From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Mon Dec  3 00:26:30 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec  3 00:29:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
References: <975807.61044.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com><022501c83487$a8c41070$b5c16018@DL01><005301c834ee$edba00b0$b5c16018@DL01><002f01c83509$2b8fa0b0$db76480c@HOME>
	<00a701c83530$fb442a70$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <008001c8353a$c8a65b60$db76480c@HOME>

I would say that consciousness (of experience) is beingness whether subtle/implicate or manifest/explicate.  Which brings us to Bohm's idea that meaning is being.  I don't think it's important to think about what is going on in there without a self.  I think it's important to think about the idea of self in new ways including the one that the image of self is self created and can be changed by the self.  Or, you might say that the image of the self is the map and not the territory.  And to learn to have a greater understanding of value and how we assign it particularly in relationship to the self and the self image.

Susan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Don Lay 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 3:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


  The important part of what he is saying here has to do with how we have been taught to think about and so create feelings of value to my way of thinking. -- Susan

  I believe I see your view, but it seems Bohm is saying we have been taught to think and act as if the personal self is primary, i.e., prior to the processes that comprise the biological entity.  

  I believe Bohm presents the idea that the subtle is the primary actuality rather than the "reality" of the social, personal identity.  I believe he says in Dialogue that there ought to be a way to think of what's going on "in there without bringing in a self".  

  Maybe it is possible to think of consciousness as a medium ... maybe like the implicate in which the explicate is displayed.  -- dl




  From: Susan Clemons 
    To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
    Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:31 PM
    Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


    Hmmmm.......so I think we are getting down to the nitty gritty here dl.  This seems to be the basis for where you are getting your ideas of the SOS.  I would use different language to talk about this so lets see if I can put it into my own language first and then talk about imagination and how I think about the role of imagination in all of this.

    Bohm:  "I cannot see myself, except in image, and that image will have limits, and seeing my self in time, as becoming, makes me project two images, that which I am, and that which I intend to become." 

    I would say that what Bohm is describing here is one way that the imagination can be used, but not the only way.  He also uses the term "makes me" which I think is an error.  

    Bohm:  "So the subject projects a subject and an object. How is this done? This is done by way of thought, which makes images, images that esteem themselves and are vulnerable to loss of esteem." 

    My understanding is that Bohm used the word thought to represent what I would call our unconscious processes and the word thinking to represent what I would call our conscious processes.  The important part of what he is saying here has to do with how we have been taught to think about and so create feelings of value to my way of thinking.  If we have learned to assign value to objects that are outside of us rather than to the quality of our own experience, then we may do just what Bohm describes and simply see ourselves as an object and try to assign value according to the way we assign value to other objects.  This does indeed create an SOS.  And this way of assigning value seems to be what Bohm is referring to as "esteeming ourselves".   This is a market place type of value where objects are traded on the open market and the value is determined by what the group has determined is most popular for possession.  This gives the market place the power to assign value to the individual and strips the individual of the power to create value from the satisfaction and fulfillment that comes from their own experience.

    There are many other ways to use our imagination than to simply create an image and allow the market place to assign value to it.  We can also use our imagination to  step into that image and feel what it is like to have the experience we are imagining right now.  This latter is a playful way to use the imagination for experimenting with change and try out new experiences to see what kind of choices we want to make for ourselves. We create choices from this based on the amount of satisfaction and fulfillment we get from the type of experience we are allowing ourselves to create.  Time is then used as a way to compare the quality of what we are experiencing in our imagination with the quality we have experienced in our memories of the past.  The comparison is then with our own experience rather than with the value we imagine others to be assigning to us. And our choices can then become a form of personal and social growth and development.  

    Bohm's ideas of thought seems to refer to the way we have made the market place mentality of assigning value to objects a "reality" and so think this is all there is to be experienced in terms of value.  It then becomes a mechanical way of assigning value to ourselves and happens unconsciously and automatically.  If the SOS is the only way we believe we have for experiencing value then we will automatically choose that value.  Maturana has shown that all consciousness seeks value fulfillment.  Becoming conscious  of this and learning to consciously step back into the picture and place the value on the quality of our own experience reverses the process.  At the same time it puts conscious experience of feelings back into the process.  What we and those around us feel become immediate and known as well as immediately knowing the source of our feelings.  

    I would also say that language plays a huge role in all of this.  The way we define and use words is what triggers and organizes our thoughts and so directs our imagination. Nouns create an image/object and put it at a distance and can trigger our market place mentality.  Verbs are words that can trigger us to step into the picture and have an immediate experience of what we are imagining.  

    The key is learning to become conscious of our imagination and the significance it plays in our lives.  My experience has been that imagination is central to creativity and change.  But using it without consciousness can lead to stagnation and can be the source of conflict and what Bohm liked to call pollution.  

    Well, that's an attempt to put my thinking about this into words dl.  

    Susan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071202/dca47faf/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Mon Dec  3 00:29:18 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec  3 00:32:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
References: <975807.61044.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com><022501c83487$a8c41070$b5c16018@DL01><005301c834ee$edba00b0$b5c16018@DL01><002f01c83509$2b8fa0b0$db76480c@HOME>
	<00a701c83530$fb442a70$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <008a01c8353b$297d01a0$db76480c@HOME>

Although I agree with you that Bohm is saying the subtle implicate is primary (the source) and this is also highly important.  If the implicate is the source it changes the relationship of self to manifest reality and the nature of what manifest reality is.  But I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it from a different direction than you do.

Susan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Don Lay 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 3:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


  The important part of what he is saying here has to do with how we have been taught to think about and so create feelings of value to my way of thinking. -- Susan

  I believe I see your view, but it seems Bohm is saying we have been taught to think and act as if the personal self is primary, i.e., prior to the processes that comprise the biological entity.  

  I believe Bohm presents the idea that the subtle is the primary actuality rather than the "reality" of the social, personal identity.  I believe he says in Dialogue that there ought to be a way to think of what's going on "in there without bringing in a self".  

  Maybe it is possible to think of consciousness as a medium ... maybe like the implicate in which the explicate is displayed.  -- dl




  From: Susan Clemons 
    To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
    Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:31 PM
    Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


    Hmmmm.......so I think we are getting down to the nitty gritty here dl.  This seems to be the basis for where you are getting your ideas of the SOS.  I would use different language to talk about this so lets see if I can put it into my own language first and then talk about imagination and how I think about the role of imagination in all of this.

    Bohm:  "I cannot see myself, except in image, and that image will have limits, and seeing my self in time, as becoming, makes me project two images, that which I am, and that which I intend to become." 

    I would say that what Bohm is describing here is one way that the imagination can be used, but not the only way.  He also uses the term "makes me" which I think is an error.  

    Bohm:  "So the subject projects a subject and an object. How is this done? This is done by way of thought, which makes images, images that esteem themselves and are vulnerable to loss of esteem." 

    My understanding is that Bohm used the word thought to represent what I would call our unconscious processes and the word thinking to represent what I would call our conscious processes.  The important part of what he is saying here has to do with how we have been taught to think about and so create feelings of value to my way of thinking.  If we have learned to assign value to objects that are outside of us rather than to the quality of our own experience, then we may do just what Bohm describes and simply see ourselves as an object and try to assign value according to the way we assign value to other objects.  This does indeed create an SOS.  And this way of assigning value seems to be what Bohm is referring to as "esteeming ourselves".   This is a market place type of value where objects are traded on the open market and the value is determined by what the group has determined is most popular for possession.  This gives the market place the power to assign value to the individual and strips the individual of the power to create value from the satisfaction and fulfillment that comes from their own experience.

    There are many other ways to use our imagination than to simply create an image and allow the market place to assign value to it.  We can also use our imagination to  step into that image and feel what it is like to have the experience we are imagining right now.  This latter is a playful way to use the imagination for experimenting with change and try out new experiences to see what kind of choices we want to make for ourselves. We create choices from this based on the amount of satisfaction and fulfillment we get from the type of experience we are allowing ourselves to create.  Time is then used as a way to compare the quality of what we are experiencing in our imagination with the quality we have experienced in our memories of the past.  The comparison is then with our own experience rather than with the value we imagine others to be assigning to us. And our choices can then become a form of personal and social growth and development.  

    Bohm's ideas of thought seems to refer to the way we have made the market place mentality of assigning value to objects a "reality" and so think this is all there is to be experienced in terms of value.  It then becomes a mechanical way of assigning value to ourselves and happens unconsciously and automatically.  If the SOS is the only way we believe we have for experiencing value then we will automatically choose that value.  Maturana has shown that all consciousness seeks value fulfillment.  Becoming conscious  of this and learning to consciously step back into the picture and place the value on the quality of our own experience reverses the process.  At the same time it puts conscious experience of feelings back into the process.  What we and those around us feel become immediate and known as well as immediately knowing the source of our feelings.  

    I would also say that language plays a huge role in all of this.  The way we define and use words is what triggers and organizes our thoughts and so directs our imagination. Nouns create an image/object and put it at a distance and can trigger our market place mentality.  Verbs are words that can trigger us to step into the picture and have an immediate experience of what we are imagining.  

    The key is learning to become conscious of our imagination and the significance it plays in our lives.  My experience has been that imagination is central to creativity and change.  But using it without consciousness can lead to stagnation and can be the source of conflict and what Bohm liked to call pollution.  

    Well, that's an attempt to put my thinking about this into words dl.  

    Susan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071202/068039cd/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Mon Dec  3 00:45:58 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec  3 00:48:56 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <C376D6FB.F591%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
References: <C376D6FB.F591%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <06470609-384F-4C66-B497-CEA088958BDC@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

Listen, if you can't do it yourself, we are here to do it for you.

don

On Dec 1, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Lyn wrote:

> I simply read objections as not wanting to go there (being the  
> suspension of the assumptions).  That seems to me quite accurate,  
> at least when the assumptions are mine (I have no problem with  
> other people?s assumptions being suspended, all in favor).   
> Suspending my assumptions can be hard, sometimes painful, and I  
> just don?t want to do it (and it may not even get that far ? I can  
> balk at even taking certain of my  truths to be ?assumptions? ).   
> And I think this is a universal, human response.  I do know that  
> when I do this, my life can get a whole lot easier, even more fun!  
> (no pun intended, Pat ? I think.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071202/6f2d8474/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com  Mon Dec  3 00:51:04 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec  3 00:54:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] disguises and masquerades and imaginary
	existences and personal identities
In-Reply-To: <20071201.122601.2428.103.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071201.122601.2428.103.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <419EBF01-DD96-4942-ADA6-80661D677562@dc.rr.com>

Well, you can see why those guys chose to become philosophers/

X

On Dec 1, 2007, at 9:10 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:

> Maybe what is needed is the awareness that self, itself, may be  
> necessity but personal identity itself  is not necessity (as per  
> Bohm).  -- dl
>
> "We do not content ourselves with the life we have in ourselves and  
> in our own being; we desire to live an imaginary life in the mind  
> of others, and for this purpose we desire to shine. We labour  
> unceasingly to adorn and preserve this imaginary existence, and  
> neglect the real. And if we possess calmness or generosity or  
> truthfulness, we are eager to make them known so as to attach these  
> virtues to
> that imaginary existence."  (Pascal)
>
> "Finally, the mind of man is so constructed that it is taken far  
> more with disguises than with realities." (Erasmus)
>
> "It is very necessary that a man should be appraised early in life  
> that it is a masquerade in which he finds himself, for otherwise,  
> there are many things which he will fail to  
> understand." (Schopenhauer)
>
> --  funny
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

From donlay at knology.net  Mon Dec  3 00:59:31 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec  3 01:02:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
References: <975807.61044.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com><022501c83487$a8c41070$b5c16018@DL01><005301c834ee$edba00b0$b5c16018@DL01><002f01c83509$2b8fa0b0$db76480c@HOME><00a701c83530$fb442a70$b5c16018@DL01>
	<008a01c8353b$297d01a0$db76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <00e201c8353f$61bac120$b5c16018@DL01>

But I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it from a different direction than you do.  -- Susan

I'm trying to get clear about Bohm's view of reason and meaning.  Seems to me he's giving attention to the ancient notion reason and meaning as the order and structure of the universe which was personalized by Rome.  

DB says the basic intelligence does not have to be personalized and called god.  This view seems most coherent ... maybe because it does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning. -- dl


  From: Susan Clemons 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 6:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


  Although I agree with you that Bohm is saying the subtle implicate is primary (the source) and this is also highly important.  If the implicate is the source it changes the relationship of self to manifest reality and the nature of what manifest reality is.  But I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it from a different direction than you do.

  Susan

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Don Lay 
    To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
    Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 3:16 PM
    Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


    The important part of what he is saying here has to do with how we have been taught to think about and so create feelings of value to my way of thinking. -- Susan

    I believe I see your view, but it seems Bohm is saying we have been taught to think and act as if the personal self is primary, i.e., prior to the processes that comprise the biological entity.  

    I believe Bohm presents the idea that the subtle is the primary actuality rather than the "reality" of the social, personal identity.  I believe he says in Dialogue that there ought to be a way to think of what's going on "in there without bringing in a self".  

    Maybe it is possible to think of consciousness as a medium ... maybe like the implicate in which the explicate is displayed.  -- dl




    From: Susan Clemons 
      To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
      Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:31 PM
      Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


      Hmmmm.......so I think we are getting down to the nitty gritty here dl.  This seems to be the basis for where you are getting your ideas of the SOS.  I would use different language to talk about this so lets see if I can put it into my own language first and then talk about imagination and how I think about the role of imagination in all of this.

      Bohm:  "I cannot see myself, except in image, and that image will have limits, and seeing my self in time, as becoming, makes me project two images, that which I am, and that which I intend to become." 

      I would say that what Bohm is describing here is one way that the imagination can be used, but not the only way.  He also uses the term "makes me" which I think is an error.  

      Bohm:  "So the subject projects a subject and an object. How is this done? This is done by way of thought, which makes images, images that esteem themselves and are vulnerable to loss of esteem." 

      My understanding is that Bohm used the word thought to represent what I would call our unconscious processes and the word thinking to represent what I would call our conscious processes.  The important part of what he is saying here has to do with how we have been taught to think about and so create feelings of value to my way of thinking.  If we have learned to assign value to objects that are outside of us rather than to the quality of our own experience, then we may do just what Bohm describes and simply see ourselves as an object and try to assign value according to the way we assign value to other objects.  This does indeed create an SOS.  And this way of assigning value seems to be what Bohm is referring to as "esteeming ourselves".   This is a market place type of value where objects are traded on the open market and the value is determined by what the group has determined is most popular for possession.  This gives the market place the power to assign value to the individual and strips the individual of the power to create value from the satisfaction and fulfillment that comes from their own experience.

      There are many other ways to use our imagination than to simply create an image and allow the market place to assign value to it.  We can also use our imagination to  step into that image and feel what it is like to have the experience we are imagining right now.  This latter is a playful way to use the imagination for experimenting with change and try out new experiences to see what kind of choices we want to make for ourselves. We create choices from this based on the amount of satisfaction and fulfillment we get from the type of experience we are allowing ourselves to create.  Time is then used as a way to compare the quality of what we are experiencing in our imagination with the quality we have experienced in our memories of the past.  The comparison is then with our own experience rather than with the value we imagine others to be assigning to us. And our choices can then become a form of personal and social growth and development.  

      Bohm's ideas of thought seems to refer to the way we have made the market place mentality of assigning value to objects a "reality" and so think this is all there is to be experienced in terms of value.  It then becomes a mechanical way of assigning value to ourselves and happens unconsciously and automatically.  If the SOS is the only way we believe we have for experiencing value then we will automatically choose that value.  Maturana has shown that all consciousness seeks value fulfillment.  Becoming conscious  of this and learning to consciously step back into the picture and place the value on the quality of our own experience reverses the process.  At the same time it puts conscious experience of feelings back into the process.  What we and those around us feel become immediate and known as well as immediately knowing the source of our feelings.  

      I would also say that language plays a huge role in all of this.  The way we define and use words is what triggers and organizes our thoughts and so directs our imagination. Nouns create an image/object and put it at a distance and can trigger our market place mentality.  Verbs are words that can trigger us to step into the picture and have an immediate experience of what we are imagining.  

      The key is learning to become conscious of our imagination and the significance it plays in our lives.  My experience has been that imagination is central to creativity and change.  But using it without consciousness can lead to stagnation and can be the source of conflict and what Bohm liked to call pollution.  

      Well, that's an attempt to put my thinking about this into words dl.  

      Susan




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



  info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071202/7e0396bd/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net  Mon Dec  3 01:02:19 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec  3 01:05:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <349400.64002.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00f801c8353f$c5cf2d40$b5c16018@DL01>

As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. -- AL

It's based on very little information about De Mare, maybe also based on fishing for info instead of searching for it.  It's nice to get a little heads up about someone.  -- dl


  From: Alfred Landman 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


  Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey.  As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL


  Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
    Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?

    What was the attraction for Bohm?   -- dl



      From: Alfred Landman 
      To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
      Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
      Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


      Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL

      Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: 
        Hi Al.  Welcome.

        Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?  

        Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.  

        Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.  

        What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought?  -- dl



          From: Alfred Landman 
          To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
          Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
          Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


          Hi fellow listserv-members -
          I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you. 
          AL

          Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
            What horseshit!


              From: william 
              To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
              Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
              Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


                    >I:  I truly, truly hope you are right.  I am glad that you escaped the trap.  
                    >Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them.  Then what?


                    Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...


                   
                           
                   


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


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


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




----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. 

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


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


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




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 

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


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


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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 


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



  info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071202/0907ca55/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Mon Dec  3 01:12:08 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec  3 01:15:06 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <20071201.122601.2428.108.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071201.122601.2428.108.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <5F5190A2-9B82-429B-A1A5-2F61C1687C78@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

In an interview Richard Gere quotes Gertrude Stein's 1936 essay on  
why there are so few masterpieces. ' She says, "Everybody has their  
little dog telling them who they are." And thats what we do. We've  
constructed lives where you have an idea of who you are, even as a  
creative artist.  And within that its impossible to create something  
new. The illusion may be that you're creating, but no, you're just  
regurgitating the known, and I think that's a process for any artist,  
to clean out that little dog telling us who we are all the time'.

don

On Dec 1, 2007, at 9:24 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:

> We all experience our selves as our selves. We all share this.
> The questions that come up here are about the wording of the nature
> of that experience. In general it is a question about the wording
> of the nature of "experience"  itself.  --  funny
>
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:08:10 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)  
> "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
> >"I am not an illusion or a delusion, on the contrary; I am the  
> proof." How could it
> >be otherwise?  Sometimes I fake--but I am still the one that  
> fakes.  And I know I
> >fake.  Sometimes I don't tell the truth but it is I that is not  
> telling the truth.  When I
> >realize I'm "Talking as a System" not only is it I talking but it  
> is I who know I'm talking.
> >I am real. I exist.  I can touch myself.  I can hear myself.  Is  
> that an illusion? D
>
> No, i don't think it's an illusion. But don't forget, illusions are  
> real things also. Illusions can be important. They have a very  
> important role. Just as a lie can save your life (under certain  
> extreme circumstances) so also illusions can save your life.  
> Hallucinations can be life-saving devices. Things don't always have  
> to be true or real. For instance, my Dutch step-father survived a  
> german concentration camp by means of hallucinations. By the end of  
> the war (WWII) the concentration camps were no longer receiving  
> food supplies and consequently the prisoners were not getting any  
> food anymore. My (step)father only talked to me about it one single  
> time in his life; he said "I wasn't feeling hungry, I could smell  
> food, I could taste it, I could see it,  and I lived on it". When  
> the Americans finally came, the Germans guards opened the prison  
> cells before they fled, but by that time the prisoners were to weak  
> to carry their own body weight; they could even crawl out through  
> that open door. He was one of those "living skeletons" you may have  
> seen in the pictures. They weren't always Jews as they sometimes  
> seem to make you want to believe.
> After the war, my father got a job as a prison guard. The medieval  
> castle of Hoensbroek was temporarily turned into an internment  
> camp. He was in charge of the prison camp that kept socalled  
> "collaborators". Those collaborators were Dutch people who had  
> sympathized with the Germans and obeyed orders from the authorities  
> installed by the Germans. After the war they were arrrested and put  
> into this castle. Anyway, every evening my father (being  
> responsbile for the well-being of those prisoners)  would  
> personally make the rounds to ensure that have had enough to eat.  
> This had become his obsession; to have something to eat. He  
> continued doing this until he eventually got fired on suspiscion  
> that he was sympatizing with the collaborators.
> I didn't mean to expand on this too much, but it goes to show that  
> there is more to reality than you might think: Hallucinations and  
> illusions are part of it. Objectivity is simply too limited.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071202/b99f734c/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Mon Dec  3 01:15:41 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec  3 01:18:41 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
References: <975807.61044.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com><022501c83487$a8c41070$b5c16018@DL01><005301c834ee$edba00b0$b5c16018@DL01><002f01c83509$2b8fa0b0$db76480c@HOME><00a701c83530$fb442a70$b5c16018@DL01><008a01c8353b$297d01a0$db76480c@HOME>
	<00e201c8353f$61bac120$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <00aa01c83541$a4931c70$db76480c@HOME>

DB says the basic intelligence does not have to be personalized and called god.  This view seems most coherent ... maybe because it does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning. -- dl

Although I would not call it "intelligence" I see the direction you are going with this and I would agree.  I would say it something more like we have learned to think of the implicate order (all that is) as an image that is outside of us and call it god which then puts power "out there" into the image.  As you say, this is not only unnecessary but creates unnecessary conflict and confusion.  

Susan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Don Lay 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 4:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


  But I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it from a different direction than you do.  -- Susan

  I'm trying to get clear about Bohm's view of reason and meaning.  Seems to me he's giving attention to the ancient notion reason and meaning as the order and structure of the universe which was personalized by Rome.  

  DB says the basic intelligence does not have to be personalized and called god.  This view seems most coherent ... maybe because it does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning. -- dl


    From: Susan Clemons 
    To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
    Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 6:29 PM
    Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


    Although I agree with you that Bohm is saying the subtle implicate is primary (the source) and this is also highly important.  If the implicate is the source it changes the relationship of self to manifest reality and the nature of what manifest reality is.  But I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it from a different direction than you do.

    Susan

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Don Lay 
      To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
      Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 3:16 PM
      Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


      The important part of what he is saying here has to do with how we have been taught to think about and so create feelings of value to my way of thinking. -- Susan

      I believe I see your view, but it seems Bohm is saying we have been taught to think and act as if the personal self is primary, i.e., prior to the processes that comprise the biological entity.  

      I believe Bohm presents the idea that the subtle is the primary actuality rather than the "reality" of the social, personal identity.  I believe he says in Dialogue that there ought to be a way to think of what's going on "in there without bringing in a self".  

      Maybe it is possible to think of consciousness as a medium ... maybe like the implicate in which the explicate is displayed.  -- dl




      From: Susan Clemons 
        To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
        Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:31 PM
        Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


        Hmmmm.......so I think we are getting down to the nitty gritty here dl.  This seems to be the basis for where you are getting your ideas of the SOS.  I would use different language to talk about this so lets see if I can put it into my own language first and then talk about imagination and how I think about the role of imagination in all of this.

        Bohm:  "I cannot see myself, except in image, and that image will have limits, and seeing my self in time, as becoming, makes me project two images, that which I am, and that which I intend to become." 

        I would say that what Bohm is describing here is one way that the imagination can be used, but not the only way.  He also uses the term "makes me" which I think is an error.  

        Bohm:  "So the subject projects a subject and an object. How is this done? This is done by way of thought, which makes images, images that esteem themselves and are vulnerable to loss of esteem." 

        My understanding is that Bohm used the word thought to represent what I would call our unconscious processes and the word thinking to represent what I would call our conscious processes.  The important part of what he is saying here has to do with how we have been taught to think about and so create feelings of value to my way of thinking.  If we have learned to assign value to objects that are outside of us rather than to the quality of our own experience, then we may do just what Bohm describes and simply see ourselves as an object and try to assign value according to the way we assign value to other objects.  This does indeed create an SOS.  And this way of assigning value seems to be what Bohm is referring to as "esteeming ourselves".   This is a market place type of value where objects are traded on the open market and the value is determined by what the group has determined is most popular for possession.  This gives the market place the power to assign value to the individual and strips the individual of the power to create value from the satisfaction and fulfillment that comes from their own experience.

        There are many other ways to use our imagination than to simply create an image and allow the market place to assign value to it.  We can also use our imagination to  step into that image and feel what it is like to have the experience we are imagining right now.  This latter is a playful way to use the imagination for experimenting with change and try out new experiences to see what kind of choices we want to make for ourselves. We create choices from this based on the amount of satisfaction and fulfillment we get from the type of experience we are allowing ourselves to create.  Time is then used as a way to compare the quality of what we are experiencing in our imagination with the quality we have experienced in our memories of the past.  The comparison is then with our own experience rather than with the value we imagine others to be assigning to us. And our choices can then become a form of personal and social growth and development.  

        Bohm's ideas of thought seems to refer to the way we have made the market place mentality of assigning value to objects a "reality" and so think this is all there is to be experienced in terms of value.  It then becomes a mechanical way of assigning value to ourselves and happens unconsciously and automatically.  If the SOS is the only way we believe we have for experiencing value then we will automatically choose that value.  Maturana has shown that all consciousness seeks value fulfillment.  Becoming conscious  of this and learning to consciously step back into the picture and place the value on the quality of our own experience reverses the process.  At the same time it puts conscious experience of feelings back into the process.  What we and those around us feel become immediate and known as well as immediately knowing the source of our feelings.  

        I would also say that language plays a huge role in all of this.  The way we define and use words is what triggers and organizes our thoughts and so directs our imagination. Nouns create an image/object and put it at a distance and can trigger our market place mentality.  Verbs are words that can trigger us to step into the picture and have an immediate experience of what we are imagining.  

        The key is learning to become conscious of our imagination and the significance it plays in our lives.  My experience has been that imagination is central to creativity and change.  But using it without consciousness can lead to stagnation and can be the source of conflict and what Bohm liked to call pollution.  

        Well, that's an attempt to put my thinking about this into words dl.  

        Susan




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



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



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



  info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071202/6dbf445f/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com  Mon Dec  3 01:40:57 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec  3 01:43:54 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
In-Reply-To: <00aa01c83541$a4931c70$db76480c@HOME>
References: <975807.61044.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com><022501c83487$a8c41070$b5c16018@DL01><005301c834ee$edba00b0$b5c16018@DL01><002f01c83509$2b8fa0b0$db76480c@HOME><00a701c83530$fb442a70$b5c16018@DL01><008a01c8353b$297d01a0$db76480c@HOME>
	<00e201c8353f$61bac120$b5c16018@DL01>
	<00aa01c83541$a4931c70$db76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <8BBDC304-9F19-42CB-BDB7-538512A32F79@dc.rr.com>

If that's what it means, I agree whole heartedly. Although, I wish  
god didn't keep trying to get in on the act. I mean, I never called  
it god.

don

On Dec 2, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:

> DB says the basic intelligence does not have to be personalized and  
> called god.  This view seems most coherent ... maybe because it  
> does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning. -- dl
>
> Although I would not call it "intelligence" I see the direction you  
> are going with this and I would agree.  I would say it something  
> more like we have learned to think of the implicate order (all that  
> is) as an image that is outside of us and call it god which then  
> puts power "out there" into the image.  As you say, this is not  
> only unnecessary but creates unnecessary conflict and confusion.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 4:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
>
> But I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it  
> from a different direction than you do.  -- Susan
>
> I'm trying to get clear about Bohm's view of reason and meaning.   
> Seems to me he's giving attention to the ancient notion reason and  
> meaning as the order and structure of the universe which was  
> personalized by Rome.
>
> DB says the basic intelligence does not have to be personalized and  
> called god.  This view seems most coherent ... maybe because it  
> does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning. -- dl
>
>
> From: Susan Clemons
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 6:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
>
> Although I agree with you that Bohm is saying the subtle implicate  
> is primary (the source) and this is also highly important.  If the  
> implicate is the source it changes the relationship of self to  
> manifest reality and the nature of what manifest reality is.  But I  
> think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it from a  
> different direction than you do.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 3:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
>
> The important part of what he is saying here has to do with how we  
> have been taught to think about and so create feelings of value to  
> my way of thinking. -- Susan
>
> I believe I see your view, but it seems Bohm is saying we have been  
> taught to think and act as if the personal self is primary, i.e.,  
> prior to the processes that comprise the biological entity.
>
> I believe Bohm presents the idea that the subtle is the primary  
> actuality rather than the "reality" of the social, personal  
> identity.  I believe he says in Dialogue that there ought to be a  
> way to think of what's going on "in there without bringing in a self".
>
> Maybe it is possible to think of consciousness as a medium ...  
> maybe like the implicate in which the explicate is        
> displayed.  -- dl
>
>
>
>
> From: Susan Clemons
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
>
> Hmmmm.......so I think we are getting down to the nitty gritty here  
> dl.  This seems to be the basis for where you are getting your  
> ideas of the SOS.  I would use different language to talk about  
> this so lets see if I can put it into my own language first and  
> then talk about imagination and how I think about the role of  
> imagination in all of this.
>
> Bohm:  "I cannot see myself, except in image, and that image will  
> have limits, and seeing my self in time, as becoming, makes me  
> project two images, that which I am, and that which I intend to  
> become."
>
> I would say that what Bohm is describing here is one way that the  
> imagination can be used, but not the only way.  He also uses the  
> term "makes me" which I think is an error.
>
> Bohm:  "So the subject projects a subject and an object. How is  
> this done? This is done by way of thought, which makes images,  
> images that esteem themselves and are vulnerable to loss of esteem."
>
> My understanding is that Bohm used the word thought to represent  
> what I would call our unconscious processes and the word thinking  
> to represent what I would call our conscious processes.  The  
> important part of what he is saying here has to do with how we have  
> been taught to think about and so create feelings of value to my  
> way of thinking.  If we have learned to assign value to objects  
> that are outside of us rather than to the quality of our own  
> experience, then we may do just what Bohm describes and simply see  
> ourselves as an object and try to assign value according to the way  
> we assign value to other objects.  This does indeed create an SOS.   
> And this way of assigning value seems to be what Bohm is referring  
> to as "esteeming ourselves".   This is a market place type of value  
> where objects are traded on the open market and the value is  
> determined by what the group has determined is most popular for  
> possession.  This gives the market place the power to assign value  
> to the individual and strips the individual of the power to create  
> value from the satisfaction and fulfillment that comes from their  
> own experience.
>
> There are many other ways to use our imagination than to simply  
> create an image and allow the market place to assign value to it.   
> We can also use our imagination to  step into that image and feel  
> what it is like to have the experience we are imagining right now.   
> This latter is a playful way to use the imagination for  
> experimenting with change and try out new experiences to see what  
> kind of choices we want to make for ourselves. We create choices  
> from this based on the amount of satisfaction and fulfillment we  
> get from the type of experience we are allowing ourselves to  
> create.  Time is then used as a way to compare the quality of what  
> we are experiencing in our imagination with the quality we have  
> experienced in our memories of the past.  The comparison is then  
> with our own experience rather than with the value we imagine  
> others to be assigning to us. And our choices can then become a  
> form of personal and social growth and development.
>
> Bohm's ideas of thought seems to refer to the way we have made the  
> market place mentality of assigning value to objects a "reality"  
> and so think this is all there is to be experienced in terms of  
> value.  It then becomes a mechanical way of assigning value to  
> ourselves and happens unconsciously and automatically.  If the SOS  
> is the only way we believe we have for experiencing value then we  
> will automatically choose that value.  Maturana has shown that all  
> consciousness seeks value fulfillment.  Becoming conscious  of this  
> and learning to consciously step back into the picture and place  
> the value on the quality of our own experience reverses the  
> process.  At the same time it puts conscious experience of feelings  
> back into the process.  What we and those around us feel become  
> immediate and known as well as immediately knowing the source of  
> our feelings.
>
> I would also say that language plays a huge role in all of this.   
> The way we define and use words is what triggers and organizes our  
> thoughts and so directs our imagination. Nouns create an image/ 
> object and put it at a distance and can trigger our market place  
> mentality.  Verbs are words that can trigger us to step into the  
> picture and have an immediate experience of what we are imagining.
>
> The key is learning to become conscious of our imagination and the  
> significance it plays in our lives.  My experience has been that  
> imagination is central to creativity and change.  But using it  
> without consciousness can lead to stagnation and can be the source  
> of conflict and what Bohm liked to call pollution.
>
> Well, that's an attempt to put my thinking about this into words dl.
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071202/bfd926ed/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Mon Dec  3 01:54:35 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec  3 01:57:33 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
References: <975807.61044.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com><022501c83487$a8c41070$b5c16018@DL01><005301c834ee$edba00b0$b5c16018@DL01><002f01c83509$2b8fa0b0$db76480c@HOME><00a701c83530$fb442a70$b5c16018@DL01><008a01c8353b$297d01a0$db76480c@HOME><00e201c8353f$61bac120$b5c16018@DL01><00aa01c83541$a4931c70$db76480c@HOME>
	<8BBDC304-9F19-42CB-BDB7-538512A32F79@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00cf01c83547$13839600$db76480c@HOME>

I would add I that I think there is another more recent trend that is the source of far more conflict and confusion.  I think this trend is one that denies even the existence of the implicate order and says the outer/explicate is all there is.  This trend frightens me far more than ideas of self image and of god as image.  This trend is the one I believe has solidified the idea of self as image and assigned the market value to the self image.  It perpetuates the idea of self image as primary far more than the old religious ideas ever did.  

Susan
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: donald factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:40 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


  If that's what it means, I agree whole heartedly. Although, I wish god didn't keep trying to get in on the act. I mean, I never called it god.


  don



  On Dec 2, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:


    DB says the basic intelligence does not have to be personalized and called god.  This view seems most coherent ... maybe because it does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning. -- dl

    Although I would not call it "intelligence" I see the direction you are going with this and I would agree.  I would say it something more like we have learned to think of the implicate order (all that is) as an image that is outside of us and call it god which then puts power "out there" into the image.  As you say, this is not only unnecessary but creates unnecessary conflict and confusion.  

    Susan

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Don Lay 
      To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
      Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 4:59 PM
      Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


      But I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it from a different direction than you do.  -- Susan

      I'm trying to get clear about Bohm's view of reason and meaning.  Seems to me he's giving attention to the ancient notion reason and meaning as the order and structure of the universe which was personalized by Rome.  

      DB says the basic intelligence does not have to be personalized and called god.  This view seems most coherent ... maybe because it does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning. -- dl


        From: Susan Clemons 
        To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
        Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 6:29 PM
        Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


        Although I agree with you that Bohm is saying the subtle implicate is primary (the source) and this is also highly important.  If the implicate is the source it changes the relationship of self to manifest reality and the nature of what manifest reality is.  But I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it from a different direction than you do.

        Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071202/7f77d60d/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com  Mon Dec  3 02:32:46 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec  3 02:35:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
In-Reply-To: <00cf01c83547$13839600$db76480c@HOME>
References: <975807.61044.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com><022501c83487$a8c41070$b5c16018@DL01><005301c834ee$edba00b0$b5c16018@DL01><002f01c83509$2b8fa0b0$db76480c@HOME><00a701c83530$fb442a70$b5c16018@DL01><008a01c8353b$297d01a0$db76480c@HOME><00e201c8353f$61bac120$b5c16018@DL01><00aa01c83541$a4931c70$db76480c@HOME>
	<8BBDC304-9F19-42CB-BDB7-538512A32F79@dc.rr.com>
	<00cf01c83547$13839600$db76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <66AA8FEC-5CD0-4109-8055-0A01F0B39056@dc.rr.com>

Yes, I think you are right. The current God of record is THE MARKET,  
Its all about gain and loss, up and down. It's hierarchy in spades -  
better-worse, richer-poorer, smarter-dumber and  on and on. Even good  
and evil are measured as marketable values. Today's good may well  
fall and be replaced with tomorrow's evil.  But there is one,  
possible saving grace and that is that it is fluid. Today's high may  
well be tomorrow's low.

don

On Dec 2, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:

> I would add I that I think there is another more recent trend that  
> is the source of far more conflict and confusion.  I think this  
> trend is one that denies even the existence of the implicate order  
> and says the outer/explicate is all there is.  This trend frightens  
> me far more than ideas of self image and of god as image.  This  
> trend is the one I believe has solidified the idea of self as image  
> and assigned the market value to the self image.  It perpetuates  
> the idea of self image as primary far more than the old religious  
> ideas ever did.
>
> Susan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
>
> If that's what it means, I agree whole heartedly. Although, I wish  
> god didn't keep trying to get in on the act. I mean, I never called  
> it god.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 2, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>> DB says the basic intelligence does not have to be personalized  
>> and called god.  This view seems most coherent ... maybe because  
>> it does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning. -- dl
>>
>> Although I would not call it "intelligence" I see the direction  
>> you are going with this and I would agree.  I would say it  
>> something more like we have learned to think of the implicate  
>> order (all that is) as an image that is outside of us and call it  
>> god which then puts power "out there" into the image.  As you say,  
>> this is not only unnecessary but creates unnecessary conflict and  
>> confusion.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Lay
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 4:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
>>
>> But I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it  
>> from a different direction than you do.  -- Susan
>>
>> I'm trying to get clear about Bohm's view of reason and meaning.   
>> Seems to me he's giving attention to the ancient notion reason and  
>> meaning as the order and structure of the universe which was  
>> personalized by Rome.
>>
>> DB says the basic intelligence does not have to be personalized  
>> and called god.  This view seems most coherent ... maybe because  
>> it does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning. -- dl
>>
>>
>> From: Susan Clemons
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 6:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
>>
>> Although I agree with you that Bohm is saying the subtle implicate  
>> is primary (the source) and this is also highly important.  If the  
>> implicate is the source it changes the relationship of self to  
>> manifest reality and the nature of what manifest reality is.  But  
>> I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I approach it  
>> from a different direction than you do.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071202/b6602a8e/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 12:16:10 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Mon Dec  3 12:19:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <DF7AC6E4-C97E-4B91-A712-847B33D53416@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL

donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
  DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions.  But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
  

  Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
  

  don (donF)
  

  
    On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:

    Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey.  As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
  

Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
      Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
   
  What was the attraction for Bohm?   -- dl

   
   
   
    From: Alfred Landman 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
  

Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL

Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:     Hi Al.  Welcome.
   
  Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?  
   
  Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.  
   
  Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.  
   
  What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought?  -- dl
   
   
   
    From: Alfred Landman 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
  

  Hi fellow listserv-members -
  I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you. 
  AL

Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
    What horseshit!
   
   
    From: william 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
  

          >I:  I truly, truly hope you are right.  I am glad that you escaped the trap.  
  >Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them.  Then what?


  Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
   
   
   
                    
---------------------------------
    

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


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

    
---------------------------------
  Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.     
---------------------------------
    

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



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

    
---------------------------------
  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.     
---------------------------------
    

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



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

  

  
---------------------------------
  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.  

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




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


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071203/22f288cc/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net  Mon Dec  3 15:01:22 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec  3 15:04:21 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01>

When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.

Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.  

Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?  

Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"?  That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.  

It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.

And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?  

Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.   

Anyone else see this as being meaningful?    -- dl


From: Alfred Landman 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


  Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL

  donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
    DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions. 
    But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.


    Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.


    don (donF)




    On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:


      Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey.  As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL


      Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
        Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?

        What was the attraction for Bohm?   -- dl



          From: Alfred Landman 
          To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
          Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
          Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


          Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL

          Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: 
            Hi Al.  Welcome.

            Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?  

            Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.  

            Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.  

            What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought?  -- dl



              From: Alfred Landman 
              To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
              Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
              Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


              Hi fellow listserv-members -
              I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you. 
              AL

              Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
                What horseshit!


                  From: william 
                  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
                  Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


                        >I:  I truly, truly hope you are right.  I am glad that you escaped the trap.  
                        >Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them.  Then what?


                        Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...


                       
                               
                       


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


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


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




------------------------------------------------------------------
              Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. 

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


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


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




----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 

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


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


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






--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 


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



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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


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



  info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071203/681d868b/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com  Mon Dec  3 17:36:41 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec  3 17:39:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <3C2D58F9-C95B-4504-874D-851D2BEB9657@dc.rr.com>

> Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all  
> use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and  
> therefore without much meaning.


And rest assured that Bohm like the rest of us may, from time to  
time, have done this too.

>  "self is a map without a territory",

I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase.  
But also I don't know the context. Meaning is always in the context -  
something closer to a full meaning would have to be in the broader  
context. Language as map, can never fill out that context all by  
itself. This is the basis of the post-structuralist approach to  
linguistics. Some say that even the idea of an author is flawed  
because the speaker or writer can never really know what he or she is  
saying - or meaning - in so far as the deeper  significance of the  
words are concerned. He or she cannot really know, at the time of  
writing, what his or her deeper intentions are nor how they arose  
from the actual circumstances that triggered the words. One might say  
that there is only interpretation. This is why scientists like use  
mathematics. It is the one language that can be thought of as  
unambiguous. That's why I like the idea of considering  words as  
pointers rather than as symbols or images. They are fundamentally  
abstractions that cannot be understood without an understanding of  
the whole from which they have been abstracted. And then, that whole,  
a book or even a collection of books, are also abstractions. This may  
have something to do with Bohm's warning about not taking things too  
literally. It may also point to the idea that intelligence - the  
ability to read between the lines - is so important.

don

On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Don Lay wrote:

> When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part  
> of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self,  
> then by definition of the way language functions, something like an  
> image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the  
> individual named.
>
> Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical  
> the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language  
> requires the use of the image as symbol.
>
> Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act  
> and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced  
> by the symbol?
>
> Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a  
> map without a territory"?  That is, we use symbols as if they are  
> the actuality.
>
> It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the  
> quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the  
> symbolized.
>
> And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory"  
> point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has  
> inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated  
> observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be  
> faulty?
>
> Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all  
> use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and  
> therefore without much meaning.
>
> Anyone else see this as being meaningful?    -- dl
>
>
> From: Alfred Landman
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference  
> not by whom, though. AL
>
> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some  
> of his questions.
> But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile,  
> he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how  
> Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
>
> Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question,  
> AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is  
> incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I  
> too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance  
> of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it  
> probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want  
> to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff  
> that Eric has objected to.
>
> don (donF)
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
>
>> Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey.  As  
>> for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on  
>> an unfounded premise. AL
>>
>>
>> Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>> Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/ 
>> thinker re group dynamics?
>>
>> What was the attraction for Bohm?   -- dl
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Alfred Landman
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>
>> Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work  
>> of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking  
>> does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
>>
>> Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>> Hi Al.  Welcome.
>>
>> Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal  
>> self             or self-image derive from De Mare?
>>
>> Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to  
>> have             limited meaning.
>>
>> Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
>>
>> What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought?  -- dl
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Alfred Landman
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>
>> Hi fellow listserv-members -
>> I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare  
>> brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of  
>> his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of  
>> contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the  
>> proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things  
>> off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this  
>> quest? Thank you.
>> AL
>>
>> Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>> What horseshit!
>>
>>
>> From: william
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>
>> >I:  I truly, truly hope you are right.  I am glad that you  
>> escaped the trap.
>> >Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them.  Then  
>> what?
>>
>> Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he  
>> is                         a fighter then he will face the  
>> confrontation. Wait and see...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo  
>> Mobile. Try it now.
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  
> Try it now.
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071203/590e22d6/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 17:48:53 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Mon Dec  3 17:51:58 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <703462.40929.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. AL

Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:          When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
   
  Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.  
   
  Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?  
   
  Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"?  That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.  
   
  It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
   
  And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?  
   
  Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.   
   
  Anyone else see this as being meaningful?    -- dl
   
   
  From: Alfred Landman 
    To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
  

  Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL

donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
  DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions.   But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
  

  Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
  

  don (donF)
  

  
    On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:

    Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey.  As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
  

Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
      Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
   
  What was the attraction for Bohm?   -- dl

   
   
   
    From: Alfred Landman 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
  

Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL

Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:     Hi Al.  Welcome.
   
  Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?  
   
  Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.  
   
  Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.  
   
  What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought?  -- dl
   
   
   
    From: Alfred Landman 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
  

  Hi fellow listserv-members -
  I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you. 
  AL

Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
    What horseshit!
   
   
    From: william 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
  

          >I:  I truly, truly hope you are right.  I am glad that you escaped the trap.  
  >Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them.  Then what?


  Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
   
   
   
                    
---------------------------------
    

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


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

    
---------------------------------
  Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.     
---------------------------------
    

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



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

    
---------------------------------
  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.     
---------------------------------
    

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



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

  

  
---------------------------------
  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.   

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




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

    
---------------------------------
  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.     
---------------------------------
    

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

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


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071203/ef11d37d/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net  Mon Dec  3 18:25:23 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec  3 18:28:25 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <703462.40929.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00e101c835d1$7d56d9e0$b5c16018@DL01>

Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. -- AL

Hi Al.  I can see how that view might be useful.  However, that view does not appear to address what db/thought addresses in db's remarks about the self and especially the identified personal self.

One view is that Bohm means that a map can be made of SOS language.  For example, language can create or present a mental scenario in thought or in consciousness, and no "real place on Earth" can be found that the mental scenario actually points to.

Look for example at when people act and pretend being something they are not, just because "in there" in their thought systems, it creates good FEELS like the acting and pretending of fantasy can produce endorphins.

That kind of mental scenario has been treated for millennia as something "made up" by a confused mind, something presented purely by thought and does not re-present imagery "out there" outside the mind that creates it.  

Can you see this view that this reasoning points to?  -- dl






  From: Alfred Landman 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


  Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. AL

  Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: 
    When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.

    Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.  

    Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?  

    Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"?  That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.  

    It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.

    And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?  

    Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.   

    Anyone else see this as being meaningful?    -- dl


    From: Alfred Landman 
      To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
      Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
      Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


      Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL

      donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
        DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions. 
        But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.


        Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.


        don (donF)




        On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:


          Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey.  As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL


          Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
            Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?

            What was the attraction for Bohm?   -- dl



              From: Alfred Landman 
              To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
              Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
              Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


              Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL

              Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: 
                Hi Al.  Welcome.

                Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?  

                Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.  

                Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.  

                What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought?  -- dl



                  From: Alfred Landman 
                  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
                  Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


                  Hi fellow listserv-members -
                  I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you. 
                  AL

                  Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
                    What horseshit!


                      From: william 
                      To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
                      Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image


                            >I:  I truly, truly hope you are right.  I am glad that you escaped the trap.  
                            >Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them.  Then what?


                            Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...


                           
                                   
                           


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


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


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




--------------------------------------------------------------
                  Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. 

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


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


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




------------------------------------------------------------------
              Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 

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


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


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






----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 


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



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




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 

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


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


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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


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



  info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071203/18a60cb0/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net  Mon Dec  3 19:31:14 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec  3 19:34:15 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities
References: <703462.40929.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<00e101c835d1$7d56d9e0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <00f001c835da$b015f1f0$b5c16018@DL01>

Language can create a mental scenario, something like a map.  In a way, that's what novelists do.  
The science fiction novelist may construct a language map which may only stand for fantasy.

  In the same way, scientists do that except the scientists (and the artist says Bohm) intend their language maps to represent "things" in space and time.  Something like that.  The map or mental scenario created by the fiction writer only has a make-believe reality.  The map is not intended to be used to explore space-time.

I have read two or three little essays regarding how people can "get on line" and create an identity, i.e., create imagery for the imagination of others -- and then become confused about that identity as if it might actually be their identity, what they actually are.

For example, someone could log onto a chat line and create a completely false identity in someone's mind.

In such a case, would it not be adequate to say that was a self identity without a territory



http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071203/61f98cd7/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net  Mon Dec  3 19:39:41 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec  3 19:42:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities
References: <703462.40929.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com><00e101c835d1$7d56d9e0$b5c16018@DL01>
	<00f001c835da$b015f1f0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <00ff01c835db$dde8a360$b5c16018@DL01>

More on this theme:  

Rajath and I talked briefly about Googling up some material, maybe from Wikipedia, and then presenting it online as if we (our identity) knew and had that knowledge all along.  

It can give a little pleasure "rush".  I've done that and noticed the rush, and evidently Rajath had also.

Are we the only ones or are we the only ones able to see that talking about it is a use of db/thought presented in Though as a System?  I know, of course, that Pat knows because she has talked about it and pointed it out on list.

Is not that another little example of a self without a territory?  And doesn't tas give us a way to talk about that kind of situation without digging deeper the false identity hole?  -- dl



  From: Don Lay 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:31 PM
  Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities


  Language can create a mental scenario, something like a map.  In a way, that's what novelists do.  
  The science fiction novelist may construct a language map which may only stand for fantasy.

    In the same way, scientists do that except the scientists (and the artist says Bohm) intend their language maps to represent "things" in space and time.  Something like that.  The map or mental scenario created by the fiction writer only has a make-believe reality.  The map is not intended to be used to explore space-time.

  I have read two or three little essays regarding how people can "get on line" and create an identity, i.e., create imagery for the imagination of others -- and then become confused about that identity as if it might actually be their identity, what they actually are.

  For example, someone could log onto a chat line and create a completely false identity in someone's mind.

  In such a case, would it not be adequate to say that was a self identity without a territory



  http://www.knology.net/~donlay/


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



  info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071203/6a42e0c6/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net  Mon Dec  3 19:54:49 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec  3 19:57:46 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self-Sustained Confusion and re the Self as a Map
	without a Territory
References: <703462.40929.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com><00e101c835d1$7d56d9e0$b5c16018@DL01><00f001c835da$b015f1f0$b5c16018@DL01>
	<00ff01c835db$dde8a360$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <010e01c835dd$fafd2dc0$b5c16018@DL01>

In several places, Bohm addresses the idea of the problematic self, and especially the identified self as the separated observer which he indicates is illusory if not outright fantasy.

The problem seems to be that language has evolved by people actually believing there was a really real separate observer.  

Maybe another reason Bohm goes to the ancient Greek thought is that they had the idea of the real and the really real.  I have read that they understood that language could be confusing and give a false impression could and did occur which seem real.

Maybe using the idea of the really real would indicate awareness that language might be faulty, that thought itself (tas) might be faulty. -- dl



From: Don Lay 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities


  More on this theme:  

  Rajath and I talked briefly about Googling up some material, maybe from Wikipedia, and then presenting it online as if we (our identity) knew and had that knowledge all along.  

  It can give a little pleasure "rush".  I've done that and noticed the rush, and evidently Rajath had also.

  Are we the only ones or are we the only ones able to see that talking about it is a use of db/thought presented in Though as a System?  I know, of course, that Pat knows because she has talked about it and pointed it out on list.

  Is not that another little example of a self without a territory?  And doesn't tas give us a way to talk about that kind of situation without digging deeper the false identity hole?  -- dl



    From: Don Lay 
    To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
    Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:31 PM
    Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities


    Language can create a mental scenario, something like a map.  In a way, that's what novelists do.  
    The science fiction novelist may construct a language map which may only stand for fantasy.

      In the same way, scientists do that except the scientists (and the artist says Bohm) intend their language maps to represent "things" in space and time.  Something like that.  The map or mental scenario created by the fiction writer only has a make-believe reality.  The map is not intended to be used to explore space-time.

    I have read two or three little essays regarding how people can "get on line" and create an identity, i.e., create imagery for the imagination of others -- and then become confused about that identity as if it might actually be their identity, what they actually are.

    For example, someone could log onto a chat line and create a completely false identity in someone's mind.

    In such a case, would it not be adequate to say that was a self identity without a territory



    http://www.knology.net/~donlay/


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



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



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



  info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071203/e868b98b/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Mon Dec  3 21:35:54 2007
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Mon Dec  3 21:37:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D169816A88@msw2k.msw.local>

I too have the fear that Susan has and agree with Don.  The scary thing
is feeling powerless with the movement.  The only hope is what Don says
that it is fluid.  D

________________________________

From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of donald factor
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:33 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination


Yes, I think you are right. The current God of record is THE MARKET, Its
all about gain and loss, up and down. It's hierarchy in spades -
better-worse, richer-poorer, smarter-dumber and  on and on. Even good
and evil are measured as marketable values. Today's good may well fall
and be replaced with tomorrow's evil.  But there is one, possible saving
grace and that is that it is fluid. Today's high may well be tomorrow's
low. 

don

On Dec 2, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:


	I would add I that I think there is another more recent trend
that is the source of far more conflict and confusion.  I think this
trend is one that denies even the existence of the implicate order and
says the outer/explicate is all there is.  This trend frightens me far
more than ideas of self image and of god as image.  This trend is the
one I believe has solidified the idea of self as image and assigned the
market value to the self image.  It perpetuates the idea of self image
as primary far more than the old religious ideas ever did.  
	 
	Susan

		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: donald factor <mailto:DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>  
		To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
		Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:40 PM
		Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and imagination

		If that's what it means, I agree whole heartedly.
Although, I wish god didn't keep trying to get in on the act. I mean, I
never called it god. 

		don
		

		On Dec 2, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:


			DB says the basic intelligence does not have to
be personalized and called god.  This view seems most coherent ... maybe
because it does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning. -- dl
			 
			Although I would not call it "intelligence" I
see the direction you are going with this and I would agree.  I would
say it something more like we have learned to think of the implicate
order (all that is) as an image that is outside of us and call it god
which then puts power "out there" into the image.  As you say, this is
not only unnecessary but creates unnecessary conflict and confusion.  
			 
			Susan
			 

				----- Original Message ----- 
				From: Don Lay
<mailto:donlay@knology.net>  
				To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
				Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 4:59 PM
				Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and
imagination

				But I think that's a different subject.
Or at least I approach it from a different direction than you do.  --
Susan
				 
				I'm trying to get clear about Bohm's
view of reason and meaning.  Seems to me he's giving attention to the
ancient notion reason and meaning as the order and structure of the
universe which was personalized by Rome.  
				 
				DB says the basic intelligence does not
have to be personalized and called god.  This view seems most coherent
... maybe because it does not anthropomorphize power, reason or meaning.
-- dl
				 
				<http://www.knology.net/~donlay/>  

				From: Susan Clemons
<mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>  
				To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
				Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 6:29 PM
				Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SOS and
imagination

				Although I agree with you that Bohm is
saying the subtle implicate is primary (the source) and this is also
highly important.  If the implicate is the source it changes the
relationship of self to manifest reality and the nature of what manifest
reality is.  But I think that's a different subject.  Or at least I
approach it from a different direction than you do.
				 
				Susan
				 


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071203/a23e9da2/attachment.html