From w at david-bohm.net  Wed Oct  4 00:22:39 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Thu Oct  5 01:28:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] sleep talker
References: <4522C461.000009.01288@WINDOWS2>
Message-ID: <4522E2AF.00000B.01288@WINDOWS2>

 
I don't remember who it was, but someone recently wanted to talk about sleep
 
I was just wondering how can one talk about sleep? I can see how one can
talk about falling asleep, or not being able to go to sleep, or about waking
up....
But being asleep? How can you talk about being asleep? When i am asleep i
cannot speak, and when i can speak i am not asleep. I sounds a bit like a
paradox, doesn't it? 
How can i speak from personal experience about sleep, as it is happening? Or
should i speak from memory; what it was like? Or what is the question? I don
t know, somehow this question doesn't sound very honest to me. 

But i could say something about dreaming. Is dreaming being asleep?  When i
can slide down the stairs using my feet as a kind of skateboard instead of
walking down the stairs then i know i am asleep. When i can take off and fly
around like a bird then i know i am asleep. When i wake up, i cannot see
much anymore, cannot think much anymore, cannot do much anymore. When i wake
up, i have the feeling of going down. When i  feel consciousness coming back
i know i have to go. Being awake is being crippled. 

And this raises another question; how do you know if you are asleep or
awake? I discovered how you can tell; when you're asleep, things can happen
that are not possible otherwise. So, if things appear and disappear before
my eyes than i know i am asleep.   But the most reliable indication is the
lack of surprise. When all these magical things happen and i don't feel
surprised then i know i am asleep. Somehow, waking up is always a
disappointment. It's what you have to do before you can come back. 

william


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/0cc3464f/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  4 01:56:52 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct  5 02:53:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

from ?On Dialog and Its Application? -

Love will go away if we can?t communicate and share meaning.  The love
between Einstein and Bohr gradually evaporated because they could not
communicate.  However, if we can really communicate, then we will have
fellowship, participation, friendship, and love, growing and growing.  The
question is really: do you see the necessity of this process?  That?s the
key question.  If you see that it is absolutely necessary, then you have to
do something...  Possibly it could make a new change in the individual and a
change in the relation to the cosmic.  Such an energy has been called
?communion?.  It is a kind of participation.  The early Christians had a
Greek word ?koinonia?, the root of which means to participate...the idea of
partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not merely the whole group,
but the WHOLE.

What a beautiful thought!

No one ?has? to do Bohm dialog.

Sent with love and love of koinonia.    Kathy



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061003/9fc85455/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Oct  4 11:47:44 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct  5 12:44:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5A1D3F41-10DF-42A9-9A3E-4DA7F8F31BDB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>



> from ?On Dialog and Its Application? -
>
> Love will go away if we can?t communicate and share meaning.  The  
> love between Einstein and Bohr gradually evaporated because they  
> could not communicate.  However, if we can really communicate, then  
> we will have fellowship, participation, friendship, and love,  
> growing and growing.  The question is really: do you see the  
> necessity of this process?  That?s the key question.  If you see  
> that it is absolutely necessary, then you have to do something...   
> Possibly it could make a new change in the individual and a change  
> in the relation to the cosmic.  Such an energy has been called  
> ?communion?.  It is a kind of participation.  The early Christians  
> had a Greek word ?koinonia?, the root of which means to  
> participate...the idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in  
> it; not merely the whole group, but the WHOLE.
>
> What a beautiful thought!
>
> No one ?has? to do Bohm dialog.
>
> Sent with love and love of koinonia.    Kathy
>
YES, AND

Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and  
Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue  
is not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in  
communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them  
directly. It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In  
Dialogue we are ready to raise topics serious enough to cause  
trouble. But while we are talking we are interested in being aware of  
what's going on inside us and between us. D Bohm

Don



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/ad733eb0/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com  Wed Oct  4 11:48:18 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 12:44:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <c46.4adf7bd.3254dd62@aol.com>

 
Hi Kathy,
 
I've surfaced again!! I like this - this chimes in with other thinking  about 
the wider connections - the "group" is, I think, just what the group  agrees 
itself to be. The most fascinating example of this was at a workshop I  
attended where we were asked to cluster in the room. At that point we were a  group 
of people with a common purpose, which was to attend the workshop. We were  
then asked to cluster ourselves in terms of what music we liked. That was  
interesting - especially for those who crossed several boundaries - and the  group 
started to have trouble with this essentially 2-dimensional  representation of 
how our passions grouped using the floor area of  the room. Then I suggested 
we could also cluster as players or  listeners - again a different take to the 
grouping. If we had started to go down  the road of what "sort" of 
instrument, then it would have required I think more  than 3 or 4 dimensions as it was 
really difficult to see how many potential  "groups" we were - and for all of 
the groups apart from the big "I'm attending  this workshop" group at the 
beginning, we were parts of other, invisible,  extended groups beyond the 
boundaries of the room. What that showed me is how  mobile and interesting this concept 
of inside/outside is.
 
Perhaps the group is merely what we agree it to be at that moment.

the  idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not merely the 
whole  group, but the WHOLE.


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/621942df/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com  Wed Oct  4 11:53:10 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 12:49:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <278.584f1c0f.3254de86@aol.com>

 
That's REALLY interesting. I wonder (and sorry to drag this yet again back  
to music!!) if that's why people who explore dialogue through music, such as  
myself and Kathy and others here, find there's a sense of releasing, of  inh
ibitions being blown away. Someone in one of my groups once characterised  that 
as "challenging people at a fundamental level", and that led to a rich  
discussion (using words) where the definition of what they meant seemed to elude  
them - like trying to grab hold of a bit of spilled mercury, it seemed to be  
there but not there and seemed to defy any attempts to shape it into a more  
concrete piece of thinking. 

It  addresses the blocks in communication, not merely to understand them, but 
to  meet them directly. It is aimed at seeing resistances to  communication.


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/52942070/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Oct  4 12:44:37 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct  5 13:41:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <c46.4adf7bd.3254dd62@aol.com>
References: <c46.4adf7bd.3254dd62@aol.com>
Message-ID: <921D079B-5430-4D37-AEE6-2E1A1ACA8D8F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>


On 4 Oct 2006, at 10:48, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps the group is merely what we agree it to be at that moment.
> the idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not  
> merely the whole group, but the WHOLE.
>
Indeed. But the sub-groups or sub-cultures remain, One might say,  
that on one level there are a number of individuals, each with their  
own perspective and set of values and intentions, and at another, it  
is a group of groupings of people with their own sharedt values and  
meanings distinct from the others. And then, finally, of course, the  
whole group is a distinct part of the larger culture from which it  
has been drawn. In fact, these distinctions are very fluid but their  
presence has to be kept in mind if we are to make sense of what we  
are doing in the group in the first place.

don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/13880c12/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com  Wed Oct  4 13:12:05 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 14:08:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <237.1052da89.3254f105@aol.com>

 
Hi Don
 
That puts me in mind of layers, or something like a building with different  
floors. But I see you're saying it's more fluid than that. So is this what 
Bohm  might have meant when he talks about suspending (holding up to view) our  
assumptions: not just assumptions about ourselves, but about the group, about  
the culture... and I was going to say, "where does it stop", but of course he  
says we see what we choose to see against a background which is just an 
infinite  set of such qualitative levels. I read some of his work on Mechanism and 
Beyond  (2002) and I even found his writing echoing this sense of layers / 
levels;  here's what I wrote at the time:
 
?Initially I couldn?t make sense of any of it taken a  sentence at a time. 
In despair I read large parts of the text, in approximately  2-page chunks. In 
this way I started to get a sense of what he was saying and it  was this 
overall sense which then allowed me to go back and see meaning in most  of the 
component sentences, as if I were standing in front of a forest and  having to 
zoom out and see the shape of the forest before going back in and  discovering 
the individual trees. It was unlike any other piece of reading I?ve  done: and I 
had a revelation that the interconnected levels I?d noticed, of  chapter / 
chunk / sentence, are an expression of his notion of a qualitative  infinity of 
levels. If that was his intention, it?s an amazing piece of writing  even if 
the meaning emerged for me in a very unconventional way?. 
 
He must have been an amazing person to talk to. Did you know him?  (apologies 
- I haven't been in the group long so I'm still trying to work out  who has 
done what with whom!!)

One  might say, that on one level there are a number of individuals, each 
with  their own perspective and set of values and intentions, and at another, it 
is  a group of groupings of people with their own sharedt values and meanings  
distinct from the others. And then, finally, of course, the whole group is a  
distinct part of the larger culture from which it has been drawn. In fact,  
these distinctions are very fluid but their presence has to be kept in mind if  
we are to make sense of what we are doing in the group in the first  place.


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/816170b0/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Oct  4 13:42:01 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct  5 14:38:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <237.1052da89.3254f105@aol.com>
References: <237.1052da89.3254f105@aol.com>
Message-ID: <328BCB35-E57C-4D53-B4A9-E81146FDA3F7@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

I think you got it, as much as it is gettable. Its this notion of an  
infinity of levels, or he sometimes spoke of orders including  
"generative orders". He also made the point that descriptions at one  
level may be contradicted at another.  ("Science, Order and  
Creativity" is worth reading regarding orders and much else.)

I  did know him and yes, he was an amazing person to talk to. I had  
the good fortune to get to spend a lot of time with him during the  
last 8 or 9 years of his life. You might get a better taste of him at:

http://www.anemptyexistence.com/eternalfrontier/index2.html

don


On 4 Oct 2006, at 12:12, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:

> Hi Don
>
> That puts me in mind of layers, or something like a building with  
> different floors. But I see you're saying it's more fluid than  
> that. So is this what Bohm might have meant when he talks about  
> suspending (holding up to view) our assumptions: not just  
> assumptions about ourselves, but about the group, about the  
> culture... and I was going to say, "where does it stop", but of  
> course he says we see what we choose to see against a background  
> which is just an infinite set of such qualitative levels. I read  
> some of his work on Mechanism and Beyond (2002) and I even found  
> his writing echoing this sense of layers / levels; here's what I  
> wrote at the time:
>
> ?Initially I couldn?t make sense of any of it taken a sentence at a  
> time. In despair I read large parts of the text, in approximately 2- 
> page chunks. In this way I started to get a sense of what he was  
> saying and it was this overall sense which then allowed me to go  
> back and see meaning in most of the component sentences, as if I  
> were standing in front of a forest and having to zoom out and see  
> the shape of the forest before going back in and discovering the  
> individual trees. It was unlike any other piece of reading I?ve  
> done: and I had a revelation that the interconnected levels I?d  
> noticed, of chapter / chunk / sentence, are an expression of his  
> notion of a qualitative infinity of levels. If that was his  
> intention, it?s an amazing piece of writing even if the meaning  
> emerged for me in a very unconventional way?.
>
> He must have been an amazing person to talk to. Did you know him?  
> (apologies - I haven't been in the group long so I'm still trying  
> to work out who has done what with whom!!)
> One might say, that on one level there are a number of individuals,  
> each with their own perspective and set of values and intentions,  
> and at another, it is a group of groupings of people with their own  
> sharedt values and meanings distinct from the others. And then,  
> finally, of course, the whole group is a distinct part of the  
> larger culture from which it has been drawn. In fact, these  
> distinctions are very fluid but their presence has to be kept in  
> mind if we are to make sense of what we are doing in the group in  
> the first place.
>
> _______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/fef5eae1/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  4 14:04:44 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct  5 15:01:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <921D079B-5430-4D37-AEE6-2E1A1ACA8D8F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C1491B9C.352D%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

And the larger culture is part of the whole human race, and all humans are
part of all living things, and all living things could be infinite.  Again,
Native American cultures do not separate ?living and non-living? things.
All are living.  People are distinguished from other living things by being
?five fingered beings?.
I am glad people liked the quote as much as I do.
Mark, it?s difficult for us not to refer to music, because (as Patti LaBelle
sings), ?music is my life...keep dancing!?  k


On 10/4/06 6:44 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> On 4 Oct 2006, at 10:48, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:
> 
>> 
>>  
>> ?
>>  
>> Perhaps the group is merely what we agree it to be at that moment.
>>  
>>> the   idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not merely the
>>> whole   group, but the WHOLE.
>>  
>>  
>> ?
> Indeed. But the sub-groups or sub-cultures remain, One might say, that on one
> level there are a number of individuals, each with their own perspective and
> set of values and intentions, and at another, it is a group of groupings of
> people with their own sharedt values and meanings distinct from the others.
> And then, finally, of course, the whole group is a distinct part of the larger
> culture from which it has been drawn. In fact, these distinctions are very
> fluid but their presence has to be kept in mind if we are to make sense of
> what we are doing in the group in the first place.
> 
> don
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/efda6af6/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Wed Oct  4 14:09:35 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 15:06:03 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] sleep talker
In-Reply-To: <20061005100002.61A44237FD@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF95EDABA3.62037A84-ON852571FD.003C95C2-852571FD.0042CBA5@dialogos.com>







Rodger __Oh well, forget re-inventing stuff.

As usual, a dialogue topic is synchronistic. Recently I had an REM
experience which used to happen when I was young. First I should say that
from an early age I had known that this-is-a-dream whenever I was dreaming.

Something used to happen in the midst of a reoccurring nightmare about a
mathematical formula manifesting in form. As with most any nightmare, being
the one in the dreaming, I felt I couldnt wake myself from the REM sleep.
But it seemed to me that my parents could wake me.

With the nightmare continuing unbroken, I consciously got out of bed,
walked downstairs, along the hall and into my parents room. At which point
I would shake one of them and ask them to wake me.

Once they got over my sleep-wake state they just told me to wake up. The
dream would immediately stop and I would go back to bed, thankful the
nightmare was gone.

The recent experience was different. As I awoke, with eyes opening, I
realized the nightmare-dreaming was continuing unaltered, just like before.
But this time along with the awareness of both nightmare and
waking-reality, it was clear I could decide to stop the nightmare myself.

So I studied the dual reality experience for a while. I believe it possible
to be conscious, in real time, of thought process using memory association
to blend meanings for things we imagine, dream, and sense into realities.
_R
.
.
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 00:22:39 +0200 (Westeurop?ische Sommerzeit)
From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] sleep talker
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
But i could say something about dreaming. Is dreaming being asleep?
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/80fb28fa/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Wed Oct  4 14:18:28 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 15:14:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: sleep talker
In-Reply-To: <20061005100002.61A44237FD@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFC2C8063B.758D1F0E-ON852571FD.00432F31-852571FD.00439C2D@dialogos.com>







Rodger __ let me clarify: I believe it is possible to be conscious, in real
time, of how thought process uses memory association to blend meanings of
things we imagine, dream, and sense into realities. _R
.
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 00:22:39 +0200 (Westeurop?ische Sommerzeit)
From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] sleep talker
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
But i could say something about dreaming. Is dreaming being asleep?
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/60eea82f/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com  Wed Oct  4 14:23:58 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 15:20:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <544.7af6a57.325501de@aol.com>

 
 
Don,
 
Thank you for the response and the link - I deeply appreciate this
 
M

I think  you got it, as much as it is gettable. Its this notion of an 
infinity of  levels, or he sometimes spoke of orders including "generative orders". 
He also  made the point that descriptions at one level may be contradicted at  
another.  ("Science, Order and Creativity" is worth reading regarding  orders 
and much else.)  


I  did know him and yes, he was an amazing person to talk to. I had  the good 
fortune to get to spend a lot of time with him during the last 8 or 9  years 
of his life. You might get a better taste of him at: 


_http://www.anemptyexistence.com/eternalfrontier/index2.html_ 
(http://www.anemptyexistence.com/eternalfrontier/index2.html) 


don


 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/7b9f4ae8/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Oct  4 14:25:50 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct  5 15:22:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <C1491B9C.352D%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C1491B9C.352D%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <B4E4B93A-B8DF-481A-8FD8-591878F5B3C2@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

And where it stops nobody knows
don
On 4 Oct 2006, at 13:04, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:

> And the larger culture is part of the whole human race, and all  
> humans are part of all living things, and all living things could  
> be infinite.  Again, Native American cultures do not separate  
> ?living and non-living? things.  All are living.  People are  
> distinguished from other living things by being ?five fingered  
> beings?.
> I am glad people liked the quote as much as I do.
> Mark, it?s difficult for us not to refer to music, because (as  
> Patti LaBelle sings), ?music is my life...keep dancing!?  k
>
>
> On 10/4/06 6:44 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 10:48, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps the group is merely what we agree it to be at that moment.
>>>
>>>> the   idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not  
>>>> merely the whole   group, but the WHOLE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Indeed. But the sub-groups or sub-cultures remain, One might say,  
>> that on one level there are a number of individuals, each with  
>> their own perspective and set of values and intentions, and at  
>> another, it is a group of groupings of people with their own  
>> sharedt values and meanings distinct from the others. And then,  
>> finally, of course, the whole group is a distinct part of the  
>> larger culture from which it has been drawn. In fact, these  
>> distinctions are very fluid but their presence has to be kept in  
>> mind if we are to make sense of what we are doing in the group in  
>> the first place.
>>
>> don
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/46131cac/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  4 14:36:53 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct  5 15:33:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <B4E4B93A-B8DF-481A-8FD8-591878F5B3C2@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C1492325.3536%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

Yep!
Darn it!  I?m having trouble with my Windows Media player, so can?t hear the
talk on your link.  Is there a transcription somewhere?


On 10/4/06 8:25 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> And where it stops nobody knows
> don
> On 4 Oct 2006, at 13:04, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
> 
>>  And the larger culture is part of the whole human race, and all humans are
>> part of all living things, and all living things could be infinite. ?Again,
>> Native American cultures do not separate ?living and non-living? things. ?All
>> are living. ?People are distinguished from other living things by being ?five
>> fingered beings?.
>>  I am glad people liked the quote as much as I do.
>>  Mark, it?s difficult for us not to refer to music, because (as Patti LaBelle
>> sings), ?music is my life...keep dancing!? ?k
>>  
>>  
>>  On 10/4/06 6:44 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>> 
>>>  On 4 Oct 2006, at 10:48, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:
>>>  
>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  ?
>>>>  ?
>>>>  ?
>>>>  Perhaps the group is merely what we agree it to be at that moment.
>>>>  ?
>>>>  
>>>>> the ??idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not merely the
>>>>> whole ??group, but the WHOLE.
>>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  ?
>>>>  ?
>>>>  
>>> Indeed. But the sub-groups or sub-cultures remain, One might say, that on
>>> one level there are a number of individuals, each with their own perspective
>>> and set of values and intentions, and at another, it is a group of groupings
>>> of people with their own sharedt values and meanings distinct from the
>>> others. And then, finally, of course, the whole group is a distinct part of
>>> the larger culture from which it has been drawn. In fact, these distinctions
>>> are very fluid but their presence has to be kept in mind if we are to make
>>> sense of what we are doing in the group in the first place.
>>>  
>>>  don
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>  info:
>>>  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>  
>>>  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>  
>>>  dialogue facilitator:
>>>  facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>  
>>>  Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>  admin@david-bohm.net
>>>  
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> 
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/8bedc72c/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Oct  4 14:46:04 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct  5 15:42:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <C1492325.3536%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C1492325.3536%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <3BAF7DFF-2BFD-46FB-B00B-9E355200BE54@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

Not that I know of. But you might try updating your windows media  
player or download Quicktime for Windows. Both are free. If you don't  
know where to look just Google them. I think that the videos on the  
site were originally Quicktime so that might be the way to go. They  
work fine with my Quicktime player, albeit on a Mac.

don

On 4 Oct 2006, at 13:36, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:

> Yep!
> Darn it!  I?m having trouble with my Windows Media player, so can?t  
> hear the talk on your link.  Is there a transcription somewhere?
>
>
> On 10/4/06 8:25 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>  
> wrote:
>
>> And where it stops nobody knows
>> don
>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 13:04, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>>
>>> And the larger culture is part of the whole human race, and all  
>>> humans are part of all living things, and all living things could  
>>> be infinite.  Again, Native American cultures do not separate  
>>> ?living and non-living? things.  All are living.  People are  
>>> distinguished from other living things by being ?five fingered  
>>> beings?.
>>>  I am glad people liked the quote as much as I do.
>>>  Mark, it?s difficult for us not to refer to music, because (as  
>>> Patti LaBelle sings), ?music is my life...keep dancing!?  k
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 10/4/06 6:44 AM, "Don Factor"  
>>> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 4 Oct 2006, at 10:48, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Perhaps the group is merely what we agree it to be at that  
>>>>> moment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the   idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it;  
>>>>>> not merely the whole   group, but the WHOLE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed. But the sub-groups or sub-cultures remain, One might  
>>>> say, that on one level there are a number of individuals, each  
>>>> with their own perspective and set of values and intentions, and  
>>>> at another, it is a group of groupings of people with their own  
>>>> sharedt values and meanings distinct from the others. And then,  
>>>> finally, of course, the whole group is a distinct part of the  
>>>> larger culture from which it has been drawn. In fact, these  
>>>> distinctions are very fluid but their presence has to be kept in  
>>>> mind if we are to make sense of what we are doing in the group  
>>>> in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>  don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>  info:
>>>>  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue <http:// 
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>>
>>>>  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>  dialogue facilitator:
>>>>  facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>  Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>  admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/0aa64fa5/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com  Wed Oct  4 14:52:57 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 15:49:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <2fe.4a64788.325508a9@aol.com>

 
HI - I could extract the audio as an mp3 if you get stuck - and maybe clean  
it up a bit.
 
Let me know

Not that  I know of. But you might try updating your windows media player or 
download  Quicktime for Windows. Both are free. If you don't know where to 
look just  Google them. I think that the videos on the site were originally 
Quicktime so  that might be the way to go. They work fine with my Quicktime player, 
albeit  on a Mac.  


don



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/a6d7c1da/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Oct  4 14:55:28 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct  5 15:51:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <3BAF7DFF-2BFD-46FB-B00B-9E355200BE54@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <C1492325.3536%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
	<3BAF7DFF-2BFD-46FB-B00B-9E355200BE54@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <15808936-636E-4A4D-AE93-09B81FC316B8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

I just had another look. It seems that the sound doesn't start right  
up. You get the screen credits and then a bit of sound and then  
nothing and then sound again. You probably also have to wait for the  
video to buffer quite a bit before you get any consistent sound. On  
Quicktime you have a little horizontal line across the bottom of the  
screen, it has a grey shaded bit that moves along, This is the  
buffer. Then there is a little pointer which is the content. The grey  
bit has to get way ahead of the pointer to get anything consistent. I  
hope you can follow this since I am not sure of the correct lingo.

don

On 4 Oct 2006, at 13:46, Don Factor wrote:

> Not that I know of. But you might try updating your windows media  
> player or download Quicktime for Windows. Both are free. If you  
> don't know where to look just Google them. I think that the videos  
> on the site were originally Quicktime so that might be the way to  
> go. They work fine with my Quicktime player, albeit on a Mac.
>
> don
>
> On 4 Oct 2006, at 13:36, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>
>> Yep!
>> Darn it!  I?m having trouble with my Windows Media player, so  
>> can?t hear the talk on your link.  Is there a transcription  
>> somewhere?
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/06 8:25 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And where it stops nobody knows
>>> don
>>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 13:04, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>>>
>>>> And the larger culture is part of the whole human race, and all  
>>>> humans are part of all living things, and all living things  
>>>> could be infinite.  Again, Native American cultures do not  
>>>> separate ?living and non-living? things.  All are living.   
>>>> People are distinguished from other living things by being ?five  
>>>> fingered beings?.
>>>>  I am glad people liked the quote as much as I do.
>>>>  Mark, it?s difficult for us not to refer to music, because (as  
>>>> Patti LaBelle sings), ?music is my life...keep dancing!?  k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 10/4/06 6:44 AM, "Don Factor"  
>>>> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  On 4 Oct 2006, at 10:48, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Perhaps the group is merely what we agree it to be at that  
>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the   idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it;  
>>>>>>> not merely the whole   group, but the WHOLE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. But the sub-groups or sub-cultures remain, One might  
>>>>> say, that on one level there are a number of individuals, each  
>>>>> with their own perspective and set of values and intentions,  
>>>>> and at another, it is a group of groupings of people with their  
>>>>> own sharedt values and meanings distinct from the others. And  
>>>>> then, finally, of course, the whole group is a distinct part of  
>>>>> the larger culture from which it has been drawn. In fact, these  
>>>>> distinctions are very fluid but their presence has to be kept  
>>>>> in mind if we are to make sense of what we are doing in the  
>>>>> group in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>  don
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>  info:
>>>>>  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue <http:// 
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>>>
>>>>>  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>  dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>  facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>  Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>  admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/67a792d3/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  4 15:06:21 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct  5 16:02:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <15808936-636E-4A4D-AE93-09B81FC316B8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C1492A0D.353A%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

Thanks.  I, too, am a Mac ? laptop.


On 10/4/06 8:55 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I just had another look. It seems that the sound doesn't start right up. You
> get the screen credits and then a bit of sound and then nothing and then sound
> again. You probably also have to wait for the video to buffer quite a bit
> before you get any consistent sound. On Quicktime you have a little horizontal
> line across the bottom of the screen, it has a grey shaded bit that moves
> along, This is the buffer. Then there is a little pointer which is the
> content. The grey bit has to get way ahead of the pointer to get anything
> consistent. I hope you can follow this since I am not sure of the correct
> lingo.
> 
> don
> 
> On 4 Oct 2006, at 13:46, Don Factor wrote:
> 
>> Not that I know of. But you might try updating your windows media player or
>> download Quicktime for Windows. Both are free. If you don't know where to
>> look just Google them. I think that the videos on the site were originally
>> Quicktime so that might be the way to go. They work fine with my Quicktime
>> player, albeit on a Mac.
>> 
>> don
>> 
>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 13:36, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>> 
>>>  Yep!
>>>  Darn it! ?I?m having trouble with my Windows Media player, so can?t hear
>>> the talk on your link. ?Is there a transcription somewhere?
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  On 10/4/06 8:25 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>  
>>>  
>>>> And where it stops nobody knows
>>>>  don
>>>>  On 4 Oct 2006, at 13:04, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>>  And the larger culture is part of the whole human race, and all humans
>>>>> are part of all living things, and all living things could be infinite.
>>>>> ?Again, Native American cultures do not separate ?living and non-living?
>>>>> things. ?All are living. ?People are distinguished from other living
>>>>> things by being ?five fingered beings?.
>>>>>  ?I am glad people liked the quote as much as I do.
>>>>>  ?Mark, it?s difficult for us not to refer to music, because (as Patti
>>>>> LaBelle sings), ?music is my life...keep dancing!? ?k
>>>>>  ?
>>>>>  ?
>>>>>  ?On 10/4/06 6:44 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>  ?
>>>>>  ?
>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  ?On 4 Oct 2006, at 10:48, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  ??
>>>>>>>  ??
>>>>>>>  ??
>>>>>>>  ?Perhaps the group is merely what we agree it to be at that moment.
>>>>>>>  ??
>>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>>  
the ??idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not merely the
whole ??group, but the WHOLE.
 ?
 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  ??
>>>>>>>  ??
>>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Indeed. But the sub-groups or sub-cultures remain, One might say, that on
>>>>>> one level there are a number of individuals, each with their own
>>>>>> perspective and set of values and intentions, and at another, it is a
>>>>>> group of groupings of people with their own sharedt values and meanings
>>>>>> distinct from the others. And then, finally, of course, the whole group
>>>>>> is a distinct part of the larger culture from which it has been drawn. In
>>>>>> fact, these distinctions are very fluid but their presence has to be kept
>>>>>> in mind if we are to make sense of what we are doing in the group in the
>>>>>> first place.
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  ?don
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>  ?info:
>>>>>>  ?www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>>>> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  ?post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  ?dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>  ?facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  ?Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>  ?admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  ?_______________________________________________
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  ?
>>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>>  ?
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>  info:
>>>>>  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>>>  
>>>>>  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>  
>>>>>  dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>  facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>  
>>>>>  Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>  admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>  
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  ?
>>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>  info:
>>>>  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>>  
>>>>  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>  
>>>>  dialogue facilitator:
>>>>  facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>  
>>>>  Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>  admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>  
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> 
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> 
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/817d2382/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  4 15:07:11 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct  5 16:03:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <2fe.4a64788.325508a9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C1492A3F.353B%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

Thank you so much.  I?ll be in touch about that.  k


On 10/4/06 8:52 AM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:

> HI - I could extract the audio as an mp3 if you get stuck - and maybe clean it
> up a bit.
>  
> Let me know
>> Not that  I know of. But you might try updating your windows media player or
>> download  Quicktime for Windows. Both are free. If you don't know where to
>> look just  Google them. I think that the videos on the site were originally
>> Quicktime so  that might be the way to go. They work fine with my Quicktime
>> player, albeit  on a Mac.
>> 
>>  
>> don
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/50da177c/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Oct  4 15:17:27 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct  5 16:13:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
References: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>

Bohm - On LoveBohm: "Love will go away if we can't communicate and share meaning." - On Dialog ...

Don L:  What is "meaning"?

Bohm:  The early Christians had a Greek word "koinonia", the root of which means to participate...the idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not merely the whole group, but the WHOLE. On Dialogue ...

Kathy: What a beautiful thought! 

Don L: Yes! The "early Christians", a Jewish sect concerned with truth within a larger Hellenistic culture, Had another Greek word: logos, variously translated/interpreted as "meaning and as reason, ratio, as cosmic law, as the logical, as necessity in thought" (Heidegger ... Early Greek Thinking, p 60).

Again: "another Greek word, logos: interpreted as MEANING.

Questions: Why would reasonable, rational (logos directed) people ignore this historical interpretation of logos as meaning and as reason, then act and pretend the very limited interpretation of logos as the English word?

Why would we not regard dialogue or dia logos as did the "early Christians" as well as at least several translators?  Why not see Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos? -- dbl







  From: Kathryn Arizmendi 

  from "On Dialog and Its Application" -

  Love will go away if we can't communicate and share meaning.  The love between Einstein and Bohr gradually evaporated because they could not communicate.  However, if we can really communicate, then we will have fellowship, participation, friendship, and love, growing and growing.  The question is really: do you see the necessity of this process?  That's the key question.  If you see that it is absolutely necessary, then you have to do something...  Possibly it could make a new change in the individual and a change in the relation to the cosmic.  Such an energy has been called "communion".  It is a kind of participation.  The early Christians had a Greek word "koinonia", the root of which means to participate...the idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not merely the whole group, but the WHOLE.

  What a beautiful thought!

  No one "has" to do Bohm dialog.  

  Sent with love and love of koinonia.    Kathy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/d2e12ae4/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com  Wed Oct  4 15:18:35 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 16:15:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <431.948dbdd.32550eab@aol.com>

 
I've now extracted and tidied the audio and saved as 3 mp3 files (about 1mb  
each) so let me know if you get stuck...
 
Thank you so much.  I?ll be in touch about that.  k


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/ff60fbe0/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  4 15:26:13 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct  5 16:22:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <431.948dbdd.32550eab@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C1492EB5.353E%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

How fast!  Am working on it.  k


On 10/4/06 9:18 AM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:

> I've now extracted and tidied the audio and saved as 3 mp3 files (about 1mb
> each) so let me know if you get stuck...
>  
> Thank you so much.  I?ll be in touch about that.  k
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/c25c662b/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  4 15:32:58 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct  5 16:29:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <C149304A.3540%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

I have no problem seeing anything as related.  But I realize I?m probably
not in the majority, when you consider society as a whole, throughout
history.  k


On 10/4/06 9:17 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:

> Bohm: "Love will go away if we can?t communicate and share meaning." - On
> Dialog ...
>  
> Don L:  What is "meaning"?
>  
> Bohm:  The early Christians had a Greek word ?koinonia?, the root of which
> means to participate...the idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in
> it; not merely the whole group, but the WHOLE. On Dialogue ...
>  
> Kathy: What a beautiful thought!
>  
> Don L: Yes! The "early Christians", a Jewish sect concerned with truth within
> a larger Hellenistic culture, Had another Greek word: logos, variously
> translated/interpreted as "meaning and as reason, ratio, as cosmic law, as the
> logical, as necessity in thought" (Heidegger ... Early Greek Thinking, p 60).
>  
> Again: "another Greek word, logos: interpreted as MEANING.
>  
> Questions: Why would reasonable, rational (logos directed) people ignore this
> historical interpretation of logos as meaning and as reason, then act and
> pretend the very limited interpretation of logos as the English word?
>  
> Why would we not regard dialogue or dia logos as did the "early Christians" as
> well as at least several translators?  Why not see Bohm's notions of meaning
> as related to the early Greek dia logos? -- dbl
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  <http://home1.gte.net/donlay>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From:  Kathryn  Arizmendi <mailto:tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> from ?On Dialog  and Its Application? -
>> 
>> Love will go away if we can?t communicate and  share meaning.  The love
>> between Einstein and Bohr gradually evaporated  because they could not
>> communicate.  However, if we can really  communicate, then we will have
>> fellowship, participation, friendship, and  love, growing and growing.  The
>> question is really: do you see the  necessity of this process?  That?s the
>> key question.  If you see  that it is absolutely necessary, then you have to
>> do something...   Possibly it could make a new change in the individual and a
>> change in  the relation to the cosmic.  Such an energy has been called
>> ?communion?.   It is a kind of participation.  The early Christians had a
>> Greek  word ?koinonia?, the root of which means to participate...the idea of
>> partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not merely the whole group, but
>> the WHOLE.
>> 
>> What a beautiful thought!
>> 
>> No one ?has? to do Bohm  dialog.
>> 
>> Sent with love and love of koinonia.     Kathy
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/9c00722c/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com  Wed Oct  4 15:58:01 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 16:54:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <bd0.47588c9.325517e9@aol.com>

 
Here's a transcript. Parts 2 and 3 are consecutive, not sure about part  one. 
The whole thing is about 10 mins long in total. This is rough but you get  
most of the sense of it. Hope it's useful:
 
 
Part  1 
Interviewer: When did this interest begin in  consciousness, how?s it become 
important in your work, and can this still be  considered as physics 
Bohm:  my interest in consciousness began early ? at the age of 11, I was in 
the  mountains with some boys in the mountains, crossing a rapid stream. There 
were a  lot of rocks in the stream, and they were small and far between. I 
realised I  would have to be in a constant state of movement, pivoting on one 
rock while  moving to the next, rather than step from one stage to another. 
Normally you?d  map it out in stages, as we do in life ? it?s more secure. But 
this was a case  where it wouldn?t work, you had to do the crossing 
moment-by-moment. That made a  deep impression on me and this theme has recurred a lot in 
my work ?  consciousness operating moment-by-moment, and not mapped out. This 
was tied up  with a tendency to want to go beyond limits ? beyond the limits 
of my small town  and the ones around. That?s all I knew, and I wanted to see 
the world beyond?  People talked of the world, and I wanted to know where the 
world was and where  it ended. I didn?t get a convincing answer, but that 
notion used to fascinate  me. I remember in 3rd grade, a sort of Nordic folk tale 
about  someplace being east of the sun and west of the  moon? 
Part  2 + 3 
I  didn?t want to stay within limits. It was mostly implicit, I didn?t think 
about  it explicitly. This was in the ?20s, before the depression years in 
the  US. In the depression there was a  great deal of suffering and 
unemployment, people were out of jobs and banks were  failing. I was in a mining area, and 
people were talking about things getting  bad, even revolution ? Roosevelt 
came in and  introduced all these measures and gave people hope ? lifted people 
up and gave  people hope that at least it would get better. I became 
interested in politics  and I thought we ought to do something about this, about the 
growing danger of  war with people like Mussolini and Hitler. Science? Yes, I 
used to go to the  public library, get books on chemistry and physics, read 
Scientific American,  and science fiction. The idea of atomic power fascinated me, 
I thought that  would be a solution. Consciousness? I remember raising the 
question at college ?  are we totally determined or are we free? Is our 
consciousness free or  determined like a machine? But I didn?t think it mattered, as 
long as we were  free to do what we wanted. Later when we came to study quantum 
mechanics, when I  was at Berkeley in CA with Oppenheimer, there were friends 
there who were  interested in the work of Neils Bohr ? and he had drawn 
attention to an analogy  between thought and quantum mechanics: in quantum 
mechanics whenever you observe  something it changes in an unpredictable and 
uncontrollable way, you can?t  analyse it. If you try to look at your thought process 
it changes too ? if you  try to define your thought it becomes unclear where it?
s going, and if it?s  going somewhere then you?re serving [?] the momentum 
and you don?t define it ?  this is similar to the behaviour of an electron in 
quantum theory. So I felt  there might be some connection between 
consciousness and physics there ? I  brought that up later in my book in 1951.  
Interviewer?and in the book that followed it, Causality  and Chance in modern 
physics, were there elements of consciousness  mentioned? 
Bohm:  mostly implicit ? there I had this idea of this infinity of the 
universe, not  merely quantitative but qualitative infinity of levels, of chance and 
necessity,  to say that we look for  laws that  are necessary like Newton?s 
laws, and we discover there are limits  to them. Necessity is that which cannot 
be otherwise, and the limits are due to  contingencies which can  [?] be  
otherwise, a thing?s bound to depend on something else. For example, if you have  
a feather floating in the wind? if a feather were in a vacuum it would fall. 
In  the air it?s supported and the slightest breeze will shift it this way and 
that  way so it can be otherwise. In a vacuum it falls necessarily. So, by 
connecting  with the broader context you get contingency and if these are very 
complicated  and chaotic you get chance, where you can?t predict at all.   
Interviewer: I know you connected those thoughts later on  more specifically, 
with respect to thought, but following the line of the  development of 
consciousness. You went from writing that book to the theory of  special relativity 
book? 
Bohm:  The point about the causality book was that it brought up this 
potentially  unlimited nature of reality which would include consciousness, so it had 
 something to do with it, the idea being that consciousness would have no  
specifiable limits? along with nature. I thought nature and consciousness were  
not only reflecting each other but actually participating in each  other. 


How fast!  Am working on it.  k


On 10/4/06 9:18 AM,  "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:


I've now  extracted and tidied the audio and saved as 3 mp3 files (about 1mb 
each) so  let me know if you get stuck...

Thank you so much.  I?ll be in touch  about that.  k



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/02f1fb51/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com  Wed Oct  4 16:13:00 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 17:09:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <267.230aba52.32551b6c@aol.com>

by the way I've asked if the whole thing exists, but I think I've found it  
by accident... I'll let you know!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/282ca573/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  4 16:13:59 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct  5 17:10:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <bd0.47588c9.325517e9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C14939E7.3546%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

THANK YOU.  k 


On 10/4/06 9:58 AM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:

> Here's a transcript. Parts 2 and 3 are consecutive, not sure about part one.
> The whole thing is about 10 mins long in total. This is rough but you get most
> of the sense of it. Hope it's useful:
>  
> Part 1
>  
> Interviewer: When did this interest begin in consciousness, how?s it become
> important in your work, and can this still be considered as physics
>  
> Bohm: my interest in consciousness began early ? at the age of 11, I was in
> the mountains with some boys in the mountains, crossing a rapid stream. There
> were a lot of rocks in the stream, and they were small and far between. I
> realised I would have to be in a constant state of movement, pivoting on one
> rock while moving to the next, rather than step from one stage to another.
> Normally you?d map it out in stages, as we do in life ? it?s more secure. But
> this was a case where it wouldn?t work, you had to do the crossing
> moment-by-moment. That made a deep impression on me and this theme has
> recurred a lot in my work ? consciousness operating moment-by-moment, and not
> mapped out. This was tied up with a tendency to want to go beyond limits ?
> beyond the limits of my small town and the ones around. That?s all I knew, and
> I wanted to see the world beyond? People talked of the world, and I wanted to
> know where the world was and where it ended. I didn?t get a convincing answer,
> but that notion used to fascinate me. I remember in 3rd grade, a sort of
> Nordic folk tale about someplace being east of the sun and west of the moon?
>  
> Part 2 + 3
>  
> I didn?t want to stay within limits. It was mostly implicit, I didn?t think
> about it explicitly. This was in the ?20s, before the depression years in the
> US. In the depression there was a great deal of suffering and unemployment,
> people were out of jobs and banks were failing. I was in a mining area, and
> people were talking about things getting bad, even revolution ? Roosevelt came
> in and introduced all these measures and gave people hope ? lifted people up
> and gave people hope that at least it would get better. I became interested in
> politics and I thought we ought to do something about this, about the growing
> danger of war with people like Mussolini and Hitler. Science? Yes, I used to
> go to the public library, get books on chemistry and physics, read Scientific
> American, and science fiction. The idea of atomic power fascinated me, I
> thought that would be a solution. Consciousness? I remember raising the
> question at college ? are we totally determined or are we free? Is our
> consciousness free or determined like a machine? But I didn?t think it
> mattered, as long as we were free to do what we wanted. Later when we came to
> study quantum mechanics, when I was at Berkeley in CA with Oppenheimer, there
> were friends there who were interested in the work of Neils Bohr ? and he had
> drawn attention to an analogy between thought and quantum mechanics: in
> quantum mechanics whenever you observe something it changes in an
> unpredictable and uncontrollable way, you can?t analyse it. If you try to look
> at your thought process it changes too ? if you try to define your thought it
> becomes unclear where it?s going, and if it?s going somewhere then you?re
> serving [?] the momentum and you don?t define it ? this is similar to the
> behaviour of an electron in quantum theory. So I felt there might be some
> connection between consciousness and physics there ? I brought that up later
> in my book in 1951.
>  
> Interviewer?and in the book that followed it, Causality and Chance in modern
> physics, were there elements of consciousness mentioned?
>  
> Bohm: mostly implicit ? there I had this idea of this infinity of the
> universe, not merely quantitative but qualitative infinity of levels, of
> chance and necessity, to say that we look for  laws that are necessary like
> Newton?s laws, and we discover there are limits to them. Necessity is that
> which cannot be otherwise, and the limits are due to contingencies which can
> [?] be otherwise, a thing?s bound to depend on something else. For example, if
> you have a feather floating in the wind? if a feather were in a vacuum it
> would fall. In the air it?s supported and the slightest breeze will shift it
> this way and that way so it can be otherwise. In a vacuum it falls
> necessarily. So, by connecting with the broader context you get contingency
> and if these are very complicated and chaotic you get chance, where you can?t
> predict at all. 
>  
> Interviewer: I know you connected those thoughts later on more specifically,
> with respect to thought, but following the line of the development of
> consciousness. You went from writing that book to the theory of special
> relativity book?
>  
> Bohm: The point about the causality book was that it brought up this
> potentially unlimited nature of reality which would include consciousness, so
> it had something to do with it, the idea being that consciousness would have
> no specifiable limits? along with nature. I thought nature and consciousness
> were not only reflecting each other but actually participating in each other.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>> How fast!   Am working on it.  k
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/4/06 9:18 AM,  "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> I've now  extracted and tidied the audio and saved as 3 mp3 files (about 1mb
>>> each) so  let me know if you get stuck...
>>>  
>>> Thank you so much.  I?ll be in touch  about that.  k
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/c9d924c9/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Oct  4 16:47:48 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct  5 17:44:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <C14939E7.3546%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C14939E7.3546%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <86064277-62C7-41D7-B4A6-D3D97AFB20CE@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

Its fantastic that Mark has been able to put together these  
transcripts so quickly. They will be very useful for reference,  
However, if you can listen to the conversation, you get a very  
different sense of the man, and that really does add a dimension to  
th whole thing.

don

On 4 Oct 2006, at 15:13, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:

> THANK YOU.  k
>
>
> On 10/4/06 9:58 AM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a transcript. Parts 2 and 3 are consecutive, not sure about  
>> part one. The whole thing is about 10 mins long in total. This is  
>> rough but you get most of the sense of it. Hope it's useful:
>>
>> Part 1
>>
>> Interviewer: When did this interest begin in consciousness, how?s  
>> it become important in your work, and can this still be considered  
>> as physics
>>
>> Bohm: my interest in consciousness began early ? at the age of 11,  
>> I was in the mountains with some boys in the mountains, crossing a  
>> rapid stream. There were a lot of rocks in the stream, and they  
>> were small and far between. I realised I would have to be in a  
>> constant state of movement, pivoting on one rock while moving to  
>> the next, rather than step from one stage to another. Normally  
>> you?d map it out in stages, as we do in life ? it?s more secure.  
>> But this was a case where it wouldn?t work, you had to do the  
>> crossing moment-by-moment. That made a deep impression on me and  
>> this theme has recurred a lot in my work ? consciousness operating  
>> moment-by-moment, and not mapped out. This was tied up with a  
>> tendency to want to go beyond limits ? beyond the limits of my  
>> small town and the ones around. That?s all I knew, and I wanted to  
>> see the world beyond? People talked of the world, and I wanted to  
>> know where the world was and where it ended. I didn?t get a  
>> convincing answer, but that notion used to fascinate me. I  
>> remember in 3rd grade, a sort of Nordic folk tale about someplace  
>> being east of the sun and west of the moon?
>>
>> Part 2 + 3
>>
>> I didn?t want to stay within limits. It was mostly implicit, I  
>> didn?t think about it explicitly. This was in the ?20s, before the  
>> depression years in the US. In the depression there was a great  
>> deal of suffering and unemployment, people were out of jobs and  
>> banks were failing. I was in a mining area, and people were  
>> talking about things getting bad, even revolution ? Roosevelt came  
>> in and introduced all these measures and gave people hope ? lifted  
>> people up and gave people hope that at least it would get better.  
>> I became interested in politics and I thought we ought to do  
>> something about this, about the growing danger of war with people  
>> like Mussolini and Hitler. Science? Yes, I used to go to the  
>> public library, get books on chemistry and physics, read  
>> Scientific American, and science fiction. The idea of atomic power  
>> fascinated me, I thought that would be a solution. Consciousness?  
>> I remember raising the question at college ? are we totally  
>> determined or are we free? Is our consciousness free or determined  
>> like a machine? But I didn?t think it mattered, as long as we were  
>> free to do what we wanted. Later when we came to study quantum  
>> mechanics, when I was at Berkeley in CA with Oppenheimer, there  
>> were friends there who were interested in the work of Neils Bohr ?  
>> and he had drawn attention to an analogy between thought and  
>> quantum mechanics: in quantum mechanics whenever you observe  
>> something it changes in an unpredictable and uncontrollable way,  
>> you can?t analyse it. If you try to look at your thought process  
>> it changes too ? if you try to define your thought it becomes  
>> unclear where it?s going, and if it?s going somewhere then you?re  
>> serving [?] the momentum and you don?t define it ? this is similar  
>> to the behaviour of an electron in quantum theory. So I felt there  
>> might be some connection between consciousness and physics there ?  
>> I brought that up later in my book in 1951.
>>
>> Interviewer?and in the book that followed it, Causality and Chance  
>> in modern physics, were there elements of consciousness mentioned?
>>
>> Bohm: mostly implicit ? there I had this idea of this infinity of  
>> the universe, not merely quantitative but qualitative infinity of  
>> levels, of chance and necessity, to say that we look for  laws  
>> that are necessary like Newton?s laws, and we discover there are  
>> limits to them. Necessity is that which cannot be otherwise, and  
>> the limits are due to contingencies which can  [?] be otherwise, a  
>> thing?s bound to depend on something else. For example, if you  
>> have a feather floating in the wind? if a feather were in a vacuum  
>> it would fall. In the air it?s supported and the slightest breeze  
>> will shift it this way and that way so it can be otherwise. In a  
>> vacuum it falls necessarily. So, by connecting with the broader  
>> context you get contingency and if these are very complicated and  
>> chaotic you get chance, where you can?t predict at all.
>>
>> Interviewer: I know you connected those thoughts later on more  
>> specifically, with respect to thought, but following the line of  
>> the development of consciousness. You went from writing that book  
>> to the theory of special relativity book?
>>
>> Bohm: The point about the causality book was that it brought up  
>> this potentially unlimited nature of reality which would include  
>> consciousness, so it had something to do with it, the idea being  
>> that consciousness would have no specifiable limits? along with  
>> nature. I thought nature and consciousness were not only  
>> reflecting each other but actually participating in each other.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> How fast!   Am working on it.  k
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/4/06 9:18 AM,  "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've now  extracted and tidied the audio and saved as 3 mp3  
>>>> files (about 1mb each) so  let me know if you get stuck...
>>>>
>>>> Thank you so much.  I?ll be in touch  about that.  k
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/b2893bff/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  4 17:02:25 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct  5 17:58:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <86064277-62C7-41D7-B4A6-D3D97AFB20CE@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C1494542.354E%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

Will do both.  Unfortunately, I am technology challenged, but I will do my
best!  Am most appreciative of the support both of you have given me.  k


On 10/4/06 10:47 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Its fantastic that Mark has been able to put together these transcripts so
> quickly. They will be very useful for reference, However, if you can listen to
> the conversation, you get a very different sense of the man, and that really
> does add a dimension to th whole thing.
> 
> don
> 
> On 4 Oct 2006, at 15:13, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
> 
>>  THANK YOU. ?k 
>>  
>>  
>>  On 10/4/06 9:58 AM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>> Here's a transcript. Parts 2 and 3 are consecutive, not sure about part one.
>>> The whole thing is about 10 mins long in total. This is rough but you get
>>> most of the sense of it. Hope it's useful:
>>>  ?
>>>  Part 1
>>>  ?
>>>  Interviewer: When did this interest begin in consciousness, how?s it become
>>> important in your work, and can this still be considered as physics
>>>  ?
>>>  Bohm: my interest in consciousness began early ? at the age of 11, I was in
>>> the mountains with some boys in the mountains, crossing a rapid stream.
>>> There were a lot of rocks in the stream, and they were small and far
>>> between. I realised I would have to be in a constant state of movement,
>>> pivoting on one rock while moving to the next, rather than step from one
>>> stage to another. Normally you?d map it out in stages, as we do in life ?
>>> it?s more secure. But this was a case where it wouldn?t work, you had to do
>>> the crossing moment-by-moment. That made a deep impression on me and this
>>> theme has recurred a lot in my work ? consciousness operating
>>> moment-by-moment, and not mapped out. This was tied up with a tendency to
>>> want to go beyond limits ? beyond the limits of my small town and the ones
>>> around. That?s all I knew, and I wanted to see the world beyond? People
>>> talked of the world, and I wanted to know where the world was and where it
>>> ended. I didn?t get a convincing answer, but that notion used to fascinate
>>> me. I remember in 3rd grade, a sort of Nordic folk tale about someplace
>>> being east of the sun and west of the moon?
>>>  ?
>>>  Part 2 + 3
>>>  ?
>>>  I didn?t want to stay within limits. It was mostly implicit, I didn?t think
>>> about it explicitly. This was in the ?20s, before the depression years in
>>> the US. In the depression there was a great deal of suffering and
>>> unemployment, people were out of jobs and banks were failing. I was in a
>>> mining area, and people were talking about things getting bad, even
>>> revolution ? Roosevelt came in and introduced all these measures and gave
>>> people hope ? lifted people up and gave people hope that at least it would
>>> get better. I became interested in politics and I thought we ought to do
>>> something about this, about the growing danger of war with people like
>>> Mussolini and Hitler. Science? Yes, I used to go to the public library, get
>>> books on chemistry and physics, read Scientific American, and science
>>> fiction. The idea of atomic power fascinated me, I thought that would be a
>>> solution. Consciousness? I remember raising the question at college ? are we
>>> totally determined or are we free? Is our consciousness free or determined
>>> like a machine? But I didn?t think it mattered, as long as we were free to
>>> do what we wanted. Later when we came to study quantum mechanics, when I was
>>> at Berkeley in CA with Oppenheimer, there were friends there who were
>>> interested in the work of Neils Bohr ? and he had drawn attention to an
>>> analogy between thought and quantum mechanics: in quantum mechanics whenever
>>> you observe something it changes in an unpredictable and uncontrollable way,
>>> you can?t analyse it. If you try to look at your thought process it changes
>>> too ? if you try to define your thought it becomes unclear where it?s going,
>>> and if it?s going somewhere then you?re serving [?] the momentum and you
>>> don?t define it ? this is similar to the behaviour of an electron in quantum
>>> theory. So I felt there might be some connection between consciousness and
>>> physics there ? I brought that up later in my book in 1951.
>>>  ?
>>>  Interviewer?and in the book that followed it, Causality and Chance in
>>> modern physics, were there elements of consciousness mentioned?
>>>  ?
>>>  Bohm: mostly implicit ? there I had this idea of this infinity of the
>>> universe, not merely quantitative but qualitative infinity of levels, of
>>> chance and necessity, to say that we look for ?laws that are necessary like
>>> Newton?s laws, and we discover there are limits to them. Necessity is that
>>> which cannot be otherwise, and the limits are due to contingencies which can
>>> ?[?] be otherwise, a thing?s bound to depend on something else. For example,
>>> if you have a feather floating in the wind? if a feather were in a vacuum it
>>> would fall. In the air it?s supported and the slightest breeze will shift it
>>> this way and that way so it can be otherwise. In a vacuum it falls
>>> necessarily. So, by connecting with the broader context you get contingency
>>> and if these are very complicated and chaotic you get chance, where you
>>> can?t predict at all.
>>>   
>>>  Interviewer: I know you connected those thoughts later on more
>>> specifically, with respect to thought, but following the line of the
>>> development of consciousness. You went from writing that book to the theory
>>> of special relativity book?
>>>  ?
>>>  Bohm: The point about the causality book was that it brought up this
>>> potentially unlimited nature of reality which would include consciousness,
>>> so it had something to do with it, the idea being that consciousness would
>>> have no specifiable limits? along with nature. I thought nature and
>>> consciousness were not only reflecting each other but actually participating
>>> in each other.
>>>  ?
>>>  ?
>>>  ?
>>>  ?
>>>  ?
>>>  
>>>> How fast! ??Am working on it. ?k
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  On 10/4/06 9:18 AM, ?"MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>  ?
>>>>  
>>>>> I've now ?extracted and tidied the audio and saved as 3 mp3 files (about
>>>>> 1mb each) so ?let me know if you get stuck...
>>>>>  ?
>>>>>  Thank you so much. ?I?ll be in touch ?about that. ?k
>>>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>  info:
>>>  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>  
>>>  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>  
>>>  dialogue facilitator:
>>>  facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>  
>>>  Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>  admin@david-bohm.net
>>>  
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> 
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/35adaef2/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Oct  4 17:10:58 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct  5 18:07:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
In-Reply-To: <009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
References: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
	<009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <7502D172-3B27-407A-B5FC-CDFD68DD36DB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to  
you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its  
just an interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing  
something.

On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:
>
> Don L:  What is "meaning"?

Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give you a  
sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest me here,
>

The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of significance.  
Whatever meanings there may be 'in  our minds', these are, as we have  
seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic structures and  
therefore from what we are.
																	
Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater levels  
of subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a movement from  
the explicate toward the implicate. This can only take place however  
when new meanings are being perceived freshly from moment to moment.

Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to define.  
We run out of analogies here. Differences become more subtle,  
similarities abound. The terms are more and more capable of covering  
everything. They are more general. Words are defined in terms of  
other words, and eventually, the original word will come back (energy- 
work, work-energy). So you have to explore the word, and unfold its  
meaning, begin to perceive it.

Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be given a  
direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may also arouse  
energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back and forth and  
being trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may allow that  
energy to be liberated.

The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level and  
gives rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on the  
matter. Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of one  
reality. In the implicate order energy and matter are imbued with a  
certain kind of meaning which gives form to their overall activity,  
and to the matter which arises in that activity. The middle term  
enfolds the other two.

The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the  
enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds  
meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of the  
possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole,  
including itself.


This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it seems  
that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful  is closely related to  
commune, community, communion. But I can find nothing from the Greek.  
They must have known about it, because it so fundamental, but like  
other such ideas it probably was never brought to the surface for  
closer inspection. If you know what I mean.

don
							

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/d3698951/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com  Wed Oct  4 17:33:16 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Thu Oct  5 18:29:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Especially for Mark
In-Reply-To: <c75.1548d3b.3252228d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C149305C.75B3%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>

Mark and Kathy,

I appreciate your challenge to my phrase ?taking myself seriously? - I?ve
been thinking and journaling about those words.  My first impulse was regret
over the times I have not, but then I realized that would not be taking my
history (or tas) seriously.  I can accept past choices and still make new
ones now.  Part of taking myself seriously means becoming aware of whatever
makes up ?myself? in a given moment.  I don?t have to set a standard or
judge that, either.  It may mean following an impulse when possible (such as
joining this group, responding to what I read (at least what I perceive of
what I read).  It may mean interacting, with no thought of time, with my 2
month old grandson.

I notice that the more I follow these impulses (which have no goal or plan,
and may or may not bring me pleasure at the time), the happier I am in
general.

Lynne

On 10/2/06 2:06 AM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:

> I agree - they're lovely words, Lynne. You mentioned "taking yourself
> seriously", which really resonates for me, too. Are these words a bit about
> that? For me, your words so perfectly describe the "something invisible" that
> holds me back, sometimes, from joining in. In fact, I realise that all my
> music workshops, which are about "joining in" in one form or another, are
> probably about me exploring (with my groups) how I join in.
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/6a26e9a7/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Wed Oct  4 17:02:37 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 18:31:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <20061004.113405.3964.128.ae.dropper@juno.com>

Interesting (in relation to this) that different floors 
of a building are called different "stories." And that 
this comes from the different "stories" depicted in 
church windows, at each level. And what are assumptions/
beliefs, but "stories?" Where did you find "Mechanism 
and Beyond?

pat

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 07:12:05 EDT MarkHarmer@aol.com writes:
Hi Don
 
That puts me in mind of layers, or something like a building with
different floors. But I see you're saying it's more fluid than that. So
is this what Bohm might have meant when he talks about suspending
(holding up to view) our assumptions: not just assumptions about
ourselves, but about the group, about the culture... and I was going to
say, "where does it stop", but of course he says we see what we choose to
see against a background which is just an infinite set of such
qualitative levels. I read some of his work on Mechanism and Beyond
(2002) and I even found his writing echoing this sense of layers /
levels; here's what I wrote at the time:
 
“Initially I couldn’t make sense of any of it taken a sentence at a time.
In despair I read large parts of the text, in approximately 2-page
chunks. In this way I started to get a sense of what he was saying and it
was this overall sense which then allowed me to go back and see meaning
in most of the component sentences, as if I were standing in front of a
forest and having to zoom out and see the shape of the forest before
going back in and discovering the individual trees. It was unlike any
other piece of reading I’ve done: and I had a revelation that the
interconnected levels I’d noticed, of chapter / chunk / sentence, are an
expression of his notion of a qualitative infinity of levels. If that was
his intention, it’s an amazing piece of writing even if the meaning
emerged for me in a very unconventional way”. 
 
He must have been an amazing person to talk to. Did you know him?
(apologies - I haven't been in the group long so I'm still trying to work
out who has done what with whom!!)
One might say, that on one level there are a number of individuals, each
with their own perspective and set of values and intentions, and at
another, it is a group of groupings of people with their own sharedt
values and meanings distinct from the others. And then, finally, of
course, the whole group is a distinct part of the larger culture from
which it has been drawn. In fact, these distinctions are very fluid but
their presence has to be kept in mind if we are to make sense of what we
are doing in the group in the first place.
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/3274f50f/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Wed Oct  4 17:33:58 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 18:31:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <20061004.113405.3964.130.ae.dropper@juno.com>





from ?On Dialog and Its Application? -

Love will go away if we can?t communicate and share meaning.  The love
between Einstein and Bohr gradually evaporated because they could not
communicate.  However, if we can really communicate, then we will have
fellowship, participation, friendship, and love, growing and growing. 
The question is really: do you see the necessity of this process?  That?s
the key question.  If you see that it is absolutely necessary, then you
have to do something...  Possibly it could make a new change in the
individual and a change in the relation to the cosmic.  Such an energy
has been called ?communion?.  It is a kind of participation.  The early
Christians had a Greek word ?koinonia?, the root of which means to
participate...the idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it;
not merely the whole group, but the WHOLE.

What a beautiful thought!

No one ?has? to do Bohm dialog.  

Sent with love and love of koinonia.    Kathy


YES, AND



Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue is
not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them directly.
It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are
ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we are
talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us and
between us. D Bohm


Don

Yes and:

thinking this morning about how hatred (as per De Mare) is so easily
repressed by thinking it wrong to feel (only love is "right to feel," so
there is often an easy suppression of [resistance to] what is actually
felt), and how suspension can apply to this. Understanding "suspension of
action" based on what have been considered "wrong" feelings can be the
key to allowing all feelings to be felt, all thoughts that bring on the
feelings to be regarded, heard, given attention - these thoughts are not
"mine," they are just thoughts. When "one's" thoughts* are all "heard,"
"another's" thoughts* are "nothing new."

* "Psychological" thoughts, not "tech" thoughts.

pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/903bb5bf/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Wed Oct  4 17:32:29 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct  5 18:31:40 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
Message-ID: <20061004.113405.3964.129.ae.dropper@juno.com>

Interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a more determined or extended
[how many years has it been?]  attempt than Don Lay's to explain why this
connection is so important to him. Where would one begin, counting the
ways?

As with everything, there is "readiness" to hear. My own "hearing" of Don
Lay's scholarly material had to evolve. Especially appreciated were
certain repetitions. These drew attention. Internal connections were made
with my own scholarship. The dialogue got richer and richer, mostly the
internal dialogue (as is always the case). 

These dialogues ultimately come to a single question. When I last
checked, we were kind of hovering there. These "single question
hoverings" are often best left to "bring what they will" as daily life
proceeds and scans for meaning related to the intense focus of the
inquiry.

The final question of a wordless question. Only this will bring a
wordless (indisputable) "answer."

pat

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 16:10:58 +0100 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you.
Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its just an
interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing something.


On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:

Don L:  What is "meaning"?


Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give you a
sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest me here,




The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of significance.
Whatever meanings there may be 'in  our minds', these are, as we have
seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic structures and
therefore from what we are. 
Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater levels of
subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a movement from the
explicate toward the implicate. This can only take place however when new
meanings are being perceived freshly from moment to moment. 


Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to define. We
run out of analogies here. Differences become more subtle, similarities
abound. The terms are more and more capable of covering everything. They
are more general. Words are defined in terms of other words, and
eventually, the original word will come back (energy-work, work-energy).
So you have to explore the word, and unfold its meaning, begin to
perceive it. 


Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be given a
direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may also arouse
energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back and forth and being
trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may allow that energy to be
liberated. 


The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level and gives
rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on the matter.
Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of one reality. In
the implicate order energy and matter are imbued with a certain kind of
meaning which gives form to their overall activity, and to the matter
which arises in that activity. The middle term enfolds the other two. 


The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the
enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds
meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of the
possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole,
including itself. 




This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it seems
that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful  is closely related to commune,
community, communion. But I can find nothing from the Greek. They must
have known about it, because it so fundamental, but like other such ideas
it probably was never brought to the surface for closer inspection. If
you know what I mean.


don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/340ce2fe/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Oct  4 19:34:43 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct  5 20:33:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
References: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
	<009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
	<7502D172-3B27-407A-B5FC-CDFD68DD36DB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <004f01c6e7db$8c2e5aa0$0a16153f@DL01>

DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? -- don F

Has meaning no meaning for you?

Many reasons to be interested in meaning.  One is the significance for db referencing Greek dialogue.  Logos -- interpreted variously as ratio, as reason, and as meaning -- MEANING ... duh ... is relevant for db dialogue, isn't it?  It seems clear to me that separating (defining, limiting) the meaning of meaning from the Greek logos is arbitrary -- just as it is arbitrary to separate, limit, define ratio, reason, etc.  The history of the word logos indicates that early Greek thought was not fractured as is modern thought/thinking/experience; also a good case may be made that what is called alienation and estrangement derive from the fracturing of experience by arbitrarily defining words and limiting participation in meaning. in the whole.

Why is meaning important ...?  I dislike being another meaningless man, living a meaningless life, uttering meaningless nonsense noises. Don't you?

Another reason is that when I go hence to be no more, I would like to know where I've been.  Another reason is that Bohm associates reason, meaning, matter (the triangle).  Philosopher Tillich says the anxiety of meaningless is the chief form of modern anxiety.

I would suggest to you that understanding the early Greek notion of logos interpreted as ratio, reason, and meaning is a way to understand Bohm's quantum suggestions and perhaps Bohm's and your persona as well.

I do not accept that when Bohm says he gives logos a "special meaning", he intends disregarding 2700 years of thought regarding the word and its relationship regarding that which is. -- Don L



http://home1.gte.net/donlay
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Don Factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning


  DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its just an interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing something.


  On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:

    Don L:  What is "meaning"?


  Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give you a sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest me here,




  The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of significance. Whatever meanings there may be 'in  our minds', these are, as we have seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic structures and therefore from what we are. 
  Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater levels of subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a movement from the explicate toward the implicate. This can only take place however when new meanings are being perceived freshly from moment to moment. 


  Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to define. We run out of analogies here. Differences become more subtle, similarities abound. The terms are more and more capable of covering everything. They are more general. Words are defined in terms of other words, and eventually, the original word will come back (energy-work, work-energy). So you have to explore the word, and unfold its meaning, begin to perceive it. 


  Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be given a direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may also arouse energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back and forth and being trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may allow that energy to be liberated. 


  The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level and gives rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on the matter. Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of one reality. In the implicate order energy and matter are imbued with a certain kind of meaning which gives form to their overall activity, and to the matter which arises in that activity. The middle term enfolds the other two. 


  The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of the possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole, including itself. 




  This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it seems that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful  is closely related to commune, community, communion. But I can find nothing from the Greek. They must have known about it, because it so fundamental, but like other such ideas it probably was never brought to the surface for closer inspection. If you know what I mean.


  don





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


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

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/3fbcda70/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Oct  4 19:47:27 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct  5 20:44:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
References: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
	<009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
	<7502D172-3B27-407A-B5FC-CDFD68DD36DB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <006801c6e7dd$2b1d0a70$0a16153f@DL01>

obviously, I am still missing something. -- DonF

What of the meaning of meaning?  Do we say the meaning of meaning is arbitrary?  

Is it possible to say with a straight face that dark clouds have no meaning other than that dreamed up by Webster? that beautiful sunsets have no meaning? that love has no meaning other than the meaning suggested by Miriam Webster? that the hugging the baby has no meaning .., the wife, friends, etc? 

Is it possible that words only have arbitrary meanings? -- DonL

ps: I think the donF and donL are fair designations.  You?




http://home1.gte.net/donlay
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Don Factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning


  DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its just an interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing something.


  On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:

    Don L:  What is "meaning"?


  Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give you a sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest me here,




  The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of significance. Whatever meanings there may be 'in  our minds', these are, as we have seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic structures and therefore from what we are. 
  Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater levels of subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a movement from the explicate toward the implicate. This can only take place however when new meanings are being perceived freshly from moment to moment. 


  Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to define. We run out of analogies here. Differences become more subtle, similarities abound. The terms are more and more capable of covering everything. They are more general. Words are defined in terms of other words, and eventually, the original word will come back (energy-work, work-energy). So you have to explore the word, and unfold its meaning, begin to perceive it. 


  Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be given a direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may also arouse energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back and forth and being trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may allow that energy to be liberated. 


  The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level and gives rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on the matter. Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of one reality. In the implicate order energy and matter are imbued with a certain kind of meaning which gives form to their overall activity, and to the matter which arises in that activity. The middle term enfolds the other two. 


  The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of the possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole, including itself. 




  This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it seems that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful  is closely related to commune, community, communion. But I can find nothing from the Greek. They must have known about it, because it so fundamental, but like other such ideas it probably was never brought to the surface for closer inspection. If you know what I mean.


  don





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


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

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/410edb0b/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Oct  4 19:52:33 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct  5 20:48:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
References: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
	<009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
	<7502D172-3B27-407A-B5FC-CDFD68DD36DB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <007201c6e7dd$e147b700$0a16153f@DL01>

to me, its just an interesting curiosity. -- donF

Surely you don't actually mean that meaning only means idle curiousness. :) -- donL


http://home1.gte.net/donlay
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Don Factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning


  DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its just an interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing something.


  On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:

    Don L:  What is "meaning"?


  Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give you a sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest me here,




  The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of significance. Whatever meanings there may be 'in  our minds', these are, as we have seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic structures and therefore from what we are. 
  Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater levels of subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a movement from the explicate toward the implicate. This can only take place however when new meanings are being perceived freshly from moment to moment. 


  Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to define. We run out of analogies here. Differences become more subtle, similarities abound. The terms are more and more capable of covering everything. They are more general. Words are defined in terms of other words, and eventually, the original word will come back (energy-work, work-energy). So you have to explore the word, and unfold its meaning, begin to perceive it. 


  Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be given a direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may also arouse energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back and forth and being trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may allow that energy to be liberated. 


  The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level and gives rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on the matter. Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of one reality. In the implicate order energy and matter are imbued with a certain kind of meaning which gives form to their overall activity, and to the matter which arises in that activity. The middle term enfolds the other two. 


  The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of the possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole, including itself. 




  This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it seems that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful  is closely related to commune, community, communion. But I can find nothing from the Greek. They must have known about it, because it so fundamental, but like other such ideas it probably was never brought to the surface for closer inspection. If you know what I mean.


  don





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


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

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/e2921050/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Wed Oct  4 19:53:21 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct  5 20:49:40 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
In-Reply-To: <20061004.113405.3964.129.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061004.113405.3964.129.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <F19DE7F8-9D29-4D52-9523-D5D11F8372F8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>


On 4 Oct 2006, at 16:32, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:

> These dialogues ultimately come to a single question. When I last  
> checked, we were kind of hovering there. These "single question  
> hoverings" are often best left to "bring what they will" as daily  
> life proceeds and scans for meaning related to the intense focus of  
> the inquiry.
>
> The final question of a wordless question. Only this will bring a  
> wordless (indisputable) "answer."
>
> pat

This really sounds neat, but it also sound a little like mom sticking  
up for her boy. Or if not that, then does it have to do with what I  
perceive as your approach to inquiry as just inquiry for the sake of  
inquiry? If so, what is being inquired into is not so important so  
long as we keep inquiring. So is that it?  For  me the significance  
of what is being inquired into, its relevance to the state of the  
world we all live in, is much more important than just this exercise  
of inquiry all by itself. I want to understand, not just avoid the  
problems inherent in holding an opinion, but to be able to live a  
more creative and intelligent and understanding life, whatever that  
might mean in practice.

If the answer to my question is wordless then the significance of  
Parmenides and Heraclites in this context must remain a mystery. And  
I cannot conceive that this is what Don is after. What I am trying to  
understand is the meaning of his insistence that there be a direct  
influence from the pre-Socratic Greeks to the thinking of David Bohm.  
I can understand it in terms of Christian theological disputes, but  
what does that have to do with us?  I mean what if Bohm  had never  
read the works of these people? What would be different? If he  
dreamed up his insights all by himself in isolation, would they be of  
any less value? It sounds like he is concerned that if we can't take  
pin down Bohm's pedigree in some manner than we can't take him  
seriously. Anyway, that's how it seems to me and  I know that that  
can't be right.

don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/09d6f061/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Wed Oct  4 19:56:23 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct  5 20:52:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
References: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
	<009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
	<7502D172-3B27-407A-B5FC-CDFD68DD36DB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <007c01c6e7de$6a38c860$0a16153f@DL01>

Please, can you say, what it means for You? -- donF

I really do not want to say just now ... perhaps fearing the answer would sully, contaminate the meaning of Being.  Maybe it sort of holy, something like that.   -- Don L

http://home1.gte.net/donlay
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Don Factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning


  DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its just an interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing something.


  On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Do