orders and especially the implicate order. You might though want to read the whole paragraph [dbl: Further insulting! You clown. Please be advised that henceforth, I will insult back. {How childish!} ] (22) on the page you quoted which goes on to say that the whole process he is describing can be more conveniently described using classical theory alone. [dbl: Yes. Are you suggesting the classical description adequately describes experience? That's laughable. ] Also, the book you quote was written by him in an attempt to overcome his own dissatisfaction with the standard interpretation. So he, as carefully as he could, used Bohr interpretation as his basis so as to make certain that he understood it well enough to test the validity of his own dissatisfactions. After writing it he still was dissatisfied and this is what motivated all his later work. Actually you might also refer to the first paragraph in Chapter 23 of the same book (page 624) where he begins to get into his own views
Anyway, in those days, the last analysis was one where the quantum world was made up only of possibilities. You could predict the odds of a particle appearing at a given point at a given time, that was it. There was nothing more that you could say so it would hardly have been possible to attribute "what is" to that. [dbl: OK. ] All you [dbl: Sad! ] had were the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave described mathematically. In the standard interpretation also known as the Copenhagen interpretation, the whole of everything is described by what is called the wave function. This was supposed to represent all possibilities but it is said to collapse at the point of any observation. In the real world it would have to be collapsing constantly. That's where these notions of the world splitting apart come from. And such ideas were considered so far fetched that Bohr persuaded everyone that it would be meaningless to attribute an ontological basis to any of it.
don
You might enjoy reading David Peat's biography of Bohm.
On 2 Nov 2006, at 13:25, Don Lay wrote:
First, Bohm never declared that the quantum world is what actually is. df
I believe he do. "In the last analysis all processes are, of course, quantum-mechanical in nature ..." Quantum Theory, p165, 1952. dl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/a10507d8/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Thu Nov 2 22:16:19 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Fri Nov 3 23:18:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
References: <BAY22-F6A11916327C712C332B39A5FF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <454A6023.00000D.02196@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Morgan Jett
>is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek",
>or Don't defend yourself is desirable?
I generally don't like answering questions, but if you say what you think
then we maybe can go into it together.
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/277fa516/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 22:05:35 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 23:39:00 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061102.163549.2980.21.ae.dropper@juno.com>
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 19:01:48 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 2 Nov 2006, at 18:17, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
You have had the experience, I am sure, where there was
criticism of don and there was no kind of "blow of attack"
sensation? This need not be an isolated experience.
Yes, kirsten served to get me very good at it. But I have to admit that
once she was gone
I felt a lightness, I felt free to say things here that I wouldn't have
wanted to say when she
was around because I could practically write her responses ahead of time
and I felt inhibited.
So, obviously I was having to protect something.
On the other hand, I have always felt that these feelings were useful
signals telling me whatever.
Usually useful,
But I don't know about fixed images in this context. My self image is
valuable but I would be
hard pressed to try and define it and I doubt that if I could it would be
the same tomorrow
as it is today.
don
That is why the MOMENT of the defensive reflex in highlighted. That is
why the MOMENT of the pain is emphasized. The 'fixity' does not "take
place" or "reveal itself" in any other way [than "downstream" of the
implicit thought].. The "fixity" the "Identity" or the "Identification"
does not even "exist" (as in Don Lay's usage of the term - as in
"standing out") except in the MOMENT of an attachment to the defensive
emotion with all of its chemistry and systemic involvement, usually
including some kind of action based on the perceptual aspects of the
system. This stuff is implicit. So it's like 'getting a hold of a tip of
a thread' metaphorically speaking, as a way to begin an unravelling,
unfolding, explicating, of a process that can now appear as quite
concrete; palpable, non mysterious.
An we are not trying to get the "pain" or discomfort to stop (although it
might do that too). We are trying to get the discomfort to trigger
suspension rather than action that might be regretted. And within
"suspension" newness is revealed.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/48fd5853/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 2 22:17:26 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 3 23:39:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
Message-ID: <20061102.163549.2980.22.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Pat:
>Do I notice any human violence for which
>Suffering [pain plus resistance] is not the source?
Don Factor:
>...suffering doesn't necessarily mean something painful.
>It can mean patience as in "suffer the little children". A
>compassionate person for instance is usually a patient
>person.
As far as I know, 'patience' is derived from the same root as 'passion'
and 'pathos'. It is the Latin equivalent to 'let'. I think it was
probably supposed to mean something like; let it be, let it go. To me, it
conveys a sense of allowing, accepting, letting, suffering. This would be
in contrast to resisting or reacting or fighting. Hence, passion could be
thought of as a form of non-reaction, non-resistance, or (in Bohmian
jargon) 'suspension'.
Such passion or suspension goes somewhat against the grain and therefore
requires a very high degree of attention, and awareness. Once could
almost say that letting (suffering in this sense of passion) is a form of
art, or skill at least.
But if resistance is the source of human violence then passion could
perhaps dry that source.
william
Beautiful paradox. "Suffering" as both source [of violence] AND solution.
Two "kinds" of "suffering" appear - that AS resistance (to pain) and that
AS nonresistance. (Reminiscent of the two "kinds" of Passion. Passion
with an aggressive quality and Passion as the opposite of Action).
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/a2b6e806/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:55:17 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 3 23:57:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <454A6023.00000D.02196@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2177D2A05A353714CFFF23A5FF0@phx.gbl>
My rationale for asking a question is that it is better to ask what someone
means than to jump to conclusions. Let me try to rephrase, which is
difficult because i don't know why you dislike answering questions, and
can't ask if I am to show you courtesy by respecting your preferences.
Anyway, let me give it a try your way.
In the turn our dialog on compassion has taken, there could be an underlying
cultural assumption that "turn the other cheek" as in don't defend
yourself, is desirable in order to avoid suffering. This has often been a
point for debate particularly among clerics and congregations. My pov is
that "one size fits all" thinking doesn't work. Since I am well aware that
my understanding of the last couple of posts may be flawed, I invite you to
clarify my understanding of what has been said, if need be, and add any
other associations the topic stimulates. Including if or whether you
disagree with my question asking rationale, and why. I'll be delighted to
respond to the best of my ability.
Your reply spurred me to "find another way", which is good. Trying to word
it clearly and accurately wasn't easy. best, k
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:16:19 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>From: Morgan Jett
> >is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek",
> >or Don't defend yourself is desirable?
>
>
>I generally don't like answering questions, but if you say what you think
>then we maybe can go into it together.
>
>william
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 2 23:59:06 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Nov 4 01:01:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F6A11916327C712C332B39A5FF0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F6A11916327C712C332B39A5FF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <A0DB5849-83D7-4D44-9F4F-F26BFD942A3A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 2 Nov 2006, at 20:45, Morgan Jett wrote:
> K: is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other
> cheek", or don't defend yourself is desirable? k
interesting question. I don't know.
don