From donlay at knology.net Tue Dec 4 13:46:20 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Dec 4 13:49:31 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com><004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01>
<3C2D58F9-C95B-4504-874D-851D2BEB9657@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c83673$ac19a580$b5c16018@DL01>
But also I don't know the context. Meaning is always in the context ... -- df
Maybe it is important to ask about context and meaning.
The context is that Bohm is a quantum scientist giving attention to this that is ... wholeness.
What is the meaning that a scientist speaks of non locality as the actuality and the local as perhaps imaginary? What is the meaning when a quantum scientist addresses social philosophy, begins talking about the use of imagination and the way people identity?
Does it mean that Capra's ideas are substantiated?
Do the discoveries of quantum science mean that epistemology "has been stood on its ear", that the language that uses two nouns for each verb is substantially inadequate?
If non locality is the actuality, what does it mean that we use the 2/1 noun/verb ratio?
Does it not mean that we, largely live imaginary lives -- especially when identifying our selves as imagery? -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
And rest assured that Bohm like the rest of us may, from time to time, have done this too.
"self is a map without a territory",
I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase. But also I don't know the context. Meaning is always in the context - something closer to a full meaning would have to be in the broader context. Language as map, can never fill out that context all by itself. This is the basis of the post-structuralist approach to linguistics. Some say that even the idea of an author is flawed because the speaker or writer can never really know what he or she is saying - or meaning - in so far as the deeper significance of the words are concerned. He or she cannot really know, at the time of writing, what his or her deeper intentions are nor how they arose from the actual circumstances that triggered the words. One might say that there is only interpretation. This is why scientists like use mathematics. It is the one language that can be thought of as unambiguous. That's why I like the idea of considering words as pointers rather than as symbols or images. They are fundamentally abstractions that cannot be understood without an understanding of the whole from which they have been abstracted. And then, that whole, a book or even a collection of books, are also abstractions. This may have something to do with Bohm's warning about not taking things too literally. It may also point to the idea that intelligence - the ability to read between the lines - is so important.
don
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Don Lay wrote:
When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.
Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?
Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.
It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions.
But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
don (donF)
On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
----------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/c923b891/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Tue Dec 4 13:50:08 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Dec 4 13:53:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com><004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01>
<3C2D58F9-C95B-4504-874D-851D2BEB9657@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <002601c83674$3358c120$b5c16018@DL01>
Language as map, can never fill out that context all by itself. This is the basis of the post-structuralist approach to linguistics. -- df
Since probably 99% plus of homo saps have no idea of structuralism, and less of post-structuralism, what might be the meaning of that for homo sapery? -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
And rest assured that Bohm like the rest of us may, from time to time, have done this too.
"self is a map without a territory",
I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase. But also I don't know the context. Meaning is always in the context - something closer to a full meaning would have to be in the broader context. Language as map, can never fill out that context all by itself. This is the basis of the post-structuralist approach to linguistics. Some say that even the idea of an author is flawed because the speaker or writer can never really know what he or she is saying - or meaning - in so far as the deeper significance of the words are concerned. He or she cannot really know, at the time of writing, what his or her deeper intentions are nor how they arose from the actual circumstances that triggered the words. One might say that there is only interpretation. This is why scientists like use mathematics. It is the one language that can be thought of as unambiguous. That's why I like the idea of considering words as pointers rather than as symbols or images. They are fundamentally abstractions that cannot be understood without an understanding of the whole from which they have been abstracted. And then, that whole, a book or even a collection of books, are also abstractions. This may have something to do with Bohm's warning about not taking things too literally. It may also point to the idea that intelligence - the ability to read between the lines - is so important.
don
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Don Lay wrote:
When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.
Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?
Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.
It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions.
But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
don (donF)
On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
----------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/168c5c90/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Tue Dec 4 13:58:23 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Tue Dec 4 14:01:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <00e101c835d1$7d56d9e0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <576735.5505.qm@web57404.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi dl. Map-maker and map are one process; to a lesser extend (lower dimension) two products. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. -- AL
Hi Al. I can see how that view might be useful. However, that view does not appear to address what db/thought addresses in db's remarks about the self and especially the identified personal self.
One view is that Bohm means that a map can be made of SOS language. For example, language can create or present a mental scenario in thought or in consciousness, and no "real place on Earth" can be found that the mental scenario actually points to.
Look for example at when people act and pretend being something they are not, just because "in there" in their thought systems, it creates good FEELS like the acting and pretending of fantasy can produce endorphins.
That kind of mental scenario has been treated for millennia as something "made up" by a confused mind, something presented purely by thought and does not re-present imagery "out there" outside the mind that creates it.
Can you see this view that this reasoning points to? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.
Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?
Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.
It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions. But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
don (donF)
On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/2d489fb3/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Tue Dec 4 14:04:38 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Dec 4 14:07:45 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com><004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01>
<3C2D58F9-C95B-4504-874D-851D2BEB9657@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <003001c83676$3a5aa900$b5c16018@DL01>
Some say that even the idea of an author is flawed because the speaker or writer can never really know what he or she is saying - or meaning - in so far as the deeper significance of the words are concerned. He or she cannot really know, at the time of writing, what his or her deeper intentions are nor how they arose from the actual circumstances that triggered the words. One might say that there is only interpretation. This is why scientists like use mathematics. -- df
Yes. But, I believe as Bohm points out in The Undivided Universe, mathematics cannot be meaningfully addressed by math and must use the language you say is flawed, which he, Bohm says, is substantially inadequate.
However, when this is pointed out, we hear the same old tired saw: This is all we got -- as if language cannot be given attention.
If we say "there is only interpretation", still we are using the unsubstantial and flawed language (Bohm/Factor).
What about investigating and exploring the radical approach of addressing reason and meaning as the structure of the universe? What about addressing reason and meaning as intelligence ... as inferred by Bohm -- without personalizing it and calling it god?
Maybe the answer is that if we stop personalizing intelligence, we would have to consider this that is as truth. -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
And rest assured that Bohm like the rest of us may, from time to time, have done this too.
"self is a map without a territory",
I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase. But also I don't know the context. Meaning is always in the context - something closer to a full meaning would have to be in the broader context. Language as map, can never fill out that context all by itself. This is the basis of the post-structuralist approach to linguistics. Some say that even the idea of an author is flawed because the speaker or writer can never really know what he or she is saying - or meaning - in so far as the deeper significance of the words are concerned. He or she cannot really know, at the time of writing, what his or her deeper intentions are nor how they arose from the actual circumstances that triggered the words. One might say that there is only interpretation. This is why scientists like use mathematics. It is the one language that can be thought of as unambiguous. That's why I like the idea of considering words as pointers rather than as symbols or images. They are fundamentally abstractions that cannot be understood without an understanding of the whole from which they have been abstracted. And then, that whole, a book or even a collection of books, are also abstractions. This may have something to do with Bohm's warning about not taking things too literally. It may also point to the idea that intelligence - the ability to read between the lines - is so important.
don
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Don Lay wrote:
When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.
Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?
Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.
It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions.
But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
don (donF)
On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
----------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/0ca0acb6/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Tue Dec 4 14:08:02 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Dec 4 14:11:06 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com><004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01>
<3C2D58F9-C95B-4504-874D-851D2BEB9657@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <003a01c83676$b3f29700$b5c16018@DL01>
That's why I like the idea of considering words as pointers rather than as symbols or images. -- df
Can written words be used as pointers on the printed page? What might the pointing be? What might they point to if not something like imagery that is memorized? -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
And rest assured that Bohm like the rest of us may, from time to time, have done this too.
"self is a map without a territory",
I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase. But also I don't know the context. Meaning is always in the context - something closer to a full meaning would have to be in the broader context. Language as map, can never fill out that context all by itself. This is the basis of the post-structuralist approach to linguistics. Some say that even the idea of an author is flawed because the speaker or writer can never really know what he or she is saying - or meaning - in so far as the deeper significance of the words are concerned. He or she cannot really know, at the time of writing, what his or her deeper intentions are nor how they arose from the actual circumstances that triggered the words. One might say that there is only interpretation. This is why scientists like use mathematics. It is the one language that can be thought of as unambiguous. That's why I like the idea of considering words as pointers rather than as symbols or images. They are fundamentally abstractions that cannot be understood without an understanding of the whole from which they have been abstracted. And then, that whole, a book or even a collection of books, are also abstractions. This may have something to do with Bohm's warning about not taking things too literally. It may also point to the idea that intelligence - the ability to read between the lines - is so important.
don
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Don Lay wrote:
When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.
Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?
Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.
It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions.
But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
don (donF)
On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
----------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/b861d972/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Tue Dec 4 14:17:30 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Dec 4 14:20:36 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <576735.5505.qm@web57404.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004901c83678$06095730$b5c16018@DL01>
Map-maker and map are one process ... -- Al
I see this POV.
However, a very common POV says that when the word, map, is used, it does not point to the territory and it does not point to the "maker" of the map. The word map is used to stand for, symbolize, a territory -- not the maker of the map.
What is the meaning of these differing Points of View? Is the meaning that there is fused, con-fused points of views? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi dl. Map-maker and map are one process; to a lesser extend (lower dimension) two products. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. -- AL
Hi Al. I can see how that view might be useful. However, that view does not appear to address what db/thought addresses in db's remarks about the self and especially the identified personal self.
One view is that Bohm means that a map can be made of SOS language. For example, language can create or present a mental scenario in thought or in consciousness, and no "real place on Earth" can be found that the mental scenario actually points to.
Look for example at when people act and pretend being something they are not, just because "in there" in their thought systems, it creates good FEELS like the acting and pretending of fantasy can produce endorphins.
That kind of mental scenario has been treated for millennia as something "made up" by a confused mind, something presented purely by thought and does not re-present imagery "out there" outside the mind that creates it.
Can you see this view that this reasoning points to? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.
Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?
Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.
It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions.
But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
don (donF)
On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
----------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
--------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/3fed2f77/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Tue Dec 4 14:29:50 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Dec 4 14:32:58 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com><004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01>
<3C2D58F9-C95B-4504-874D-851D2BEB9657@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <005b01c83679$c11aa230$b5c16018@DL01>
"Self is a map without a territory." ... Bohm
I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase. -- df
Is there any possibility that the words indicate that Bohm used a dictionary regarding the word self and saw that it came into being circa 1000 ce as self same and that evidence strongly suggests it was/is a translation of the Latin persona idem?
Is that why Bohm says that self (as persona) is not necessity?
Is it possible to see that Bohm sees that acting and pretending personal reality is something less than what the Greeks talk of as the really real? Is it possible that Bohm understood that very much of social experience is less than the really real?
What reasoning is used to ignore that the dictionary definition of the word self derives from the Greek and Latin words for mask which indicates acting and pretending?
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
And rest assured that Bohm like the rest of us may, from time to time, have done this too.
"self is a map without a territory",
I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase. But also I don't know the context. Meaning is always in the context - something closer to a full meaning would have to be in the broader context. Language as map, can never fill out that context all by itself. This is the basis of the post-structuralist approach to linguistics. Some say that even the idea of an author is flawed because the speaker or writer can never really know what he or she is saying - or meaning - in so far as the deeper significance of the words are concerned. He or she cannot really know, at the time of writing, what his or her deeper intentions are nor how they arose from the actual circumstances that triggered the words. One might say that there is only interpretation. This is why scientists like use mathematics. It is the one language that can be thought of as unambiguous. That's why I like the idea of considering words as pointers rather than as symbols or images. They are fundamentally abstractions that cannot be understood without an understanding of the whole from which they have been abstracted. And then, that whole, a book or even a collection of books, are also abstractions. This may have something to do with Bohm's warning about not taking things too literally. It may also point to the idea that intelligence - the ability to read between the lines - is so important.
don
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Don Lay wrote:
When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.
Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?
Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.
It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions.
But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
don (donF)
On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
----------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/8dea9179/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Tue Dec 4 18:31:10 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Dec 4 18:34:31 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <005b01c83679$c11aa230$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com><004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01>
<3C2D58F9-C95B-4504-874D-851D2BEB9657@dc.rr.com>
<005b01c83679$c11aa230$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <D9BD421F-2F76-414F-86BE-3FBFECC6DACA@dc.rr.com>
You raise a lot of interesting questions in this batch of e-mails -
too much for me to juggle at the moment. I hope others will jump in
with their perspectives. In the meanwhile, I would just like to
correct one error - that is, the etymology of "self" is not the same
as that of "person". To me, they mean two different things/
Here is what the New Oxford American Dictionary has to tell us:
ORIGIN Old English , of Germanic origin; related to Dutch zelf and
German selbe. Early use was emphatic, expressing the sense [(I)
myself,] [(he) himself,] etc.
don
On Dec 4, 2007, at 5:29 AM, Don Lay wrote:
> "Self is a map without a territory." ... Bohm
>
> I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase.
> -- df
>
> Is there any possibility that the words indicate that Bohm used a
> dictionary regarding the word self and saw that it came into being
> circa 1000 ce as self same and that evidence strongly suggests it
> was/is a translation of the Latin persona idem?
>
> Is that why Bohm says that self (as persona) is not necessity?
>
> Is it possible to see that Bohm sees that acting and pretending
> personal reality is something less than what the Greeks talk of as
> the really real? Is it possible that Bohm understood that very
> much of social experience is less than the really real?
>
> What reasoning is used to ignore that the dictionary definition of
> the word self derives from the Greek and Latin words for mask which
> indicates acting and pretending?
>
>
>
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
>> Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we
>> all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and
>> therefore without much meaning.
>
>
> And rest assured that Bohm like the rest of us may, from time to
> time, have done this too.
>
>> "self is a map without a territory",
>
> I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase.
> But also I don't know the context. Meaning is always in the context
> - something closer to a full meaning would have to be in the
> broader context. Language as map, can never fill out that context
> all by itself. This is the basis of the post-structuralist approach
> to linguistics. Some say that even the idea of an author is flawed
> because the speaker or writer can never really know what he or she
> is saying - or meaning - in so far as the deeper significance of
> the words are concerned. He or she cannot really know, at the time
> of writing, what his or her deeper intentions are nor how they
> arose from the actual circumstances that triggered the words. One
> might say that there is only interpretation. This is why scientists
> like use mathematics. It is the one language that can be thought of
> as unambiguous. That's why I like the idea of considering words as
> pointers rather than as symbols or images. They are fundamentally
> abstractions that cannot be understood without an understanding of
> the whole from which they have been abstracted. And then, that
> whole, a book or even a collection of books, are also abstractions.
> This may have something to do with Bohm's warning about not taking
> things too literally. It may also point to the idea that
> intelligence - the ability to read between the lines - is so
> important.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe
>> part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a
>> self, then by definition of the way language functions, something
>> like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for
>> the individual named.
>>
>> Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical
>> the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language
>> requires the use of the image as symbol.
>>
>> Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act
>> and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced
>> by the symbol?
>>
>> Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a
>> map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are
>> the actuality.
>>
>> It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at
>> the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the
>> symbolized.
>>
>> And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory"
>> point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has
>> inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated
>> observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to
>> be faulty?
>>
>> Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we
>> all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and
>> therefore without much meaning.
>>
>> Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
>>
>>
>> From: Alfred Landman
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>
>> Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference
>> not by whom, though. AL
>>
>> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>> DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some
>> of his questions.
>> But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile,
>> he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how
>> Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
>>
>> Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question,
>> AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is
>> incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I
>> too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance
>> of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it
>> probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want
>> to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff
>> that Eric has objected to.
>>
>> don (donF)
>>
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
>>
>>> Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As
>>> for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on
>>> an unfounded premise. AL
>>>
>>>
>>> Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>>> Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/
>>> thinker re group dynamics?
>>>
>>> What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Alfred Landman
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>>
>>> Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work
>>> of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking
>>> does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
>>>
>>> Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>>> Hi Al. Welcome.
>>>
>>> Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-
>>> image derive from De Mare?
>>>
>>> Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited
>>> meaning.
>>>
>>> Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
>>>
>>> What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Alfred Landman
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>>
>>> Hi fellow listserv-members -
>>> I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De
>>> Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished
>>> some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body
>>> of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and
>>> the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left
>>> things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in
>>> this quest? Thank you.
>>> AL
>>>
>>> Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>>> What horseshit!
>>>
>>>
>>> From: william
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>>
>>> >I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you
>>> escaped the trap.
>>> >Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then
>>> what?
>>>
>>> Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then
>>> he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo
>>> Mobile. Try it now.
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>
>>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
>> Try it now.
>>
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/d72b0b0c/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Tue Dec 4 19:14:28 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Dec 4 19:17:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com><004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01><3C2D58F9-C95B-4504-874D-851D2BEB9657@dc.rr.com><005b01c83679$c11aa230$b5c16018@DL01>
<D9BD421F-2F76-414F-86BE-3FBFECC6DACA@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <007201c836a1$82cd3420$b5c16018@DL01>
Yes. Bohm also was aware of this distinction, and that seems to be the reason for differentiating between self as personal identity and self as region of the universe, the former not necessity and the latter, I suppose, necessity.
I believe the OED points out that originally the word self only appeared with the word same, i.e., as self same. This appears to be a translation of the Latin, persona idem.
Does your New Oxford American Dictionary not use the word person in the definition of self? -- dl
The problem seems to be the conflation of persona idem with region of the universe with the personal identity requiring the image, imagination. -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
You raise a lot of interesting questions in this batch of e-mails - too much for me to juggle at the moment. I hope others will jump in with their perspectives. In the meanwhile, I would just like to correct one error - that is, the etymology of "self" is not the same as that of "person". To me, they mean two different things/
Here is what the New Oxford American Dictionary has to tell us:
ORIGIN Old English , of Germanic origin; related to Dutch zelf and German selbe. Early use was emphatic, expressing the sense [(I) myself,] [(he) himself,] etc.
don
On Dec 4, 2007, at 5:29 AM, Don Lay wrote:
"Self is a map without a territory." ... Bohm
I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase. -- df
Is there any possibility that the words indicate that Bohm used a dictionary regarding the word self and saw that it came into being circa 1000 ce as self same and that evidence strongly suggests it was/is a translation of the Latin persona idem?
Is that why Bohm says that self (as persona) is not necessity?
Is it possible to see that Bohm sees that acting and pretending personal reality is something less than what the Greeks talk of as the really real? Is it possible that Bohm understood that very much of social experience is less than the really real?
What reasoning is used to ignore that the dictionary definition of the word self derives from the Greek and Latin words for mask which indicates acting and pretending?
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
And rest assured that Bohm like the rest of us may, from time to time, have done this too.
"self is a map without a territory",
I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this phrase. But also I don't know the context. Meaning is always in the context - something closer to a full meaning would have to be in the broader context. Language as map, can never fill out that context all by itself. This is the basis of the post-structuralist approach to linguistics. Some say that even the idea of an author is flawed because the speaker or writer can never really know what he or she is saying - or meaning - in so far as the deeper significance of the words are concerned. He or she cannot really know, at the time of writing, what his or her deeper intentions are nor how they arose from the actual circumstances that triggered the words. One might say that there is only interpretation. This is why scientists like use mathematics. It is the one language that can be thought of as unambiguous. That's why I like the idea of considering words as pointers rather than as symbols or images. They are fundamentally abstractions that cannot be understood without an understanding of the whole from which they have been abstracted. And then, that whole, a book or even a collection of books, are also abstractions. This may have something to do with Bohm's warning about not taking things too literally. It may also point to the idea that intelligence - the ability to read between the lines - is so important.
don
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Don Lay wrote:
When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.
Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?
Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.
It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions.
But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
don (donF)
On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
----------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
--------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/29c44cb2/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Tue Dec 4 19:18:15 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Tue Dec 4 19:21:35 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <004901c83678$06095730$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <973216.57152.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Don Lay. You could study mono-cultures and what pests mean to them. You could study mono-cultures and what pests mean. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: Map-maker and map are one process ... -- Al
I see this POV.
However, a very common POV says that when the word, map, is used, it does not point to the territory and it does not point to the "maker" of the map. The word map is used to stand for, symbolize, a territory -- not the maker of the map.
What is the meaning of these differing Points of View? Is the meaning that there is fused, con-fused points of views? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi dl. Map-maker and map are one process; to a lesser extend (lower dimension) two products. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. -- AL
Hi Al. I can see how that view might be useful. However, that view does not appear to address what db/thought addresses in db's remarks about the self and especially the identified personal self.
One view is that Bohm means that a map can be made of SOS language. For example, language can create or present a mental scenario in thought or in consciousness, and no "real place on Earth" can be found that the mental scenario actually points to.
Look for example at when people act and pretend being something they are not, just because "in there" in their thought systems, it creates good FEELS like the acting and pretending of fantasy can produce endorphins.
That kind of mental scenario has been treated for millennia as something "made up" by a confused mind, something presented purely by thought and does not re-present imagery "out there" outside the mind that creates it.
Can you see this view that this reasoning points to? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.
Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?
Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.
It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions. But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
don (donF)
On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any progress in this quest? Thank you.
AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What horseshit!
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am glad that you escaped the trap.
>Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them. Then what?
Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/a259cc12/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Tue Dec 4 19:28:14 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Dec 4 19:31:35 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <007201c836a1$82cd3420$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <788688.76528.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com><004c01c835b4$fcd3bf20$b5c16018@DL01><3C2D58F9-C95B-4504-874D-851D2BEB9657@dc.rr.com><005b01c83679$c11aa230$b5c16018@DL01>
<D9BD421F-2F76-414F-86BE-3FBFECC6DACA@dc.rr.com>
<007201c836a1$82cd3420$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <239EAA6B-B361-4DF8-87BD-C73FD141A9E1@dc.rr.com>
Here is the full definition.
I suppose that one needs to take care to distinguish similar
differences and different similarities. As someone here wrote,
similar still means different.
don
New Oxford American Dictionary
self |self|
noun ( pl. selves |selvz|)
a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, esp.
considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action : our
alienation from our true selves | [in sing. ] guilt can be turned
against the self | language is an aspect of a person's sense of self.
? [with adj. ] a person's particular nature or personality; the
qualities that make a person individual or unique : by the end of the
round he was back to his old self | Paula seemed to be her usual
cheerful self.
? one's own interests or pleasure : to love in an unpossessive way
implies the total surrender of self.
pronoun ( pl. selves )
oneself, in particular
? [with adj. ] ( one's self) used ironically to refer in specified
glowing terms to oneself or someone else : the only side worth
supporting is your own sweet self.
adjective [ attrib. ]
(of a trimming or cover) of the same material and color as the rest
of the item : a dress with self belt.
verb [ trans. ] chiefly Botany
self-pollinate; self-fertilize : [as n. ] ( selfing) the flowers
never open and pollination is normally by selfing.
? [usu. as adj. ] ( selfed) Genetics cause (an animal or plant) to
breed with or fertilize one of the same hybrid origin or strain :
progeny were derived from selfed crosses.
On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Don Lay wrote:
> Yes. Bohm also was aware of this distinction, and that seems to be
> the reason for differentiating between self as personal identity
> and self as region of the universe, the former not necessity and
> the latter, I suppose, necessity.
>
> I believe the OED points out that originally the word self only
> appeared with the word same, i.e., as self same. This appears to
> be a translation of the Latin, persona idem.
>
> Does your New Oxford American Dictionary not use the word person in
> the definition of self? -- dl
>
> The problem seems to be the conflation of persona idem with region
> of the universe with the personal identity requiring the image,
> imagination. -- dl
>
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> You raise a lot of interesting questions in this batch of e-mails -
> too much for me to juggle at the moment. I hope others will jump in
> with their perspectives. In the meanwhile, I would just like to
> correct one error - that is, the etymology of "self" is not the
> same as that of "person". To me, they mean two different things/
>
> Here is what the New Oxford American Dictionary has to tell us:
>
> ORIGIN Old English , of Germanic origin; related to Dutch zelf and
> German selbe. Early use was emphatic, expressing the sense [(I)
> myself,] [(he) himself,] etc.
>
> don
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2007, at 5:29 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> "Self is a map without a territory." ... Bohm
>>
>> I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this
>> phrase. -- df
>>
>> Is there any possibility that the words indicate that Bohm used a
>> dictionary regarding the word self and saw that it came into being
>> circa 1000 ce as self same and that evidence strongly suggests it
>> was/is a translation of the Latin persona idem?
>>
>> Is that why Bohm says that self (as persona) is not necessity?
>>
>> Is it possible to see that Bohm sees that acting and pretending
>> personal reality is something less than what the Greeks talk of as
>> the really real? Is it possible that Bohm understood that very
>> much of social experience is less than the really real?
>>
>> What reasoning is used to ignore that the dictionary definition of
>> the word self derives from the Greek and Latin words for mask
>> which indicates acting and pretending?
>>
>>
>>
>> From: donald factor
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:36 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>
>>> Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we
>>> all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness
>>> and therefore without much meaning.
>>
>>
>> And rest assured that Bohm like the rest of us may, from time to
>> time, have done this too.
>>
>>> "self is a map without a territory",
>>
>> I don't understand either what he was trying to say in this
>> phrase. But also I don't know the context. Meaning is always in
>> the context - something closer to a full meaning would have to be
>> in the broader context. Language as map, can never fill out that
>> context all by itself. This is the basis of the post-structuralist
>> approach to linguistics. Some say that even the idea of an author
>> is flawed because the speaker or writer can never really know what
>> he or she is saying - or meaning - in so far as the deeper
>> significance of the words are concerned. He or she cannot really
>> know, at the time of writing, what his or her deeper intentions
>> are nor how they arose from the actual circumstances that
>> triggered the words. One might say that there is only
>> interpretation. This is why scientists like use mathematics. It is
>> the one language that can be thought of as unambiguous. That's why
>> I like the idea of considering words as pointers rather than as
>> symbols or images. They are fundamentally abstractions that cannot
>> be understood without an understanding of the whole from which
>> they have been abstracted. And then, that whole, a book or even a
>> collection of books, are also abstractions. This may have
>> something to do with Bohm's warning about not taking things too
>> literally. It may also point to the idea that intelligence - the
>> ability to read between the lines - is so important.
>>
>> don
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>> When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe
>>> part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a
>>> self, then by definition of the way language functions, something
>>> like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for
>>> the individual named.
>>>
>>> Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical
>>> the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language
>>> requires the use of the image as symbol.
>>>
>>> Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then
>>> act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality
>>> referenced by the symbol?
>>>
>>> Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is
>>> a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they
>>> are the actuality.
>>>
>>> It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at
>>> the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be
>>> the symbolized.
>>>
>>> And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory"
>>> point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has
>>> inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated
>>> observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to
>>> be faulty?
>>>
>>> Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we
>>> all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness
>>> and therefore without much meaning.
>>>
>>> Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Alfred Landman
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>>
>>> Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference
>>> not by whom, though. AL
>>>
>>> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer
>>> some of his questions.
>>> But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile,
>>> he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how
>>> Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
>>>
>>> Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question,
>>> AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What
>>> is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious.
>>> I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the
>>> furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult
>>> book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of
>>> readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the
>>> sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
>>>
>>> don (donF)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As
>>>> for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on
>>>> an unfounded premise. AL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>>>> Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/
>>>> thinker re group dynamics?
>>>>
>>>> What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Alfred Landman
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>>>
>>>> Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work
>>>> of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking
>>>> does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
>>>>
>>>> Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi Al. Welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-
>>>> image derive from De Mare?
>>>>
>>>> Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have
>>>> limited meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
>>>>
>>>> What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Alfred Landman
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>>>
>>>> Hi fellow listserv-members -
>>>> I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De
>>>> Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished
>>>> some of his books and want to join your discussion. Has the body
>>>> of contributions of this forum over the years taken the ideas
>>>> and the proposal of dialogue to another level from where Bohm
>>>> left things off? Can you point me and other readers to any
>>>> progress in this quest? Thank you.
>>>> AL
>>>>
>>>> Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>>>> What horseshit!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: william
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>>>
>>>> >I: I truly, truly hope you are right. I am
>>>> glad that you escaped the trap.
>>>> >Sometimes they refuse to stay where you can confront them.
>>>> Then what?
>>>>
>>>> Don't worry, he is not going to run away. If he is a fighter
>>>> then he will face the confrontation. Wait and see...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo
>>>> Mobile. Try it now.
>>>>
>>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>>>
>>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>>>
>>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>
>>> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
>>> Mobile. Try it now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071204/8f4d01a5/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Tue Dec 4 20:51:49 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Dec 4 20:54:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <973216.57152.qm@web57414.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <008b01c836af$1bfe0c70$b5c16018@DL01>
Maybe, but why? -- dl
http:From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi Don Lay. You could study mono-cultures and what pests mean to them. You could study mono-cultures and what pests mean. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Map-maker and map are one process ... -- Al
I see this POV.
However, a very common POV says that when the word, map, is used, it does not point to the territory and it does not point to the "maker" of the map. The word map is used to stand for, symbolize, a territory -- not the maker of the map.
What is the meaning of these differing Points of View? Is the meaning that there is fused, con-fused points of views? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi dl. Map-maker and map are one process; to a lesser extend (lower dimension) two products. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. -- AL
Hi Al. I can see how that view might be useful. However, that view does not appear to address what db/thought addresses in db's remarks about the self and especially the identified personal self.
One view is that Bohm means that a map can be made of SOS language. For example, language can create or present a mental scenario in thought or in consciousness, and no "real place on Earth" can be found that the mental scenario actually points to.
Look for example at when people act and pretend being something they are not, just because "in there" in their thought systems, it creates good FEELS like the acting and pretending of fantasy can produce endorphins.
That kind of mental scenario has been treated for millennia as something "made up" by a confused mind, something presented purely by thought and does not re-present imagery "out there" outside the mind that creates it.
Can you see this view that this reasoning points to? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi dl. Any territory is nothing but a map. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
When Bohm says that "self is a map without a territory", maybe part of the meaning is that when using language to reference a self, then by definition of the way language functions, something like an image is used "in there" in tas or in mind to stand for the individual named.
Clearly, the individual referenced by the image is not identical the image by use of the reason that meaningful use of language requires the use of the image as symbol.
Speaking of insanity, is it not insane to use symbols and then act and pretend they are not symbols, but are the actuality referenced by the symbol?
Is not this what Bohm references with the idea that the "self is a map without a territory"? That is, we use symbols as if they are the actuality.
It seems the significance of the quantum discoveries is that at the quantum level of awareness the symbol is not and cannot be the symbolized.
And doesn't Bohm's use of the self as "a map without a territory" point to the idea that the language symbolism modern man has inherited is based largely upon the notion of the separated observer and observed that the quantum discoveries have shown to be faulty?
Once again, this is difficult to talk about because it seems we all use language reflexively or mechanically without awareness and therefore without much meaning.
Anyone else see this as being meaningful? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi donF. DL does assume an "attraction for Bohm", does reference not by whom, though. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
DL might like to check out this link which may help to answer some of his questions.
But even better would be if he read "Koinonia", In the meanwhile, he might go from this link to the "connections" link to see how Bohm fits in. to what Diversity is up to.
Part two: I don't understand your comment about DonL's question, AL. Is it the question below that you are inquiring about? What is incomplete, and what are the unfounded premises? I am curious. I too, consider DeMare's work of great importance in the furtherance of this dialogue project. Koinonia is a difficult book - it probably tries to bring more territory than a lot of readers want to handle. It may also offer some insight into the sort of stuff that Eric has objected to.
don (donF)
On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi DL. Not drawing a line, I am not in a position to survey. As for your other question, it appears to be incomplete or based on an unfounded premise. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Al, is De Mare mostly known as a therapist or as a theorist/thinker re group dynamics?
What was the attraction for Bohm? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi DL. Thanks. It depends, like anything else, on the frame-work of re-presentation of "self-image" in usage. The idea of liking does not surface here when it comes to going through their work. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Hi Al. Welcome.
Does Bohm's ideas regarding the identified personal self or self-image derive from De Mare?
Evidently, Bohm considers the self and self-image to have limited meaning.
Perhaps because at the level of quantum movement it has no meaning.
What do you like about De Mare/Bohm thought? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Hi fellow listserv-members -
I am new to this group. My interest in the work of Patrick De Mare brought me to David Bohm and his writings. I just finished some of his books and want to join your discuss