From w at david-bohm.net Fri Nov 3 00:04:53 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Sat Nov 4 01:07:27 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
References: <BAY22-F2177D2A05A353714CFFF23A5FF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <454A7994.00000F.02196@VAIO-584793128F>
I didn't mean rephrasing the question in the clumsiest possible way, but i
would have liked your own views on the subject, which is whether "turning
the other cheek" or not defending yourself is desirable in order to avoid
suffering. I think it's a good point. I agree, so far, that "one size fits
all" thinking doesn't work. You cannot set up a rule or a theory that is
always valid. This is something that needs to be sensed from moment to
moment. So you cannot know in advance what is the right thing to do. I tend
to think that passion requires a relatively high degree of intelligence to
determine the appropriateness of passion or action, accepting or rejecting,
allowing or resisting. The main thing is you have the proprioceptive feel of
resistance, and have the tacit skill of anticipating the consequences, in
order to decide for yourself on the run whether to open or close yourself.
I would appreciate your contribution to this...
william
-------Original Message-------
From: Morgan Jett
Date: 02.11.2006 22:55:23
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
My rationale for asking a question is that it is better to ask what someone
means than to jump to conclusions. Let me try to rephrase, which is
difficult because i don't know why you dislike answering questions, and
can't ask if I am to show you courtesy by respecting your preferences.
Anyway, let me give it a try your way.
In the turn our dialog on compassion has taken, there could be an underlying
cultural assumption that "turn the other cheek" as in don't defend
yourself, is desirable in order to avoid suffering. This has often been a
point for debate particularly among clerics and congregations. My pov is
that "one size fits all" thinking doesn't work. Since I am well aware that
my understanding of the last couple of posts may be flawed, I invite you to
clarify my understanding of what has been said, if need be, and add any
other associations the topic stimulates. Including if or whether you
disagree with my question asking rationale, and why. I'll be delighted to
respond to the best of my ability.
Your reply spurred me to "find another way", which is good. Trying to word
it clearly and accurately wasn't easy. best, k
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:16:19 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>
>
>From: Morgan Jett
> >is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek",
> >or Don't defend yourself is desirable?
>
>
>I generally don't like answering questions, but if you say what you think
>then we maybe can go into it together.
>
>william
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive
com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061103/5e64f698/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 3 00:28:02 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Nov 4 01:30:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <454A7994.00000F.02196@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F13D8FB7E19BAFC78E6B5FA5FF0@phx.gbl>
With pleasure, William -- after supper and more careful thought. If I had
access to images, you'd see a happy smile.
Best, k
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:04:53 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>I didn't mean rephrasing the question in the clumsiest possible way, but i
>would have liked your own views on the subject, which is whether "turning
>the other cheek" or not defending yourself is desirable in order to avoid
>suffering. I think it's a good point. I agree, so far, that "one size fits
>all" thinking doesn't work. You cannot set up a rule or a theory that is
>always valid. This is something that needs to be sensed from moment to
>moment. So you cannot know in advance what is the right thing to do. I tend
>to think that passion requires a relatively high degree of intelligence to
>determine the appropriateness of passion or action, accepting or rejecting,
>allowing or resisting. The main thing is you have the proprioceptive feel
>of
>resistance, and have the tacit skill of anticipating the consequences, in
>order to decide for yourself on the run whether to open or close yourself.
>
>I would appreciate your contribution to this...
>
>william
>
>
>
>-------Original Message-------
>
>From: Morgan Jett
>Date: 02.11.2006 22:55:23
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>
>My rationale for asking a question is that it is better to ask what someone
>means than to jump to conclusions. Let me try to rephrase, which is
>difficult because i don't know why you dislike answering questions, and
>can't ask if I am to show you courtesy by respecting your preferences.
>Anyway, let me give it a try your way.
>
>In the turn our dialog on compassion has taken, there could be an
>underlying
>cultural assumption that "turn the other cheek" as in don't defend
>yourself, is desirable in order to avoid suffering. This has often been a
>point for debate particularly among clerics and congregations. My pov is
>that "one size fits all" thinking doesn't work. Since I am well aware that
>my understanding of the last couple of posts may be flawed, I invite you to
>clarify my understanding of what has been said, if need be, and add any
>other associations the topic stimulates. Including if or whether you
>disagree with my question asking rationale, and why. I'll be delighted to
>respond to the best of my ability.
>
>Your reply spurred me to "find another way", which is good. Trying to word
>it clearly and accurately wasn't easy. best, k
>
>
>
>
> >From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
> >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:16:19 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
> >
> >
> >From: Morgan Jett
> > >is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek",
> > >or Don't defend yourself is desirable?
> >
> >
> >I generally don't like answering questions, but if you say what you think
> >then we maybe can go into it together.
> >
> >william
> >
> >
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
>http://imagine-windowslive
>com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 3 02:21:04 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Nov 4 03:23:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <454A7994.00000F.02196@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1445F357E78AC1FE88D8F2A5FE0@phx.gbl>
Hi William - I'm back.
whether "turning the other cheek" or not defending yourself is desirable in
order to avoid
>suffering
K: There is physical, mental, and spiritual suffering - all woven together,
but explicating in different quantities and qualities, depending on
different circumstances. For me, if I believe in something passionately,
like Ghandi, MLK, or Schindler did, I will suffer more if I turn my back on
suffering. I used to say "There but for the grace of God go I. Now I say,
not only do I suffer when you suffer, I may suffer more later if I ignore it
now." Graphically - the homeless person I turn my back on may carry an
infectious disease that I can die of. Then take that into the metaphoric
realm.
I may not want to face all the possible consequences of 'doing something',
but my heart tells me I must, so I do. I don't like the psychological
jargon that some would apply here. I do know that something enables us to
make loving or destructive choices in all shades, qualities and quantities,
and that we are more than biological wiring, genes, products of evolution,
and dupes of society. Yet, I do not believe in a God.
What that "something" I do is, depends on the circumstances of the
situation, and how much I am willing and able to risk at that time. That
varies. Before I retired with a pension that would pay my mortgage, and
feed me, while hoping not to come down with a catastrophic illness, I turned
a lot of cheek! I also went into therapy so I could hang in there till
pension time. Now, I just get the "here we go again" feeling. I'd rather
not have to, but I suffer more if I don't stand up for what I believe is
right. And I finally learned to stop blaming society and my parents, and
get on with life - that anger needs to have appropriate expression.
W: The main thing is you have the proprioceptive feel of resistance, and
have the tacit skill of anticipating the consequences, in order to decide
for yourself on the run whether to open or close yourself.
K: I think I have just given you specific examples of my own decisions.
But there are other considerations. Such as what are the best tactics to
employ to allievate the suffering. Sometimes retreat isn't a retreat. It
just seems to be. Then there is camouflage, there attempts at bullying,
various forms of abuse, seduction, extortion, blackmail, lies.
Unfortunately, many people don't know how to choose their strategies
appropriately, or recognize when they are being subjected to them, and
defend themselves effectively.
W: to decide for yourself on the run
K: that is one reason I am so attracted to Dalcroze Eurhythmics and
improvisation, and to teaching the young based on Bohm principles combined
with improvisation activities, and critical thinking. One learns to live in
a spacetime where making decisions on the run, carrying them out quickly,
living with and correcting the consequences when needed - still on the run -
is practiced. The mental set can carry over into other life areas.
Two sayings "Life is a cabaret my friend", and "Life is an improvisation"
(coined by NYC jazzmobile) pretty much sums it up for me.
Hope this wasn't too long. Am looking forward to yours and the groups'
enrichment of these ideas. Hozhoon, k
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:04:53 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>I didn't mean rephrasing the question in the clumsiest possible way, but i
>would have liked your own views on the subject, which is whether "turning
>the other cheek" or not defending yourself is desirable in order to avoid
>suffering. I think it's a good point. I agree, so far, that "one size fits
>all" thinking doesn't work. You cannot set up a rule or a theory that is
>always valid. This is something that needs to be sensed from moment to
>moment. So you cannot know in advance what is the right thing to do. I tend
>to think that passion requires a relatively high degree of intelligence to
>determine the appropriateness of passion or action, accepting or rejecting,
>allowing or resisting. The main thing is you have the proprioceptive feel
>of
>resistance, and have the tacit skill of anticipating the consequences, in
>order to decide for yourself on the run whether to open or close yourself.
>
>I would appreciate your contribution to this...
>
>william
>
>
>
>-------Original Message-------
>
>From: Morgan Jett
>Date: 02.11.2006 22:55:23
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>
>My rationale for asking a question is that it is better to ask what someone
>means than to jump to conclusions. Let me try to rephrase, which is
>difficult because i don't know why you dislike answering questions, and
>can't ask if I am to show you courtesy by respecting your preferences.
>Anyway, let me give it a try your way.
>
>In the turn our dialog on compassion has taken, there could be an
>underlying
>cultural assumption that "turn the other cheek" as in don't defend
>yourself, is desirable in order to avoid suffering. This has often been a
>point for debate particularly among clerics and congregations. My pov is
>that "one size fits all" thinking doesn't work. Since I am well aware that
>my understanding of the last couple of posts may be flawed, I invite you to
>clarify my understanding of what has been said, if need be, and add any
>other associations the topic stimulates. Including if or whether you
>disagree with my question asking rationale, and why. I'll be delighted to
>respond to the best of my ability.
>
>Your reply spurred me to "find another way", which is good. Trying to word
>it clearly and accurately wasn't easy. best, k
>
>
>
>
> >From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
> >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:16:19 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
> >
> >
> >From: Morgan Jett
> > >is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek",
> > >or Don't defend yourself is desirable?
> >
> >
> >I generally don't like answering questions, but if you say what you think
> >then we maybe can go into it together.
> >
> >william
> >
> >
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
>http://imagine-windowslive
>com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Fri Nov 3 02:36:55 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Sat Nov 4 03:39:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <454A7994.00000F.02196@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <20061103013655.68143.qmail@web62413.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
I tend to think that passion requires a relatively
high degree of intelligence to determine the
appropriateness of passion or action
Passion is a gift and not a train skills acquired by
pratice. We all have this capability for passion, and
does comes to us uninvited in many different times.
The way you are talking about passion is just
cleverness of a man. I am talking about passion or
whatever words would you like to use in the context of
having this healthy energy for life and living with
this clear perception of an act without dualism. We
are talking here about love and passion or this
undivided whole regarding life and living without any
fragmentation. I would say there is no such thing as
fragmentation only in regarding to thought itself,
which is the cost of fragmentation itself.
Are we then talking about love, compassion and
undivided whole to attain some state of clarity or
insight into something beyond known? I think again
that when one is trying to express these qualities of
life and living there are still limited but
nevertheless there are to be experience on a daily
basis the way we think, and the way we speak, act, and
express ourselves in every action and reaction
possible. To be in present time without the past or
the future state of being psychologically, and never
accumulate anything psychologically for a second. To
have a mind that doesn?t knows the sorrow. Passion
fort he whole of life would imply not having
self-image of any kind. To perceive the life and
living on a daily basis with this clear perception of
an action without the remembrance of the past or
projecting the future psychologically. There are times
and places when one needs to imply such time frame but
nevertheless speaking psychologically it brings about
division and contradictions.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com
(http://www.yahoo.com/preview)
From tubakari at yahoo.com Fri Nov 3 08:01:34 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Sat Nov 4 09:04:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
Message-ID: <20061103070134.60832.qmail@web52909.mail.yahoo.com>
who needs to be defended? who is there to defend? :) i just take care of myself. even that is questionable! i notice that everything works in concert to bring what needs what together including me. i just float along, knowing and trusting that i have access to whatever i may need at any given time. i dont know if that helps go into it, but i hope so because i like the energy behind your words william.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: william <w@david-bohm.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2006 1:16:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
From: Morgan Jett
>is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek",
>or Don't defend yourself is desirable?
I generally don't like answering questions, but if you say what you think then we maybe can go into it together.
william
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/ce38283e/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Fri Nov 3 08:06:05 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Sat Nov 4 09:08:36 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
Message-ID: <20061103070605.14790.qmail@web52905.mail.yahoo.com>
it is always amazing to read people's thoughts online and then meet them or even see pics...that has happened a lot since i moved to seattle.
i am really thankful for this strange experience that i have with you all.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 5:48:31 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
Kari - how nice to have a face and a profile to go with the words. k
>From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language
>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:39:38 -0800 (PST)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/2fa75fb0/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Fri Nov 3 08:09:20 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Sat Nov 4 09:11:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061103070920.92433.qmail@web52902.mail.yahoo.com>
i did not intend to limit feeling to "person"al identity, and it is too bad we have done that with language. so getting back to several emails ago, the word mine seems inapplicable.
:)
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 4:06:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
are you asking would the feel of wholeness be mine? that seems ludicrous. who is there to have it? -- Kari
Kari, the pronoun who refers to person. Is feeling the property of personhood? What of the feelings of apes, elephants, dolphins, dogs, cats?
Obviously the who-word is useful, but surely it seems to me that when the Christians decided that people must be referenced as who's or as imaginary personas, they did not intend denying feeling to other creatures.
Is it possible that limiting feeling to the personal identity structure limits experience of being whole? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Karilen Mays
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
are you asking would the feel of wholeness be mine? that seems ludicrous. who is there to have it?
thanks, kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:14:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
Would that FEEL be adequately described as personal? Would it be mine, or would that word be inapplicable?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061102/27d0f2ac/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 3 11:56:52 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Nov 4 12:59:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F13D8FB7E19BAFC78E6B5FA5FF0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F13D8FB7E19BAFC78E6B5FA5FF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <26BC2D86-D6E2-421B-BA26-1A1BE59E4F6E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
BTW. Images are no prohibited. They must, though be small enough so
that the entire message is less than 100kb,
don
On 2 Nov 2006, at 23:28, Morgan Jett wrote:
> With pleasure, William -- after supper and more careful thought.
> If I had access to images, you'd see a happy smile.
>
> Best, k
>
>
>> From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:04:53 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>>
>>
>> I didn't mean rephrasing the question in the clumsiest possible
>> way, but i
>> would have liked your own views on the subject, which is whether
>> "turning
>> the other cheek" or not defending yourself is desirable in order
>> to avoid
>> suffering. I think it's a good point. I agree, so far, that "one
>> size fits
>> all" thinking doesn't work. You cannot set up a rule or a theory
>> that is
>> always valid. This is something that needs to be sensed from
>> moment to
>> moment. So you cannot know in advance what is the right thing to
>> do. I tend
>> to think that passion requires a relatively high degree of
>> intelligence to
>> determine the appropriateness of passion or action, accepting or
>> rejecting,
>> allowing or resisting. The main thing is you have the
>> proprioceptive feel of
>> resistance, and have the tacit skill of anticipating the
>> consequences, in
>> order to decide for yourself on the run whether to open or close
>> yourself.
>>
>> I would appreciate your contribution to this...
>>
>> william
>>
>>
>>
>> -------Original Message-------
>>
>> From: Morgan Jett
>> Date: 02.11.2006 22:55:23
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>
>> My rationale for asking a question is that it is better to ask
>> what someone
>> means than to jump to conclusions. Let me try to rephrase, which is
>> difficult because i don't know why you dislike answering
>> questions, and
>> can't ask if I am to show you courtesy by respecting your
>> preferences.
>> Anyway, let me give it a try your way.
>>
>> In the turn our dialog on compassion has taken, there could be an
>> underlying
>> cultural assumption that "turn the other cheek" as in don't defend
>> yourself, is desirable in order to avoid suffering. This has
>> often been a
>> point for debate particularly among clerics and congregations.
>> My pov is
>> that "one size fits all" thinking doesn't work. Since I am well
>> aware that
>> my understanding of the last couple of posts may be flawed, I
>> invite you to
>> clarify my understanding of what has been said, if need be, and
>> add any
>> other associations the topic stimulates. Including if or whether you
>> disagree with my question asking rationale, and why. I'll be
>> delighted to
>> respond to the best of my ability.
>>
>> Your reply spurred me to "find another way", which is good.
>> Trying to word
>> it clearly and accurately wasn't easy. best, k
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>> >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:16:19 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>> >
>> >
>> >From: Morgan Jett
>> > >is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other
>> cheek",
>> > >or Don't defend yourself is desirable?
>> >
>> >
>> >I generally don't like answering questions, but if you say what
>> you think
>> >then we maybe can go into it together.
>> >
>> >william
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >info:
>> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >
>> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> >dialogue facilitator:
>> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> >Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >admin@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
>> http://imagine-windowslive
>> com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live
> Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?
> href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/
> friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Nov 3 14:21:49 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Nov 4 15:24:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Strawman
In-Reply-To: <20061104110003.B13BD24518@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF8A303A96.C23F1325-ON8525721B.00487108-8525721B.004968EB@dialogos.com>
Rodger __this isnt really in context but a friend who spoke very little
after fighting in the first and second world wars said before dying in 1970
--never believe in the strawman-. _R
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:04:05 +0000
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
.
.
So, I wonder what you think the word (I imagine you are talking about the
personal pronoun first person singular) actually does?
Just as a query, could this be a red herring or a strawman?
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061103/9254de58/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Nov 3 14:26:14 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Nov 4 15:29:03 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061104110003.B13BD24518@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFDF061A33.63285109-ON8525721B.004984FE-8525721B.0049D04A@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ Was the context for Davids -last analysis- REALLY an explaining
of the TRUTH of LIFE & UNIVERSE? Wow!
Funny, I thought he was only speaking of an known/ specific, area of
thought process. _R
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <005901c6fe82$80b6e030$7b79153f@DL01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
First, Bohm never declared that the quantum world is what actually is. df
I believe he do. "In the last analysis all processes are, of course,
quantum-mechanical in nature ..." Quantum Theory, p165, 1952. dl
What do you mean by classical personal identity. df
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061103/3a97b604/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Nov 3 14:38:17 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Nov 4 15:41:02 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061104110003.B13BD24518@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFAE9EE473.AA87AF4D-ON8525721B.0049FF82-8525721B.004AEAE5@dialogos.com>
Rodger __If the I_word experience creates a viewing through imagery AS IF
IT IS WHAT ACTUALLY IS ALL THAT IS, and you are actually aware of this
imagery/ viewing moment by moment, then there should be no confusion about
the purpose of the I word.
There is I. And there is an awareness of I. Neither are the ALL THAT IS.
The confusion seems to arise when the I-word imagery creates its own ideas
of an awareness of itself. _R
.
.
Maybe the important thing is that the I-word comes with imagery 'as if' it
is what actually is ALL THAT IS.
It seems vitally important that the imagery or imagined self-worldview
occurring with the I-word replaces a far greater, far more important
actuality than the I-word experience.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061103/842bca54/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Nov 3 14:59:06 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Nov 4 16:01:56 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <20061104110003.B13BD24518@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFEC9F7556.FBF12CEE-ON8525721B.004B90E2-8525721B.004CD2B2@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ thanks for the explanation. Even if a core & periphery could be
measusred by number of times one comments, David Bohm might be considered
on the periphery of the dialogues many of us shared with him - and that was
hardly the case.
Which brings to the possibility of core and periphery being a matter of
quality rather than quantity -- BUT -- even then I would say it is possible
that our minds like to make doll house realities in an attempt to explain
and decide how/where people fit into our lives.
A straw man is a straw man -- a doll house is a doll house -- and then
there is the rest of LIFE, LOVE, and the UNIVERSE. _R
.
From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
It seems to me that everywhere in nature (and culture) there is core and
periphery (the sun and its planets; the nucleus
of the atom vs. the electrons orbiting it; London vs. the rest of England,
etc.)
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061103/6f23f47f/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Nov 3 15:07:06 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Nov 4 16:10:06 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <OFAE9EE473.AA87AF4D-ON8525721B.0049FF82-8525721B.004AEAE5@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <003b01c6ff51$5eafc810$2f78153f@DL01>
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Rodger __If the I_word experience creates a viewing through imagery AS IF IT IS WHAT ACTUALLY IS ALL THAT IS, and you are actually aware of this imagery/ viewing moment by moment, then there should be no confusion about the purpose of the I word.
There is I. And there is an awareness of I. Neither are the ALL THAT IS.
The confusion seems to arise when the I-word imagery creates its own ideas of an awareness of itself. _R
This seems to be a fruitful way to approach the situation of identity. -- dl.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061103/ceb297b5/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 3 15:12:28 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Nov 4 16:15:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <26BC2D86-D6E2-421B-BA26-1A1BE59E4F6E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F9F22F561E0458FFD6D88FA5FE0@phx.gbl>
Great - thanks for the clarification. k
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 10:56:52 +0000
>
>BTW. Images are no prohibited. They must, though be small enough so that
>the entire message is less than 100kb,
>don
>On 2 Nov 2006, at 23:28, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>With pleasure, William -- after supper and more careful thought. If I
>>had access to images, you'd see a happy smile.
>>
>>Best, k
>>
>>
>>>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:04:53 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't mean rephrasing the question in the clumsiest possible way, but
>>>i
>>>would have liked your own views on the subject, which is whether
>>>"turning
>>>the other cheek" or not defending yourself is desirable in order to
>>>avoid
>>>suffering. I think it's a good point. I agree, so far, that "one size
>>>fits
>>>all" thinking doesn't work. You cannot set up a rule or a theory that is
>>>always valid. This is something that needs to be sensed from moment to
>>>moment. So you cannot know in advance what is the right thing to do. I
>>>tend
>>>to think that passion requires a relatively high degree of intelligence
>>>to
>>>determine the appropriateness of passion or action, accepting or
>>>rejecting,
>>>allowing or resisting. The main thing is you have the proprioceptive
>>>feel of
>>>resistance, and have the tacit skill of anticipating the consequences,
>>>in
>>>order to decide for yourself on the run whether to open or close
>>>yourself.
>>>
>>>I would appreciate your contribution to this...
>>>
>>>william
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-------Original Message-------
>>>
>>>From: Morgan Jett
>>>Date: 02.11.2006 22:55:23
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>>
>>>My rationale for asking a question is that it is better to ask what
>>>someone
>>>means than to jump to conclusions. Let me try to rephrase, which is
>>>difficult because i don't know why you dislike answering questions, and
>>>can't ask if I am to show you courtesy by respecting your preferences.
>>>Anyway, let me give it a try your way.
>>>
>>>In the turn our dialog on compassion has taken, there could be an
>>>underlying
>>>cultural assumption that "turn the other cheek" as in don't defend
>>>yourself, is desirable in order to avoid suffering. This has often been
>>>a
>>>point for debate particularly among clerics and congregations. My pov
>>>is
>>>that "one size fits all" thinking doesn't work. Since I am well aware
>>>that
>>>my understanding of the last couple of posts may be flawed, I invite you
>>>to
>>>clarify my understanding of what has been said, if need be, and add any
>>>other associations the topic stimulates. Including if or whether you
>>>disagree with my question asking rationale, and why. I'll be delighted
>>>to
>>>respond to the best of my ability.
>>>
>>>Your reply spurred me to "find another way", which is good. Trying to
>>>word
>>>it clearly and accurately wasn't easy. best, k
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>> >Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:16:19 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >From: Morgan Jett
>>> > >is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek",
>>> > >or Don't defend yourself is desirable?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >I generally don't like answering questions, but if you say what you
>>>think
>>> >then we maybe can go into it together.
>>> >
>>> >william
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >info:
>>> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> >
>>> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>> >
>>> >dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>> >
>>> >Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
>>>http://imagine-windowslive
>>>com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?
>>href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/
>>friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 3 16:39:39 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Nov 4 17:42:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Strawman
In-Reply-To: <OF8A303A96.C23F1325-ON8525721B.00487108-8525721B.004968EB@dialogos.com>
References: <OF8A303A96.C23F1325-ON8525721B.00487108-8525721B.004968EB@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <66A18718-7DB8-44C5-A589-65C3DEC47FD2@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
A strawman is one that is too easy to knock down. A lot of people
build up what look like very powerful arguments but their opponents
are often just strawmen and their arguments carry no weight.
don
On 3 Nov 2006, at 13:21, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
> Rodger __this isnt really in context but a friend who spoke very
> little after fighting in the first and second world wars said
> before dying in 1970 --never believe in the strawman-. _R
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:04:05 +0000
> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
> .
> .
> So, I wonder what you think the word (I imagine you are talking
> about the personal pronoun first person singular) actually does?
>
> Just as a query, could this be a red herring or a strawman?
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061103/42c6c344/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 3 16:43:48 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Nov 4 17:47:01 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <OFEC9F7556.FBF12CEE-ON8525721B.004B90E2-8525721B.004CD2B2@dialogos.com>
References: <OFEC9F7556.FBF12CEE-ON8525721B.004B90E2-8525721B.004CD2B2@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <98897A67-5C78-4443-A79E-DE248B91827E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Your are right, here. Core and periphery in a group like this appear
to be only points of view. If I say that I am on the periphery, I am
actually just stating something about my own self image.
don
On 3 Nov 2006, at 13:59, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
> Rodger __ thanks for the explanation. Even if a core & periphery
> could be measusred by number of times one comments, David Bohm
> might be considered on the periphery of the dialogues many of us
> shared with him - and that was hardly the case.
>
> Which brings to the possibility of core and periphery being a
> matter of quality rather than quantity -- BUT -- even then I would
> say it is possible that our minds like to make doll house realities
> in an attempt to explain and decide how/where people fit into our
> lives.
>
> A straw man is a straw man -- a doll house is a doll house -- and
> then there is the rest of LIFE, LOVE, and the UNIVERSE. _R
> .
> From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> .
> It seems to me that everywhere in nature (and culture) there is
> core and periphery (the sun and its planets; the nucleus
> of the atom vs. the electrons orbiting it; London vs. the rest of
> England, etc.)
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061103/4ef9dc51/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Fri Nov 3 16:18:40 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sat Nov 4 18:21:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F6A11916327C712C332B39A5FF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C170B9F0.7C3A%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
I love this dual understanding of suffering and passion. In response to
Kathryn, I attended a workshop last week on "non-defensive communication"
that really impressed me. Basically, the presenter, Sharon Strand Ellison,
taught emotion-neutral questioning, reflecting what is heard, and expressing
one's own conclusions. The idea is to avoid any "hooks" from the other
person, while being open and non-judgmental, and at the same time setting
boundaries where needed. As she said, it requires a tremendous amount of
awareness. Seems to be the key to about anything.
Lynne
On 11/2/06 2:45 PM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> K: is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek", or
> don't defend yourself is desirable? k
>
>> From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:40:01 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>>
>>
>> Pat:
>>> Do I notice any human violence for which
>>> Suffering [pain plus resistance] is not the source?
>>
>> Don Factor:
>>> ...suffering doesn't necessarily mean something painful.
>>> It can mean patience as in "suffer the little children". A
>>> compassionate person for instance is usually a patient
>>> person.
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, 'patience' is derived from the same root as 'passion' and
>> pathos'. It is the Latin equivalent to 'let'. I think it was probably
>> supposed to mean something like; let it be, let it go. To me, it conveys a
>> sense of allowing, accepting, letting, suffering. This would be in contrast
>> to resisting or reacting or fighting. Hence, passion could be thought of as
>> a form of non-reaction, non-resistance, or (in Bohmian jargon)
>> 'suspension'.
>>
>> Such passion or suspension goes somewhat against the grain and therefore
>> requires a very high degree of attention, and awareness. Once could almost
>> say that letting (suffering in this sense of passion) is a form of art, or
>> skill at least.
>> But if resistance is the source of human violence then passion could
>> perhaps
>> dry that source.
>>
>> william
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Fri Nov 3 17:40:39 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Sat Nov 4 18:43:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <454A57A1.000003.02196@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F157AB2995518E6F8831D85B7FE0@phx.gbl>
Once could almost say that letting (suffering in this sense of passion) is a
form of art (William)
William, your words remind me of the connection between suffering and
creativity. The following passages are from an article written by David Peat
titled “David Bohm, Paul Cezanne and Creativity.”
“… Creativity becomes nature singing her own songs. The scientist and artist
become assistants, co workers with nature. Nature seeks new ways to express
herself though human society and human skills. In turn we seek to celebrate
nature through acts of renewal.
Now all that sounds very nice but I also want to touch on a darker side. In
many ways Cezanne had a miserable life, his painting was always a terrible
struggle and he signed very few paintings. He was rude and intransigent. He
hated being touched to the point where it cost him his life. Ater going out
to paint and getting soaked to the skin he collapsed in the road of a fever
his female servant was too frightened to pick him up, several days later he
died. Realizing the sensations was a terrible struggle for Cezanne “the
realization of my sensations is always painful.” In some senses the search
for a new order was similarly a struggle for Bohm and he spoke of the
conflict he experienced when starting to do science.
The reason, I believe, is that these “sensations” lie very deep, at what
Jung called the “psychoid” which was “neither matter nor mind and both’.
They are levels tied to our deepest conditioning and earliest experiences of
the world. Those artists and scientists who struggle to discover new orders
must enter the world and it involves, I believe, a very painful sacrifice
that can almost destroy the individual. ”
Regina
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:40:01 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>Pat:
> >Do I notice any human violence for which
> >Suffering [pain plus resistance] is not the source?
>
>Don Factor:
> >...suffering doesn't necessarily mean something painful.
> >It can mean patience as in "suffer the little children". A
> >compassionate person for instance is usually a patient
> >person.
>
>
>As far as I know, 'patience' is derived from the same root as 'passion' and
>pathos'. It is the Latin equivalent to 'let'. I think it was probably
>supposed to mean something like; let it be, let it go. To me, it conveys a
>sense of allowing, accepting, letting, suffering. This would be in contrast
>to resisting or reacting or fighting. Hence, passion could be thought of as
>a form of non-reaction, non-resistance, or (in Bohmian jargon)
>'suspension'.
>
>Such passion or suspension goes somewhat against the grain and therefore
>requires a very high degree of attention, and awareness. Once could almost
>say that letting (suffering in this sense of passion) is a form of art, or
>skill at least.
>But if resistance is the source of human violence then passion could
>perhaps
>dry that source.
>
>william
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 3 17:46:35 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Nov 4 18:50:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <C170B9F0.7C3A%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
References: <C170B9F0.7C3A%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <0A14B790-2626-45AD-900F-7A4F3484B75D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I guess I got lucky. A long time ago, back in the seventies, I was a
member of a sufi oriented school
called Arica. During their main training, we did an excercise they
called Karma Cleaning. It involved a small
group of people sitting in a circle with a facilitator. We worked
with three different areas - sex, money
and power - which were felt to be the areas that were most troublesom
to most people. With each we were asked
to think of an incident in our lives, as early as possible, that
still carried an emotional charge. When one of us
would relate their story, he or she would be urged to repeat it
removing all the emotional language.
The idea was to relate the incident as if a camera was recording it.
As it were, objectively. This proved to be extremely
difficult but after a few tries when we would succeed the sign of
success was that we and the rest of the group
would break out laughing. The remarkable thing was that not only did
this clean the emotional charge from
that incident but it made it easier to deal with other incidents
in the same category. And it seemed to also work
for those in the group who hadn't told their stories.
I guess it taught me a bit about what in these circles is called
proprioception of thought and it has made the
whole process a little easier and taught me that whatever each of
does may well have an effect on others too.
However, I'm a long way from being cured.
don
On 3 Nov 2006, at 15:18, Lynne Tolk wrote:
> I love this dual understanding of suffering and passion. In
> response to
> Kathryn, I attended a workshop last week on "non-defensive
> communication"
> that really impressed me. Basically, the presenter, Sharon Strand
> Ellison,
> taught emotion-neutral questioning, reflecting what is heard, and
> expressing
> one's own conclusions. The idea is to avoid any "hooks" from the
> other
> person, while being open and non-judgmental, and at the same time
> setting
> boundaries where needed. As she said, it requires a tremendous
> amount of
> awareness. Seems to be the key to about anything.
>
> Lynne
> On 11/2/06 2:45 PM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> K: is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other
>> cheek", or
>> don't defend yourself is desirable? k
>>
>>> From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:40:01 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>>>
>>>
>>> Pat:
>>>> Do I notice any human violence for which
>>>> Suffering [pain plus resistance] is not the source?
>>>
>>> Don Factor:
>>>> ...suffering doesn't necessarily mean something painful.
>>>> It can mean patience as in "suffer the little children". A
>>>> compassionate person for instance is usually a patient
>>>> person.
>>>
>>>
>>> As far as I know, 'patience' is derived from the same root as
>>> 'passion' and
>>> pathos'. It is the Latin equivalent to 'let'. I think it was
>>> probably
>>> supposed to mean something like; let it be, let it go. To me, it
>>> conveys a
>>> sense of allowing, accepting, letting, suffering. This would be
>>> in contrast
>>> to resisting or reacting or fighting. Hence, passion could be
>>> thought of as
>>> a form of non-reaction, non-resistance, or (in Bohmian jargon)
>>> 'suspension'.
>>>
>>> Such passion or suspension goes somewhat against the grain and
>>> therefore
>>> requires a very high degree of attention, and awareness. Once
>>> could almost
>>> say that letting (suffering in this sense of passion) is a form
>>> of art, or
>>> skill at least.
>>> But if resistance is the source of human violence then passion could
>>> perhaps
>>> dry that source.
>>>
>>> william
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
>> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
> 208 376-1336
> www.lifedirectionscoach.com
> (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>
>
> "Love is never earned . . .
> It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Fri Nov 3 18:05:00 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Sat Nov 4 19:07:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <0A14B790-2626-45AD-900F-7A4F3484B75D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F3D95C1D9C17665BA62B04B7FE0@phx.gbl>
I'm a long way from being cured. (don)
Thank God you are not cured. If you were, you would be boring. And, you
would have no (or little) reason to dialogue.
Regina
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:46:35 +0000
>
>I guess I got lucky. A long time ago, back in the seventies, I was a
>member of a sufi oriented school
>called Arica. During their main training, we did an excercise they called
>Karma Cleaning. It involved a small
>group of people sitting in a circle with a facilitator. We worked with
>three different areas - sex, money
>and power - which were felt to be the areas that were most troublesom to
>most people. With each we were asked
>to think of an incident in our lives, as early as possible, that still
>carried an emotional charge. When one of us
>would relate their story, he or she would be urged to repeat it removing
>all the emotional language.
>The idea was to relate the incident as if a camera was recording it. As it
>were, objectively. This proved to be extremely
>difficult but after a few tries when we would succeed the sign of success
>was that we and the rest of the group
>would break out laughing. The remarkable thing was that not only did this
>clean the emotional charge from
> that incident but it made it easier to deal with other incidents in
>the same category. And it seemed to also work
> for those in the group who hadn't told their stories.
>
>I guess it taught me a bit about what in these circles is called
>proprioception of thought and it has made the
>whole process a little easier and taught me that whatever each of does may
>well have an effect on others too.
>However, I'm a long way from being cured.
>don
>
>On 3 Nov 2006, at 15:18, Lynne Tolk wrote:
>
>>I love this dual understanding of suffering and passion. In response to
>>Kathryn, I attended a workshop last week on "non-defensive communication"
>>that really impressed me. Basically, the presenter, Sharon Strand
>>Ellison,
>>taught emotion-neutral questioning, reflecting what is heard, and
>>expressing
>>one's own conclusions. The idea is to avoid any "hooks" from the other
>>person, while being open and non-judgmental, and at the same time setting
>>boundaries where needed. As she said, it requires a tremendous amount of
>>awareness. Seems to be the key to about anything.
>>
>>Lynne
>>On 11/2/06 2:45 PM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>K: is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek",
>>>or
>>>don't defend yourself is desirable? k
>>>
>>>>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>>>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:40:01 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Pat:
>>>>>Do I notice any human violence for which
>>>>>Suffering [pain plus resistance] is not the source?
>>>>
>>>>Don Factor:
>>>>>...suffering doesn't necessarily mean something painful.
>>>>>It can mean patience as in "suffer the little children". A
>>>>>compassionate person for instance is usually a patient
>>>>>person.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As far as I know, 'patience' is derived from the same root as 'passion'
>>>>and
>>>>pathos'. It is the Latin equivalent to 'let'. I think it was probably
>>>>supposed to mean something like; let it be, let it go. To me, it
>>>>conveys a
>>>>sense of allowing, accepting, letting, suffering. This would be in
>>>>contrast
>>>>to resisting or reacting or fighting. Hence, passion could be thought
>>>>of as
>>>>a form of non-reaction, non-resistance, or (in Bohmian jargon)
>>>>'suspension'.
>>>>
>>>>Such passion or suspension goes somewhat against the grain and
>>>>therefore
>>>>requires a very high degree of attention, and awareness. Once could
>>>>almost
>>>>say that letting (suffering in this sense of passion) is a form of art,
>>>>or
>>>>skill at least.
>>>>But if resistance is the source of human violence then passion could
>>>>perhaps
>>>>dry that source.
>>>>
>>>>william
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
>>>https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
>> 208 376-1336
>> www.lifedirectionscoach.com
>> (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>>
>>
>>"Love is never earned . . .
>>It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 3 18:45:52 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Sat Nov 4 19:49:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <DC5294C8-2195-4EC0-BB92-C54B64B0DA09@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <C17130D0.3702%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Joachim, Rodger and all interested in this theme,
I'm not sure how much I can say yet about this ... But it did feel important
to step away from the periphery (in some regard) to say something.
I think a core/periphery distinction exists in every discussion group to
some degree whether its decreed simply from how much people are engaged, or
how much people are actively participating, or whether it has an additional
dimension attached which derives from who holds the power within the group,
who determines what is 'right' (I hasten to say, however I don't operate
within a right/wrong dichotomy), or what is the dominant culture. What
weight is given to who's contributions.
This discussion group seems to be more interested in intellectual type
explorations of language rather than looking at these sort of 'power
dynamics' ... Yet of course such power dynamics inhabit the very words that
we use to communicate. I do see a place for senses, feelings, emotions some
of the time but it seems as if the intellectual is given more weight.
This isn't about me being wary of the intellect, I guess my difficulty is
that I can't separate it from senses, feelings, emotions, intuitions etc.
Gill
on 2/11/06 15:31, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
> Hi Rodger,
>
> Well, I think your question could lead to some interesting insights
> into the nature of Bohm-Dialogue. My "line of
> thinking" was: initially, some people here (Rogier, Owen, Gill)
> identified themselves as being on the periphery of this
> e-mail dialogue. I am of course not sure what each of them means by
> this, and probably they all mean something slightly
> (or even totally) different, but anyway, this act of "self-
> localization" rang a bell with me. So did the fact that all three of
> them
> seemed to have some sort of "concern" about this dialogue (e.g.
> Gill's heart vs. mind-dichotomy).
>
> In any case, this seems to indicate there is such a thing here, a
> core and a periphery.
> How can this be measured? Well, perhaps it's not a matter of
> distance, as you seem to suggest, but one of other quantifiable
> properties:
> the core could be defined as a certain level of activity (such as how
> often to you participate, how many words, messages you are producing,
> etc.)
> Katherine responded to my initial post saying something like "as far
> as I am concerned, you don't have to be on the
> periphery," which could lead one to conclude that there is no need
> for the periphery, every participant could/should be in the core.
>
> It seems to me that everywhere in nature (and culture) there is core
> and periphery (the sun and its planets; the nucleus
> of the atom vs. the electrons orbiting it; London vs. the rest of
> England, etc.) Both depend on each other, and each have different
> functions, which contribute
> to the whole.
>
> Now, if people on the periphery of this dialogue have concerns about
> it (that are not heard, perhaps?), then what does this
> tell us about this particular (natural/cultural) process?
>
> I am aware that a lot of what I say here is based on my speculation
> about what the other people on the periphery actually mean,
> which is why I suggested a "dialogue of the periphery."
>
>
> Joachim
>
>
> On 03.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
>> Rodger __ hi Joachim, re: periphery -- please define how distances
>> are measured from what is believed as central to bohm_dialogue?
>>
>> Since that measuring is applied to everyone, by way of conclussions
>> drawn, is it a conclussion we can each play our part in?
>>
>> Or is everyone simply placed in specific locations according to the
>> opinion of whoever does the measuring?
>>
>> How do you decide what defines the core and periphery of dialogue? _R
>> .
>> .
>> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:38:58 -0600
>> From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> .
>> Joachim
>>
>> PS: are there any other people on the "periphery" who can/would
>> like to share their experience?
>> .
>
> Joachim Faust
> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 3 19:08:49 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Nov 4 20:11:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <C17130D0.3702%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
References: <C17130D0.3702%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <8F44F297-C718-4782-9411-3C64823619AB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Don't worry, we have been into the power stuff at various times and
no doubt will be again.
These things kind of come and go in waves. And it is considerably
more difficult to talk about
emotions and feelings than it is about language and thought. It
requires a kind of taking risks
with language, perhaps exposing something our selves that doesn't
really want to be revealed.
That's really what all this talk about self image and self-world-view
is really about - I think.
Also, your comments make me think back to Bohm's comment that
participation involves both
active taking part and also partaking of. You need both. And
according to a link I sent a week
or so ago ninety percent of members of forums and discussion groups
never write anything. So
we're not unusual. That's one reason why I have sort of why I quit
complaining about all the silent
members of this group. I just have to remember that they are
partaking and when it becomes important
for them to take part actively they will, just as you have.
don
On 3 Nov 2006, at 17:45, Gill Wyatt wrote:
> Hi Joachim, Rodger and all interested in this theme,
>
> I'm not sure how much I can say yet about this ... But it did feel
> important
> to step away from the periphery (in some regard) to say something.
>
> I think a core/periphery distinction exists in every discussion
> group to
> some degree whether its decreed simply from how much people are
> engaged, or
> how much people are actively participating, or whether it has an
> additional
> dimension attached which derives from who holds the power within
> the group,
> who determines what is 'right' (I hasten to say, however I don't
> operate
> within a right/wrong dichotomy), or what is the dominant culture. What
> weight is given to who's contributions.
>
> This discussion group seems to be more interested in intellectual type
> explorations of language rather than looking at these sort of 'power
> dynamics' ... Yet of course such power dynamics inhabit the very
> words that
> we use to communicate. I do see a place for senses, feelings,
> emotions some
> of the time but it seems as if the intellectual is given more weight.
>
> This isn't about me being wary of the intellect, I guess my
> difficulty is
> that I can't separate it from senses, feelings, emotions,
> intuitions etc.
>
> Gill
>
>
>
>
> on 2/11/06 15:31, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> Hi Rodger,
>>
>> Well, I think your question could lead to some interesting insights
>> into the nature of Bohm-Dialogue. My "line of
>> thinking" was: initially, some people here (Rogier, Owen, Gill)
>> identified themselves as being on the periphery of this
>> e-mail dialogue. I am of course not sure what each of them means by
>> this, and probably they all mean something slightly
>> (or even totally) different, but anyway, this act of "self-
>> localization" rang a bell with me. So did the fact that all three of
>> them
>> seemed to have some sort of "concern" about this dialogue (e.g.
>> Gill's heart vs. mind-dichotomy).
>>
>> In any case, this seems to indicate there is such a thing here, a
>> core and a periphery.
>> How can this be measured? Well, perhaps it's not a matter of
>> distance, as you seem to suggest, but one of other quantifiable
>> properties:
>> the core could be defined as a certain level of activity (such as how
>> often to you participate, how many words, messages you are producing,
>> etc.)
>> Katherine responded to my initial post saying something like "as far
>> as I am concerned, you don't have to be on the
>> periphery," which could lead one to conclude that there is no need
>> for the periphery, every participant could/should be in the core.
>>
>> It seems to me that everywhere in nature (and culture) there is core
>> and periphery (the sun and its planets; the nucleus
>> of the atom vs. the electrons orbiting it; London vs. the rest of
>> England, etc.) Both depend on each other, and each have different
>> functions, which contribute
>> to the whole.
>>
>> Now, if people on the periphery of this dialogue have concerns about
>> it (that are not heard, perhaps?), then what does this
>> tell us about this particular (natural/cultural) process?
>>
>> I am aware that a lot of what I say here is based on my speculation
>> about what the other people on the periphery actually mean,
>> which is why I suggested a "dialogue of the periphery."
>>
>>
>> Joachim
>>
>>
>> On 03.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>
>>> Rodger __ hi Joachim, re: periphery -- please define how distances
>>> are measured from what is believed as central to bohm_dialogue?
>>>
>>> Since that measuring is applied to everyone, by way of conclussions
>>> drawn, is it a conclussion we can each play our part in?
>>>
>>> Or is everyone simply placed in specific locations according to the
>>> opinion of whoever does the measuring?
>>>
>>> How do you decide what defines the core and periphery of
>>> dialogue? _R
>>> .
>>> .
>>> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:38:58 -0600
>>> From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> .
>>> Joachim
>>>
>>> PS: are there any other people on the "periphery" who can/would
>>> like to share their experience?
>>> .
>>
>> Joachim Faust
>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 3 19:27:02 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Nov 4 20:29:40 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-F3D95C1D9C17665BA62B04B7FE0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY123-F3D95C1D9C17665BA62B04B7FE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42BB3C97-7C55-44E8-9186-E630A71EE033@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
True I guess.
don
On 3 Nov 2006, at 17:05, Regina Bensch-Coe wrote:
> I'm a long way from being cured. (don)
>
>
> Thank God you are not cured. If you were, you would be boring. And,
> you would have no (or little) reason to dialogue.
>
> Regina
>
>
>> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:46:35 +0000
>>
>> I guess I got lucky. A long time ago, back in the seventies, I was
>> a member of a sufi oriented school
>> called Arica. During their main training, we did an excercise
>> they called Karma Cleaning. It involved a small
>> group of people sitting in a circle with a facilitator. We worked
>> with three different areas - sex, money
>> and power - which were felt to be the areas that were most
>> troublesom to most people. With each we were asked
>> to think of an incident in our lives, as early as possible, that
>> still carried an emotional charge. When one of us
>> would relate their story, he or she would be urged to repeat it
>> removing all the emotional language.
>> The idea was to relate the incident as if a camera was recording
>> it. As it were, objectively. This proved to be extremely
>> difficult but after a few tries when we would succeed the sign
>> of success was that we and the rest of the group
>> would break out laughing. The remarkable thing was that not only
>> did this clean the emotional charge from
>> that incident but it made it easier to deal with other
>> incidents in the same category. And it seemed to also work
>> for those in the group who hadn't told their stories.
>>
>> I guess it taught me a bit about what in these circles is called
>> proprioception of thought and it has made the
>> whole process a little easier and taught me that whatever each of
>> does may well have an effect on others too.
>> However, I'm a long way from being cured.
>> don
>>
>> On 3 Nov 2006, at 15:18, Lynne Tolk wrote:
>>
>>> I love this dual understanding of suffering and passion. In
>>> response to
>>> Kathryn, I attended a workshop last week on "non-defensive
>>> communication"
>>> that really impressed me. Basically, the presenter, Sharon
>>> Strand Ellison,
>>> taught emotion-neutral questioning, reflecting what is heard,
>>> and expressing
>>> one's own conclusions. The idea is to avoid any "hooks" from
>>> the other
>>> person, while being open and non-judgmental, and at the same
>>> time setting
>>> boundaries where needed. As she said, it requires a tremendous
>>> amount of
>>> awareness. Seems to be the key to about anything.
>>>
>>> Lynne
>>> On 11/2/06 2:45 PM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> K: is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other
>>>> cheek", or
>>>> don't defend yourself is desirable? k
>>>>
>>>>> From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>>>> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:40:01 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat:
>>>>>> Do I notice any human violence for which
>>>>>> Suffering [pain plus resistance] is not the source?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don Factor:
>>>>>> ...suffering doesn't necessarily mean something painful.
>>>>>> It can mean patience as in "suffer the little children". A
>>>>>> compassionate person for instance is usually a patient
>>>>>> person.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know, 'patience' is derived from the same root as
>>>>> 'passion' and
>>>>> pathos'. It is the Latin equivalent to 'let'. I think it was
>>>>> probably
>>>>> supposed to mean something like; let it be, let it go. To me,
>>>>> it conveys a
>>>>> sense of allowing, accepting, letting, suffering. This would
>>>>> be in contrast
>>>>> to resisting or reacting or fighting. Hence, passion could be
>>>>> thought of as
>>>>> a form of non-reaction, non-resistance, or (in Bohmian jargon)
>>>>> 'suspension'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such passion or suspension goes somewhat against the grain and
>>>>> therefore
>>>>> requires a very high degree of attention, and awareness. Once
>>>>> could almost
>>>>> say that letting (suffering in this sense of passion) is a
>>>>> form of art, or
>>>>> skill at least.
>>>>> But if resistance is the source of human violence then passion
>>>>> could
>>>>> perhaps
>>>>> dry that source.
>>>>>
>>>>> william
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
>>>> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
>>> 208 376-1336
>>> www.lifedirectionscoach.com
>>> (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Love is never earned . . .
>>> It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https://
> voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Fri Nov 3 21:00:27 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Sat Nov 4 22:00:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04AD@msw2k.msw.local>
I've had the same feeling about the intellectual definition of words
without giving examples of how the word is used.
Our family has had an interesting involvement with power and control
with a member of our family. To use the words in context makes so much
difference. Control over what and whom, power over what or whom.
Intentional use of power and control? Use of power and control, simply
living what one has been taught through past and or present experience?
Power and control that our foreign policy has taken on (or maybe always
had)need no definition (or do they?) We have all talked about how words
are defined within context.
I have trouble reading the dictionary definitions and finding a way to
make them relevant in my life.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Gill Wyatt
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 12:46 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
Hi Joachim, Rodger and all interested in this theme,
I'm not sure how much I can say yet about this ... But it did feel
important to step away from the periphery (in some regard) to say
something.
I think a core/periphery distinction exists in every discussion group to
some degree whether its decreed simply from how much people are engaged,
or how much people are actively participating, or whether it has an
additional dimension attached which derives from who holds the power
within the group, who determines what is 'right' (I hasten to say,
however I don't operate within a right/wrong dichotomy), or what is the
dominant culture. What weight is given to who's contributions.
This discussion group seems to be more interested in intellectual type
explorations of language rather than looking at these sort of 'power
dynamics' ... Yet of course such power dynamics inhabit the very words
that we use to communicate. I do see a place for senses, feelings,
emotions some of the time but it seems as if the intellectual is given
more weight.
This isn't about me being wary of the intellect, I guess my difficulty
is that I can't separate it from senses, feelings, emotions, intuitions
etc.
Gill
on 2/11/06 15:31, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
> Hi Rodger,
>
> Well, I think your question could lead to some interesting insights
> into the nature of Bohm-Dialogue. My "line of thinking" was:
> initially, some people here (Rogier, Owen, Gill) identified themselves
> as being on the periphery of this e-mail dialogue. I am of course not
> sure what each of them means by this, and probably they all mean
> something slightly (or even totally) different, but anyway, this act
> of "self- localization" rang a bell with me. So did the fact that all
> three of them seemed to have some sort of "concern" about this
> dialogue (e.g.
> Gill's heart vs. mind-dichotomy).
>
> In any case, this seems to indicate there is such a thing here, a core
> and a periphery.
> How can this be measured? Well, perhaps it's not a matter of distance,
> as you seem to suggest, but one of other quantifiable
> properties:
> the core could be defined as a certain level of activity (such as how
> often to you participate, how many words, messages you are producing,
> etc.)
> Katherine responded to my initial post saying something like "as far
> as I am concerned, you don't have to be on the periphery," which
> could lead one to conclude that there is no need for the periphery,
> every participant could/should be in the core.
>
> It seems to me that everywhere in nature (and culture) there is core
> and periphery (the sun and its planets; the nucleus of the atom vs.
> the electrons orbiting it; London vs. the rest of England, etc.) Both
> depend on each other, and each have different functions, which
> contribute to the whole.
>
> Now, if people on the periphery of this dialogue have concerns about
> it (that are not heard, perhaps?), then what does this tell us about
> this particular (natural/cultural) process?
>
> I am aware that a lot of what I say here is based on my speculation
> about what the other people on the periphery actually mean, which is
> why I suggested a "dialogue of the periphery."
>
>
> Joachim
>
>
> On 03.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
>> Rodger __ hi Joachim, re: periphery -- please define how distances
>> are measured from what is believed as central to bohm_dialogue?
>>
>> Since that measuring is applied to everyone, by way of conclussions
>> drawn, is it a conclussion we can each play our part in?
>>
>> Or is everyone simply placed in specific locations according to the
>> opinion of whoever does the measuring?
>>
>> How do you decide what defines the core and periphery of dialogue? _R
>> .
>> .
>> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:38:58 -0600
>> From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> .
>> Joachim
>>
>> PS: are there any other people on the "periphery" who can/would like
>> to share their experience?
>> .
>
> Joachim Faust
> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 3 21:49:53 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Sat Nov 4 22:52:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <8F44F297-C718-4782-9411-3C64823619AB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C1715BF1.370D%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Don,
Yeah I'm sure these things come and go and yes I think it is more revealing
and/or difficult to talk about feelings, emotions etc.
And I also know what you been about 'partaking of'... No judgement intended
but sometimes it is my experience that those at the periphery, by their
partaking, are sometimes more deeply engaged.
I guess there is simply difference ... In so many different ways. I have
felt sometimes that some ways here are embraced more fully than others ...
And after an exploration into something more than language exploration,
there seems to be a return to the language exploration.
I feel good speaking out ... Thanks Joachim for starting this and Don,
Rodger and everyone else participating and partaking!!
Gill
on 3/11/06 18:08, Don Factor at donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Don't worry, we have been into the power stuff at various times and
> no doubt will be again.
> These things kind of come and go in waves. And it is considerably
> more difficult to talk about
> emotions and feelings than it is about language and thought. It
> requires a kind of taking risks
> with language, perhaps exposing something our selves that doesn't
> really want to be revealed.
> That's really what all this talk about self image and self-world-view
> is really about - I think.
>
> Also, your comments make me think back to Bohm's comment that
> participation involves both
> active taking part and also partaking of. You need both. And
> according to a link I sent a week
> or so ago ninety percent of members of forums and discussion groups
> never write anything. So
> we're not unusual. That's one reason why I have sort of why I quit
> complaining about all the silent
> members of this group. I just have to remember that they are
> partaking and when it becomes important
> for them to take part actively they will, just as you have.
>
> don
>
> On 3 Nov 2006, at 17:45, Gill Wyatt wrote:
>
>> Hi Joachim, Rodger and all interested in this theme,
>>
>> I'm not sure how much I can say yet about this ... But it did feel
>> important
>> to step away from the periphery (in some regard) to say something.
>>
>> I think a core/periphery distinction exists in every discussion
>> group to
>> some degree whether its decreed simply from how much people are
>> engaged, or
>> how much people are actively participating, or whether it has an
>> additional
>> dimension attached which derives from who holds the power within
>> the group,
>> who determines what is 'right' (I hasten to say, however I don't
>> operate
>> within a right/wrong dichotomy), or what is the dominant culture. What
>> weight is given to who's contributions.
>>
>> This discussion group seems to be more interested in intellectual type
>> explorations of language rather than looking at these sort of 'power
>> dynamics' ... Yet of course such power dynamics inhabit the very
>> words that
>> we use to communicate. I do see a place for senses, feelings,
>> emotions some
>> of the time but it seems as if the intellectual is given more weight.
>>
>> This isn't about me being wary of the intellect, I guess my
>> difficulty is
>> that I can't separate it from senses, feelings, emotions,
>> intuitions etc.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> on 2/11/06 15:31, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rodger,
>>>
>>> Well, I think your question could lead to some interesting insights
>>> into the nature of Bohm-Dialogue. My "line of
>>> thinking" was: initially, some people here (Rogier, Owen, Gill)
>>> identified themselves as being on the periphery of this
>>> e-mail dialogue. I am of course not sure what each of them means by
>>> this, and probably they all mean something slightly
>>> (or even totally) different, but anyway, this act of "self-
>>> localization" rang a bell with me. So did the fact that all three of
>>> them
>>> seemed to have some sort of "concern" about this dialogue (e.g.
>>> Gill's heart vs. mind-dichotomy).
>>>
>>> In any case, this seems to indicate there is such a thing here, a
>>> core and a periphery.
>>> How can this be measured? Well, perhaps it's not a matter of
>>> distance, as you seem to suggest, but one of other quantifiable
>>> properties:
>>> the core could be defined as a certain level of activity (such as how
>>> often to you participate, how many words, messages you are producing,
>>> etc.)
>>> Katherine responded to my initial post saying something like "as far
>>> as I am concerned, you don't have to be on the
>>> periphery," which could lead one to conclude that there is no need
>>> for the periphery, every participant could/should be in the core.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that everywhere in nature (and culture) there is core
>>> and periphery (the sun and its planets; the nucleus
>>> of the atom vs. the electrons orbiting it; London vs. the rest of
>>> England, etc.) Both depend on each other, and each have different
>>> functions, which contribute
>>> to the whole.
>>>
>>> Now, if people on the periphery of this dialogue have concerns about
>>> it (that are not heard, perhaps?), then what does this
>>> tell us about this particular (natural/cultural) process?
>>>
>>> I am aware that a lot of what I say here is based on my speculation
>>> about what the other people on the periphery actually mean,
>>> which is why I suggested a "dialogue of the periphery."
>>>
>>>
>>> Joachim
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rodger __ hi Joachim, re: periphery -- please define how distances
>>>> are measured from what is believed as central to bohm_dialogue?
>>>>
>>>> Since that measuring is applied to everyone, by way of conclussions
>>>> drawn, is it a conclussion we can each play our part in?
>>>>
>>>> Or is everyone simply placed in specific locations according to the
>>>> opinion of whoever does the measuring?
>>>>
>>>> How do you decide what defines the core and periphery of
>>>> dialogue? _R
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:38:58 -0600
>>>> From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>>>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> .
>>>> Joachim
>>>>
>>>> PS: are there any other people on the "periphery" who can/would
>>>> like to share their experience?
>>>> .
>>>
>>> Joachim Faust
>>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Fri Nov 3 22:46:27 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Sat Nov 4 23:46:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04B6@msw2k.msw.local>
Wow just looked up Ellison. She sounds terrific. You all talk about going to talks and lectures and group meeting. You should live in Tennessee. We can hear all there is to know about the far right--no problems with the environment, don't ever allow same sex marriage and heaven forbid, abortions.
If Minnesota weren' so cold we would have been there a long time ago. 40 years in Tennessee haven't made it easier although we have a wonderful group of progressives. And who knows maybe Ford will be our next senator but I'm not optimistic. D.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Lynne Tolk
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 10:19 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
I love this dual understanding of suffering and passion. In response to Kathryn, I attended a workshop last week on "non-defensive communication"
that really impressed me. Basically, the presenter, Sharon Strand Ellison, taught emotion-neutral questioning, reflecting what is heard, and expressing one's own conclusions. The idea is to avoid any "hooks" from the other person, while being open and non-judgmental, and at the same time setting boundaries where needed. As she said, it requires a tremendous amount of awareness. Seems to be the key to about anything.
Lynne
On 11/2/06 2:45 PM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> K: is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek", or
> don't defend yourself is desirable? k
>
>> From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:40:01 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>>
>>
>> Pat:
>>> Do I notice any human violence for which Suffering [pain plus
>>> resistance] is not the source?
>>
>> Don Factor:
>>> ...suffering doesn't necessarily mean something painful.
>>> It can mean patience as in "suffer the little children". A
>>> compassionate person for instance is usually a patient person.
>>
>>
>> As far as I know, 'patience' is derived from the same root as
>> 'passion' and pathos'. It is the Latin equivalent to 'let'. I think
>> it was probably supposed to mean something like; let it be, let it
>> go. To me, it conveys a sense of allowing, accepting, letting,
>> suffering. This would be in contrast to resisting or reacting or
>> fighting. Hence, passion could be thought of as a form of
>> non-reaction, non-resistance, or (in Bohmian jargon) 'suspension'.
>>
>> Such passion or suspension goes somewhat against the grain and
>> therefore requires a very high degree of attention, and awareness.
>> Once could almost say that letting (suffering in this sense of
>> passion) is a form of art, or skill at least.
>> But if resistance is the source of human violence then passion could
>> perhaps dry that source.
>>
>> william
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From rk33 at bigpond.com Fri Nov 3 23:17:43 2006
From: rk33 at bigpond.com (Robyn Knight)
Date: Sun Nov 5 00:20:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
References: <C1715BF1.370D%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <454BC007.000004.02756@AMDPC>
Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061104/d1a4c87d/attachment.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 20284 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061104/d1a4c87d/attachment-0001.gif
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 3 23:30:34 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sun Nov 5 00:33:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <454BC007.000004.02756@AMDPC>
References: <C1715BF1.370D%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
<454BC007.000004.02756@AMDPC>
Message-ID: <012D600E-AF61-4BEC-BC09-A1C85B61ADBC@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Gosh, you just joined.
Is it that bad?
don
On 3 Nov 2006, at 22:17, Robyn Knight wrote:
> Hi Guy
> Can someone please advise me how to remove myself from this
> dialogue email list. I am not too familiar with computers etc and
> am not sure how to do this.
> Regards Robyn
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Gill Wyatt
> Date: 11/04/06 06:50:04
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
>
> Hi Don,
>
> Yeah I'm sure these things come and go and yes I think it is more
> revealing
> and/or difficult to talk about feelings, emotions etc.
>
> And I also know what you been about 'partaking of'... No judgement
> intended
> but sometimes it is my experience that those at the periphery, by
> their
> partaking, are sometimes more deeply engaged.
>
> I guess there is simply difference ... In so many different ways. I
> have
> felt sometimes that some ways here are embraced more fully than
> others ...
> And after an exploration into something more than language
> exploration,
> there seems to be a return to the language exploration.
>
> I feel good speaking out ... Thanks Joachim for starting this and Don,
> Rodger and everyone else participating and partaking!!
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 3/11/06 18:08, Don Factor at donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Don't worry, we have been into the power stuff at various times and
> > no doubt will be again.
> > These things kind of come and go in waves. And it is considerably
> > more difficult to talk about
> > emotions and feelings than it is about language and thought. It
> > requires a kind of taking risks
> > with language, perhaps exposing something our selves that doesn't
> > really want to be revealed.
> > That's really what all this talk about self image and self-world-
> view
> > is really about - I think.
> >
> > Also, your comments make me think back to Bohm's comment that
> > participation involves both
> > active taking part and also partaking of. You need both. And
> > according to a link I sent a week
> > or so ago ninety percent of members of forums and discussion
> groups
> > never write anything. So
> > we're not unusual. That's one reason why I have sort of why I quit
> > complaining about all the silent
> > members of this group. I just have to remember that they are
> > partaking and when it becomes important
> > for them to take part actively they will, just as you have.
> >
> > don
> >
> > On 3 Nov 2006, at 17:45, Gill Wyatt wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Joachim, Rodger and all interested in this theme,
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how much I can say yet about this ... But it did feel
> >> important
> >> to step away from the periphery (in some regard) to say something.
> >>
> >> I think a core/periphery distinction exists in every discussion
> >> group to
> >> some degree whether its decreed simply from how much people are
> >> engaged, or
> >> how much people are actively participating, or whether it has an
> >> additional
> >> dimension attached which derives from who holds the power within
> >> the group,
> >> who determines what is 'right' (I hasten to say, however I don't
> >> operate
> >> within a right/wrong dichotomy), or what is the dominant
> culture. What
> >> weight is given to who's contributions.
> >>
> >> This discussion group seems to be more interested in
> intellectual type
> >> explorations of language rather than looking at these sort of
> 'power
> >> dynamics' ... Yet of course such power dynamics inhabit the very
> >> words that
> >> we use to communicate. I do see a place for senses, feelings,
> >> emotions some
> >> of the time but it seems as if the intellectual is given more
> weight.
> >>
> >> This isn't about me being wary of the intellect, I guess my
> >> difficulty is
> >> that I can't separate it from senses, feelings, emotions,
> >> intuitions etc.
> >>
> >> Gill
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> on 2/11/06 15:31, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Rodger,
> >>>
> >>> Well, I think your question could lead to some interesting
> insights
> >>> into the nature of Bohm-Dialogue. My "line of
> >>> thinking" was: initially, some people here (Rogier, Owen, Gill)
> >>> identified themselves as being on the periphery of this
> >>> e-mail dialogue. I am of course not sure what each of them
> means by
> >>> this, and probably they all mean something slightly
> >>> (or even totally) different, but anyway, this act of "self-
> >>> localization" rang a bell with me. So did the fact that all
> three of
> >>> them
> >>> seemed to have some sort of "concern" about this dialogue (e.g.
> >>> Gill's heart vs. mind-dichotomy).
> >>>
> >>> In any case, this seems to indicate there is such a thing here, a
> >>> core and a periphery.
> >>> How can this be measured? Well, perhaps it's not a matter of
> >>> distance, as you seem to suggest, but one of other quantifiable
> >>> properties:
> >>> the core could be defined as a certain level of activity (such
> as how
> >>> often to you participate, how many words, messages you are
> producing,
> >>> etc.)
> >>> Katherine responded to my initial post saying something like
> "as far
> >>> as I am concerned, you don't have to be on the
> >>> periphery," which could lead one to conclude that there is no
> need
> >>> for the periphery, every participant could/should be in the core.
> >>>
> >>> It seems to me that everywhere in nature (and culture) there is
> core
> >>> and periphery (the sun and its planets; the nucleus
> >>> of the atom vs. the electrons orbiting it; London vs. the rest of
> >>> England, etc.) Both depend on each other, and each have different
> >>> functions, which contribute
> >>> to the whole.
> >>>
> >>> Now, if people on the periphery of this dialogue have concerns
> about
> >>> it (that are not heard, perhaps?), then what does this
> >>> tell us about this particular (natural/cultural) process?
> >>>
> >>> I am aware that a lot of what I say here is based on my
> speculation
> >>> about what the other people on the periphery actually mean,
> >>> which is why I suggested a "dialogue of the periphery."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Joachim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 03.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Rodger __ hi Joachim, re: periphery -- please define how
> distances
> >>>> are measured from what is believed as central to bohm_dialogue?
> >>>>
> >>>> Since that measuring is applied to everyone, by way of
> conclussions
> >>>> drawn, is it a conclussion we can each play our part in?
> >>>>
> >>>> Or is everyone simply placed in specific locations according
> to the
> >>>> opinion of whoever does the measuring?
> >>>>
> >>>> How do you decide what defines the core and periphery of
> >>>> dialogue? _R
> >>>> .
> >>>> .
> >>>> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:38:58 -0600
> >>>> From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
> >>>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
> >>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >>>> .
> >>>> Joachim
> >>>>
> >>>> PS: are there any other people on the "periphery" who can/would
> >>>> like to share their experience?
> >>>> .
> >>>
> >>> Joachim Faust
> >>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> info:
> >>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>>
> >>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>>
> >>> dialogue facilitator:
> >>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>>
> >>> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >>> admin@david-bohm.net
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> info:
> >> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>
> >> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> dialogue facilitator:
> >> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >> admin@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.24/514 - Release Date:
> 2/11/2006
>
> .
> <IMSTP9.gif>
> <Cream_stripes_cream_border2.gif>
> <IMSTP9.gif>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061103/b7dd2770/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Fri Nov 3 23:14:31 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sun Nov 5 01:17:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04B6@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <C1711B67.7C78%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Hi Dorothy,
Actually, I live in Idaho, which can't be that much better than Tennessee.
I'm not sure how we got Sharon - I know she gave a couple of presentations
in Boise, then did a service and the workshop for the Unitarian Universalist
church here - we do have a good adult ed committee. (This church serves as
a haven for most of the liberals in town.)
Lynne
On 11/3/06 3:46 PM, "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com> wrote:
> Wow just looked up Ellison. She sounds terrific. You all talk about going to
> talks and lectures and group meeting. You should live in Tennessee. We can
> hear all there is to know about the far right--no problems with the
> environment, don't ever allow same sex marriage and heaven forbid, abortions.
> If Minnesota weren' so cold we would have been there a long time ago. 40
> years in Tennessee haven't made it easier although we have a wonderful group
> of progressives. And who knows maybe Ford will be our next senator but I'm
> not optimistic. D.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Lynne Tolk
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 10:19 AM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>
> I love this dual understanding of suffering and passion. In response to
> Kathryn, I attended a workshop last week on "non-defensive communication"
> that really impressed me. Basically, the presenter, Sharon Strand Ellison,
> taught emotion-neutral questioning, reflecting what is heard, and expressing
> one's own conclusions. The idea is to avoid any "hooks" from the other
> person, while being open and non-judgmental, and at the same time setting
> boundaries where needed. As she said, it requires a tremendous amount of
> awareness. Seems to be the key to about anything.
>
> Lynne
> On 11/2/06 2:45 PM, "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> K: is there an underlying assumption here that "turn the other cheek", or
>> don't defend yourself is desirable? k
>>
>>> From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:40:01 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>>>
>>>
>>> Pat:
>>>> Do I notice any human violence for which Suffering [pain plus
>>>> resistance] is not the source?
>>>
>>> Don Factor:
>>>> ...suffering doesn't necessarily mean something painful.
>>>> It can mean patience as in "suffer the little children". A
>>>> compassionate person for instance is usually a patient person.
>>>
>>>
>>> As far as I know, 'patience' is derived from the same root as
>>> 'passion' and pathos'. It is the Latin equivalent to 'let'. I think
>>> it was probably supposed to mean something like; let it be, let it
>>> go. To me, it conveys a sense of allowing, accepting, letting,
>>> suffering. This would be in contrast to resisting or reacting or
>>> fighting. Hence, passion could be thought of as a form of
>>> non-reaction, non-resistance, or (in Bohmian jargon) 'suspension'.
>>>
>>> Such passion or suspension goes somewhat against the grain and
>>> therefore requires a very high degree of attention, and awareness.
>>> Once could almost say that letting (suffering in this sense of
>>> passion) is a form of art, or skill at least.
>>> But if resistance is the source of human violence then passion could
>>> perhaps dry that source.
>>>
>>> william
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
>> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
> 208 376-1336
> www.lifedirectionscoach.com
> (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>
>
> "Love is never earned . . .
> It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen