From dfactor at dc.rr.com  Sun Nov  5 00:36:24 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (Donald Factor)
Date: Mon Nov  6 01:39:18 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] core-periphery-mystery
Message-ID: <A5D02D5E-1552-4AD0-BE41-221271FC5BC1@dc.rr.com>

Thought you all might like to see this, especially Pat.

Recently I have been having a conversation with Kathryn about  
inviting Zoe back on the list. The feeling was that we, along with  
William, would consider inviting her back, if she would write and  
tell us why she wants to participate here or what it might mean to  
her. K raised this question with her and got this reply:

  "Satisfactory (Factory;-) reply", what kind of non-sense is that?  
Did you ever read Bohm? Oh, this goes so diametrically against Bohm's  
vision, Kay. It is rather embarrassing coming from them, who boast  
themselves to be the 'heirs' of Bohm's-(dialouge)-work. I cannot  
believe you, Kay, would put up with rubbish like that. Dialouge does  
not need "satisfactory" approval. Please read Bohm. I will go ahead  
and forward that to TT/OD. Regards --- Zoe

Then this arrived in my inbox from kirsten. To give you some context:  
For a while, some of my posts were being forwarded to TT/OD  - those  
are Peter Krauss's products  - and appeared to be forwarded to them  
by pat and then sent on to me by Peter or another member of TT/OD,  
Pat insisted that it wasn't her. I still don't know who was actually  
sending these. But note here  Zoe's reference to that list in her  
note above. And notice also that the one below from kirsten is  
actually a forward of pat's message to this list.

Begin forwarded message:

Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us several  
years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS  
peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have  
mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was  peter again  
(with a new name) and were interested when finding this suspicion  
either  wrong or right. This continues. No one has mentioned it for  
awhile. But I brought it up because I noticed it happening with the  
new voices. With each one of them. There seems to be this easy,  
automatic process that occurs in thought, regarding this. It's VERY  
fun. And it is based on an assumption (which could be wrong - or turn  
wrong at any time) that peter
REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.


dear donf, this one in from pat, very interesting, is it not ;;--))

ps: it is good to have "friends". try it.

miss you

but

will be

back

lovbot

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? My comment it that it  
isn't fun. Its a distraction.

don




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061104/26bb42ac/attachment.html
From rk33 at bigpond.com  Sun Nov  5 01:55:40 2006
From: rk33 at bigpond.com (Robyn Knight)
Date: Mon Nov  6 02:58:40 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04C4@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <454D368C.000004.00456@AMDPC>

Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/983e02f6/attachment.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 20554 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/983e02f6/attachment-0001.gif
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com  Sun Nov  5 01:31:25 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Mon Nov  6 03:34:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <20061104.170201.1696.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C1728CFD.7CBB%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>

Pat, I get confused by your explanation.  I can understand paradox.  I can
understand passion as suffering and passion as joy being the same, and there
being a kind of resolution in that.  And I can (almost) see the source of
passion as different from the effects of passion.  But I can?t find the
relationship here with your examples of (war/peace, medicine/health,
religion/morality, government/safety).

Lynne
On 11/4/06 3:53 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:

> don, you talked about the two levels from which one can look at something the
> other day. This applies here. The "Passion" of being "passionately in love"
> for instance is a movement whose source is not explicate but implicate. Not
> ordinary. Not guided by thought but by something "non rational" (or maybe I
> should say "Super" rational. None of these terms is literal or perfectly
> applicable - you just might have to 'get a sense of it').
>  
> It's kind of like working with the concepts of "core" and "periphery." One is
> totally the other each time you try to pin it down in a lasting way.
>  
> "Passion" is a wonderful example of a word seeming to have mirror image
> meanings but considering the "two levels" from which to look at it makes it
> easier.
>  
> Bohm's explicate and implicate are examples of "two levels."
> Also "Relative & Absolute.
>  
> Words never "sit still." Certain words reveal the "lives" words can
> "take on" at the different levels. And some words do this VERY
> eloquently - like "passion."
>  
> What happens is the effects of the "relaxation" that is "passion" [that is the
> source, the passion itself] are noted, and effects (the energetic intensity)
> is taken as source - and the word in common usage takes on a different and
> sometimes opposite meaning.
>  
> Was is peace.
> Medicine is health.
> Religion is morality.
> Government keeps us safe.
>  
> pat
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:08:51 +0000 Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> writes:
>> I'm not sure that this does much for me either. Etymologically, action means
>> to act. And passion means to suffer. I am not sure that the suffering is of
>> the sort that means non-action but rather refers to putting up with the pain.
>> Compassion has to do with sharing the suffering or 'sustained' pain. It has
>> the same root as patience. But even here, what do we mean by 'passionately in
>> love"? for instance. Is this a state of passivity? Not in my lexicon.
>> 
>> Damn it, I am trying to be patient here, but it just doesn't compute. There
>> is something there but I don't know what it is.
>> don 
>> 
>>> I don't know if this will help don (and I don't at all know what I am about
>>> to say) but it was the talking about "passion" on this list  (several years
>>> ago) that really got me understanding, what it was, that was SO difficult
>>> and elusive for me. It really got me started focusing on one simple thing
>>> which is to "stay with" what is happening rather than "running away" in some
>>> way or another. We talked about how this "Passion" was an extremely "high
>>> energy" state. Both in its initiation and in its "energy building" capacity
>>> (if not in actuality - in its lack of energy draining).
>>>  
>>> That "Passion" was the opposite of "Action" (etymologically) really made an
>>> impression on me. I could see how the "non action" of "Passion" was a "non
>>> action" in terms of "running away" (in its various forms). And that the "non
>>> action" of "Passion" was a relaxation into a new source of "action."
>>>  
>>> This "non action" is considered to be the "suffering" of something. And it
>>> may indeed seem so or be so. But this is mostly in the anticipation; the
>>> fear. And in the "inventions" of retrospect. And that "Passion" is also
>>> connected to "patience" gives further credentials and sense development. But
>>> 'Patience" is a thing that only seems like "suffering" in its anticipation
>>> or in seeing it from the outside. Actual patience is utter ease and doesn't
>>> seem like typical ideas of "patience." (which are more like "tolerance").
>>>  
>>> "Passion" is "relaxation" of that which would be in control or that which
>>> would want the moment to "be different" than what it is. But "passion" is
>>> simultaneously freedom of movement or activity, unencumbered now by
>>> conflicting efforts.
>>>  
>>> pat
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:36:58 +0000 Don Factor
>>> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>> William, you know I have read a lot of what you have to say about passion
>>>> and all of it, at some level. makes intriguing sense. It seems right and
>>>> importtant, but I still can't get my head around what it is you are talking
>>>> about.  At times you seem to talk about passion as a passive state and at
>>>> others as a more intense one. Maybe I am just used to the intense aspec,
>>>> like being passonate about someone or about chocolate. But now you seem to
>>>> equate passion with compassion. Well, etymologically they have something to
>>>> do with each other, but in experience I am not so sure. Could you try once
>>>> again to explain what you mean when you use the term. Maybe an example,
>>>> even fictional will do?
>>>> 
>>>> don
>>>> 
>>>> On 4 Nov 2006, at 18:10, william wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> From: Mr. Frantisek Plessl <mailto:frantisekplessl@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> >Passion is a gift and not a train skills acquired by
>>>>>> >pratice. We all have this capability for passion, and
>>>>>> >does comes to us uninvited in many different times.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Yes, i would say we have an inherent potential for passion, and it does
>>>>> come through occasionally.
>>>>> Somebody recently wrote something about her experience with the separation
>>>>> from her husband, which was very painful until something happened that
>>>>> made the pain turn into compassion. I know of several people where
>>>>> something similar happened. In all cases they went through a rough time
>>>>> before it happened. The potential is there but somehow it seems a rare
>>>>> thing. I tend to think that our culture doesn't do very much to unfold
>>>>> this potential, in fact it seems to be doing everything to suppress it. I
>>>>> was wondering if something can be done to make passion part of our culture
>>>>> making it easier for the individual to actualize the potential.
>>>>>  
>>>>> William
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>> 
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> 
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 


-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
   208 376-1336
   www.lifedirectionscoach.com
    (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)


"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061104/f6f90a4d/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Sun Nov  5 02:31:07 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov  6 03:36:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] core-periphery-mystery
Message-ID: <20061104.203245.1896.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>

Didn't know that you had unsubbed the "zoe" character. 

No your experience does not sound like fun at all. Glad it is not me
responsible for "moderating" here. I don't think I would last long at
that.
I think I would take a "benevolent dictator" position. I would give very
clear guidelines and oust anyone who broke the [tacit] agreement in my
opinion and in my opinion alone, no hesitation, no questions asked. So we
are lucky (perhaps) to have 
you doing this, not me. Much appreciation for your difficult role here.

pat

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:36:24 +0000 Donald Factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Thought you all might like to see this, especially Pat.


Recently I have been having a conversation with Kathryn about inviting
Zoe back on the list. The feeling was that we, along with William, would
consider inviting her back, if she would write and tell us why she wants
to participate here or what it might mean to her. K raised this question
with her and got this reply:


 "Satisfactory (Factory;-) reply", what kind of non-sense is that? Did
you ever read Bohm? Oh, this goes so diametrically against Bohm's vision,
Kay. It is rather embarrassing coming from them, who boast themselves to
be the 'heirs' of Bohm's-(dialouge)-work. I cannot believe you, Kay,
would put up with rubbish like that. Dialouge does not need
"satisfactory" approval. Please read Bohm. I will go ahead and forward
that to TT/OD. Regards --- Zoe


Then this arrived in my inbox from kirsten. To give you some context: For
a while, some of my posts were being forwarded to TT/OD  - those are
Peter Krauss's products  - and appeared to be forwarded to them by pat
and then sent on to me by Peter or another member of TT/OD, Pat insisted
that it wasn't her. I still don't know who was actually sending these.
But note here  Zoe's reference to that list in her note above. And notice
also that the one below from kirsten is actually a forward of pat's
message to this list.


Begin forwarded message:


Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us several years
ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS peter (or as
pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have mentioned that they
had thought a certain newcomer was  peter again (with a new name) and
were interested when finding this suspicion either  wrong or right. This
continues. No one has mentioned it for awhile. But I brought it up
because I noticed it happening with the new voices. With each one of
them. There seems to be this easy, automatic process that occurs in
thought, regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an assumption
(which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time) that peter
REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.




dear donf, this one in from pat, very interesting, is it not ;;--))


ps: it is good to have "friends". try it.


miss you


but


will be


back


lovbot


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld




Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? My comment it that it isn't
fun. Its a distraction.


don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061104/0d8de7d0/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Sun Nov  5 02:17:55 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov  6 03:36:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
Message-ID: <20061104.203245.1896.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>

I'm not sure exactly. It might have been Robyn's second post (where I
decided that Robyn wasn't peter). I just remember laughing and picturing
an orange with spores growing on it - don't ask me why - I had just
gotten up. Maybe I had been dreaming of oranges. But remember this in the
context of my process that occurs when there is a new voice here that
doesn't like something about what they have been reading. This seems to
trigger the "is it or isn't it [peter]" process. 

pat

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:10:48 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:

Pat. what inspired you to writ this post at this particular time? 


I am asking for a particular reason that I am not yet at liberty to revea


don




On 4 Nov 2006, at 19:05, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:


Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us several years
ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS peter (or as
pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have mentioned that they
had thought a certain newcomer was  peter again (with a new name) and
were interested when finding this suspicion either  wrong or right. This
continues. No one has mentioned it for awhile. But I brought it up
because I noticed it happening with the new voices. With each one of
them. There seems to be this easy, automatic process that occurs in
thought, regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an assumption
(which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time) that peter
REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.

I remember both Matti [pretty sure it was Matti] 
and I flashed on a possibility that Mr. Frantisek Plessl  
might be peter when he first came on. But it wasn't long 
before we were certain that he wasn't.

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


post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net


dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net


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


_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061104/6d570053/attachment.html
From rk33 at bigpond.com  Sun Nov  5 02:47:08 2006
From: rk33 at bigpond.com (Robyn Knight)
Date: Mon Nov  6 03:50:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
References: <44807DDE-2935-4582-867E-5451C2AEB72F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <454D429C.000007.00456@AMDPC>

Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/838bf71e/attachment.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 20554 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/838bf71e/attachment-0001.gif
From rk33 at bigpond.com  Sun Nov  5 03:22:38 2006
From: rk33 at bigpond.com (Robyn Knight)
Date: Mon Nov  6 04:25:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
References: <20061104.115517.1696.9.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <454D4AEE.00000A.00456@AMDPC>

Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/ff6d081a/attachment.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 20554 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/ff6d081a/attachment-0001.gif
From franis_franis at juno.com  Sun Nov  5 06:33:54 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Mon Nov  6 08:04:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] core-periphery-mystery
Message-ID: <20061104.215751.2588.0.franis_franis@juno.com>

My answer to you, Don, is: It's Peter Krauss, the troll - Franis

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:36:24 +0000 Donald Factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
writes:
> Thought you all might like to see this, especially Pat.
> 
> Recently I have been having a conversation with Kathryn about  
> inviting Zoe back on the list. The feeling was that we, along with  
> William, would consider inviting her back, if she would write and  
> tell us why she wants to participate here or what it might mean to  
> her. K raised this question with her and got this reply:
> 
>   "Satisfactory (Factory;-) reply", what kind of non-sense is that?  
> 
> Did you ever read Bohm? Oh, this goes so diametrically against 
> Bohm's  
> vision, Kay. It is rather embarrassing coming from them, who boast  
> themselves to be the 'heirs' of Bohm's-(dialouge)-work. I cannot  
> believe you, Kay, would put up with rubbish like that. Dialouge does 
>  
> not need "satisfactory" approval. Please read Bohm. I will go ahead  
> 
> and forward that to TT/OD. Regards --- Zoe
> 
> Then this arrived in my inbox from kirsten. To give you some 
> context:  
> For a while, some of my posts were being forwarded to TT/OD  - those 
>  
> are Peter Krauss's products  - and appeared to be forwarded to them  
> 
> by pat and then sent on to me by Peter or another member of TT/OD,  
> Pat insisted that it wasn't her. I still don't know who was actually 
>  
> sending these. But note here  Zoe's reference to that list in her  
> note above. And notice also that the one below from kirsten is  
> actually a forward of pat's message to this list.
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us several  
> years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS  
> peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have  
> mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was  peter again  
> 
> (with a new name) and were interested when finding this suspicion  
> either  wrong or right. This continues. No one has mentioned it for  
> 
> awhile. But I brought it up because I noticed it happening with the  
> 
> new voices. With each one of them. There seems to be this easy,  
> automatic process that occurs in thought, regarding this. It's VERY  
> 
> fun. And it is based on an assumption (which could be wrong - or 
> turn  
> wrong at any time) that peter
> REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
> 
> 
> dear donf, this one in from pat, very interesting, is it not ;;--))
> 
> ps: it is good to have "friends". try it.
> 
> miss you
> 
> but
> 
> will be
> 
> back
> 
> lovbot
> 
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? My comment it that it  
> 
> isn't fun. Its a distraction.
> 
> don
> 
> 
> 
> 

From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Sun Nov  5 11:07:03 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Nov  6 12:10:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
In-Reply-To: <20061104.203245.1896.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061104.203245.1896.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <99F49FE3-4218-4AD8-AB06-FD586B857ED7@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

I know what you mean. Interesting isn't it? Could it be the wego in  
process?

don
On 5 Nov 2006, at 01:17, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:

> I'm not sure exactly. It might have been Robyn's second post (where  
> I decided that Robyn wasn't peter). I just remember laughing and  
> picturing an orange with spores growing on it - don't ask me why -  
> I had just gotten up. Maybe I had been dreaming of oranges. But  
> remember this in the context of my process that occurs when there  
> is a new voice here that doesn't like something about what they  
> have been reading. This seems to trigger the "is it or isn't it  
> [peter]" process.
>
> pat
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:10:48 +0000 Don Factor  
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> Pat. what inspired you to writ this post at this particular time?
>
> I am asking for a particular reason that I am not yet at liberty to  
> revea
>
> don
>
>
> On 4 Nov 2006, at 19:05, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us several  
>> years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS  
>> peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have  
>> mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was  peter  
>> again (with a new name) and were interested when finding this  
>> suspicion either  wrong or right. This continues. No one has  
>> mentioned it for awhile. But I brought it up because I noticed it  
>> happening with the new voices. With each one of them. There seems  
>> to be this easy, automatic process that occurs in thought,  
>> regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an assumption  
>> (which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time) that peter
>> REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
>>
>> I remember both Matti [pretty sure it was Matti]
>> and I flashed on a possibility that Mr. Frantisek Plessl
>> might be peter when he first came on. But it wasn't long
>> before we were certain that he wasn't.
>>
>> pat
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061105/e4c06beb/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Sun Nov  5 11:11:37 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Nov  6 12:14:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <454D429C.000007.00456@AMDPC>
References: <44807DDE-2935-4582-867E-5451C2AEB72F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
	<454D429C.000007.00456@AMDPC>
Message-ID: <0686889A-F045-44A5-A6BC-70584AB13C61@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

I really hate to do it, Robin,  but okay. Just for the record in case  
anybody wants to get hold of you they can check back to your previous  
post.

We hope to see/read you again

don
On 5 Nov 2006, at 01:47, Robyn Knight wrote:

> Hello Don,
> Yes I would still like to to unsubscribe me at this time. I feel I  
> have a lot of catching up to do before I could contribute in a  
> meaningful way.
> If anyone can advise me of where I can purchase either audios, dvds  
> or videos of David Bohm work I would be very grateful.
> Kindest regards and best wishes
> Robyn
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Don Factor
> Date: 11/04/06 22:08:09
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
>
> Thanks for this. Its very useful bit of insight for me. If you  
> still want off just send a brief note and I will unsubscribe you,
> don factor
> On 3 Nov 2006, at 23:03, Robyn Knight wrote:
>
> Hello Don
> This is in no way meant to offend.
> Well actually yes it is that bad for me. It reminds me of the  
> continual chatter I used to have in my head:)) (I'm smiling when  
> saying this) I am a very simple person with a huge interest in the  
> work of Krishnmurti and a passion for Prof David Bohm and have  
> found that for me just to facilitate the work for others in via  
> viewing's (from home, parks, University) then share food that we  
> all bring, its great. If they require further information I lend it  
> to them to take home and in turn they share it with others.
> I was feeling a little alone and was excited when I found your  
> site, (wow to get right to the source) however the brief exposure  
> to this Internet dialogue had made me feel just great being quite.
> What you are all doing is wonderful however I am not an  
> intellectual and nor are most of the people I share the information  
> with. I do however have a unique way of knowing my target group and  
> can present in a way that gets their interest. The idea is to get  
> them to watch intently then the rest is up to them. And so the  
> movement goes.
> If it is ok with you I will keep in touch as I have so much to  
> learn and Im sure you would be one of the people to ask
> Kindest regards
> Robyn
> <060105~1.GIF>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Don Factor
> Date: 11/04/06 08:30:49
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
> Gosh, you just joined.
> Is it that bad?
> don
> On 3 Nov 2006, at 22:17, Robyn Knight wrote:
>
> Hi Guy
> Can someone please advise me how to remove myself from this  
> dialogue email list. I am not too familiar with computers etc and  
> am not sure how to do this.
> Regards Robyn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/6612916b/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Sun Nov  5 13:39:14 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Mon Nov  6 14:42:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Passion
In-Reply-To: <20061106110004.2DCF324616@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF910ACFA6.23C39885-ON8525721D.00444482-8525721D.004582C6@dialogos.com>







Rodger __By passive-passion do we mean, for example, the level of
determination to endure, recover and survive a crisis like terminal cancer
or severe disablement?

Where a key passive eliment would be the ingredient of TIME -- externally
it seems very little can be done in an active way except endure conditions
and hope -- but in fact a great deal is being done within by way of focus,
vision, gratitude, determination, etc. _R
.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:36:58 +0000
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Message-ID:
             <1F82D16A-829A-4C49-BDB4-F63344A52270@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

William, you know I have read a lot of what you have to say about
passion and all of it, at some level. makes intriguing sense...
...Maybe an example, even fictional will do?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/15c250ec/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Sun Nov  5 14:34:36 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Mon Nov  6 15:37:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Dialogue Moderation
In-Reply-To: <20061106110004.2DCF324616@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF67968E81.7D78A7BD-ON8525721D.0049785D-8525721D.004A9469@dialogos.com>







Rodger__Those of us who gathered for dialogues with David and Saral, did so
largely by invitation. It might seem limiting or even ironic that there was
never a time when just anyone could join in the dialogues, at anytime, to
say or do anything.

Equally true; almost everyone is completely free to invite others to share
in dialogue -- anytime.

Sharing dialogue via internet is a move onto an entirely different level or
method. I am glad moderating exists. _R
.
.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 20:31:07 -0500
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] core-periphery-mystery
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
I think I would take a "benevolent dictator" position. I would give very
clear guidelines and oust anyone who broke the [tacit] agreement in my
opinion and in my opinion alone, no hesitation, no questions asked.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/df8bf56d/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Sun Nov  5 14:36:59 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Nov  6 15:40:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Passion
In-Reply-To: <OF910ACFA6.23C39885-ON8525721D.00444482-8525721D.004582C6@dialogos.com>
References: <OF910ACFA6.23C39885-ON8525721D.00444482-8525721D.004582C6@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAF5B617-3A76-4DF9-B327-524A59BDF0A1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

I would say that this is anything but passive, although it might look  
that way on the surface. But it is passionate. Don't you agree?
don
On 5 Nov 2006, at 12:39, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:

> Rodger __By passive-passion do we mean, for example, the level of  
> determination to endure, recover and survive a crisis like terminal  
> cancer or severe disablement?
>
> Where a key passive eliment would be the ingredient of TIME --  
> externally it seems very little can be done in an active way except  
> endure conditions and hope -- but in fact a great deal is being  
> done within by way of focus, vision, gratitude, determination, etc. _R
> .
> Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:36:58 +0000
> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Message-ID:
> <1F82D16A-829A-4C49-BDB4-F63344A52270@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> William, you know I have read a lot of what you have to say about
> passion and all of it, at some level. makes intriguing sense...
> ...Maybe an example, even fictional will do?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061105/2c77fde7/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Sun Nov  5 14:39:54 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Nov  6 15:42:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Passion
In-Reply-To: <OF910ACFA6.23C39885-ON8525721D.00444482-8525721D.004582C6@dialogos.com>
References: <OF910ACFA6.23C39885-ON8525721D.00444482-8525721D.004582C6@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <68140644-A93A-4F48-AC2C-8C339B96C89E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

Now that I am thinking about this, I recall that I said a long time  
ago  that it was my anger that kept me going when I was near death,  
but in retrospect I can see that it wasn't anger even if the energy  
might have been similar. It was a passion to live which was intense.
don
On 5 Nov 2006, at 12:39, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:

> Rodger __By passive-passion do we mean, for example, the level of  
> determination to endure, recover and survive a crisis like terminal  
> cancer or severe disablement?
>
> Where a key passive eliment would be the ingredient of TIME --  
> externally it seems very little can be done in an active way except  
> endure conditions and hope -- but in fact a great deal is being  
> done within by way of focus, vision, gratitude, determination, etc. _R
> .
> Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:36:58 +0000
> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Message-ID:
> <1F82D16A-829A-4C49-BDB4-F63344A52270@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> William, you know I have read a lot of what you have to say about
> passion and all of it, at some level. makes intriguing sense...
> ...Maybe an example, even fictional will do?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061105/4f881fdc/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Sun Nov  5 14:46:07 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov  6 15:52:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
Message-ID: <20061105.084613.2724.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>

You are right to be confused. It confuses me too. On rereading it, the
supporting examples destroy the case. Or totally confuse it.

Thinking about explaining what happened there is daunting. But it may
have do with "flipped meanings" in general (which was the theme - and I
went off in the wrong direction with the "flippings." And the examples
were too crude as well as being backwards. It's a mess trying to think
about it).

However, the process of trying to think about THAT reveals more about the
general topic. 

Which seems to be about how words, when pushed or deeply explored, reveal
opposite meanings - case in point, "passion." (The examples were a "flip"
on that - so there was a double "flip   ....  yeah -  now I 'get' what
happened).

Much appreciation for your careful reading.

pat


On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:31:25 -0600 Lynne Tolk
<lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Pat, I get confused by your explanation.  I can understand paradox.  I
can understand passion as suffering and passion as joy being the same,
and there being a kind of resolution in that.  And I can (almost) see the
source of passion as different from the effects of passion.  But I can?t
find the relationship here with your examples of (war/peace,
medicine/health, religion/morality, government/safety).

Lynne
On 11/4/06 3:53 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:


don, you talked about the two levels from which one can look at something
the other day. This applies here. The "Passion" of being "passionately in
love" for instance is a movement whose source is not explicate but
implicate. Not ordinary. Not guided by thought but by something "non
rational" (or maybe I should say "Super" rational. None of these terms is
literal or perfectly applicable - you just might have to 'get a sense of
it').
 
It's kind of like working with the concepts of "core" and "periphery."
One is totally the other each time you try to pin it down in a lasting
way.
 
"Passion" is a wonderful example of a word seeming to have mirror image
meanings but considering the "two levels" from which to look at it makes
it easier.
 
Bohm's explicate and implicate are examples of "two levels."
Also "Relative & Absolute.
 
Words never "sit still." Certain words reveal the "lives" words can
"take on" at the different levels. And some words do this VERY
eloquently - like "passion."
 
What happens is the effects of the "relaxation" that is "passion" [that
is the source, the passion itself] are noted, and effects (the energetic
intensity) is taken as source - and the word in common usage takes on a
different and sometimes opposite meaning.
 
Was is peace.
Medicine is health.
Religion is morality.
Government keeps us safe.
 
pat
 
 
 
 
 
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:08:51 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:

I'm not sure that this does much for me either. Etymologically, action
means to act. And passion means to suffer. I am not sure that the
suffering is of the sort that means non-action but rather refers to
putting up with the pain. Compassion has to do with sharing the suffering
or 'sustained' pain. It has the same root as patience. But even here,
what do we mean by 'passionately in love"? for instance. Is this a state
of passivity? Not in my lexicon.

Damn it, I am trying to be patient here, but it just doesn't compute.
There is something there but I don't know what it is. 
don 


I don't know if this will help don (and I don't at all know what I am
about to say) but it was the talking about "passion" on this list 
(several years ago) that really got me understanding, what it was, that
was SO difficult and elusive for me. It really got me started focusing on
one simple thing which is to "stay with" what is happening rather than
"running away" in some way or another. We talked about how this "Passion"
was an extremely "high energy" state. Both in its initiation and in its
"energy building" capacity (if not in actuality - in its lack of energy
draining). 
 
That "Passion" was the opposite of "Action" (etymologically) really made
an impression on me. I could see how the "non action" of "Passion" was a
"non action" in terms of "running away" (in its various forms). And that
the "non action" of "Passion" was a relaxation into a new source of
"action."
 
This "non action" is considered to be the "suffering" of something. And
it may indeed seem so or be so. But this is mostly in the anticipation;
the fear. And in the "inventions" of retrospect. And that "Passion" is
also connected to "patience" gives further credentials and sense
development. But 'Patience" is a thing that only seems like "suffering"
in its anticipation or in seeing it from the outside. Actual patience is
utter ease and doesn't seem like typical ideas of "patience." (which are
more like "tolerance").
 
"Passion" is "relaxation" of that which would be in control or that which
would want the moment to "be different" than what it is. But "passion" is
simultaneously freedom of movement or activity, unencumbered now by
conflicting efforts.
 
pat
 
 
 
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:36:58 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:

William, you know I have read a lot of what you have to say about passion
and all of it, at some level. makes intriguing sense. It seems right and
importtant, but I still can't get my head around what it is you are
talking about.  At times you seem to talk about passion as a passive
state and at others as a more intense one. Maybe I am just used to the
intense aspec, like being passonate about someone or about chocolate. But
now you seem to equate passion with compassion. Well, etymologically they
have something to do with each other, but in experience I am not so sure.
Could you try once again to explain what you mean when you use the term.
Maybe an example, even fictional will do?

don

On 4 Nov 2006, at 18:10, william wrote:



 
From: Mr. Frantisek Plessl <mailto:frantisekplessl@yahoo.com> 
>Passion is a gift and not a train skills acquired by
>pratice. We all have this capability for passion, and
>does comes to us uninvited in many different times.
 
Yes, i would say we have an inherent potential for passion, and it does
come through occasionally. 
Somebody recently wrote something about her experience with the
separation from her husband, which was very painful until something
happened that made the pain turn into compassion. I know of several
people where something similar happened. In all cases they went through a
rough time before it happened. The potential is there but somehow it
seems a rare thing. I tend to think that our culture doesn't do very much
to unfold this potential, in fact it seems to be doing everything to
suppress it. I was wondering if something can be done to make passion
part of our culture making it easier for the individual to actualize the
potential.
 
William
 
 
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

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

_______________________________________________




 

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

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

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

_______________________________________________




 




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

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

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

_______________________________________________






-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
   208 376-1336
   www.lifedirectionscoach.com
    (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)


"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/3f52ecd6/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Sun Nov  5 14:51:13 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Mon Nov  6 15:54:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Technical/ Attachment
In-Reply-To: <20061106110004.2DCF324616@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFF8CDE40F.E3FB82DA-ON8525721D.004ACE3F-8525721D.004C19AA@dialogos.com>






Rodger__hi all. Last week William contacted me via personal email address
to ask if I would stop sending my Dialogue input as attachments. But I have
never sent attachments and that is what I told him.
Must be a technical glitch. Then in my Bohm_Dialogue today, I noticed that
quite a number of the comments were in attachment form.

It means I can only read the attachment text if someone who downloaded that
text as normal and not attachment, is replying to the comment thus includes
a copy of some of the original statement.  Did that make sense?

Anyway, I am wondering how many others are not receiving normal text input,
because it has been switched to attachment format?  _R
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/bba292d5/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Sun Nov  5 15:02:03 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Nov  6 16:05:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Technical/ Attachment
In-Reply-To: <OFF8CDE40F.E3FB82DA-ON8525721D.004ACE3F-8525721D.004C19AA@dialogos.com>
References: <OFF8CDE40F.E3FB82DA-ON8525721D.004ACE3F-8525721D.004C19AA@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <4172044B-669E-4DD1-BA10-B6EEC01F3205@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

I remember that I used to often get e-mails from people that had  
attachments. When  would open these they were identical to  the text  
and he senders didn't know that they were sending them. I found out  
that it had something to do with some Microsoft mail software,  
probably Outlook. Changing the preference might help. Anyway, I  
haven't noticed it in recent times. So maybe you need to update your  
email software of William has to update his. What are you using?  
William, what are you using?

don

On 5 Nov 2006, at 13:51, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:

> Rodger__hi all. Last week William contacted me via personal email  
> address to ask if I would stop sending my Dialogue input as  
> attachments. But I have never sent attachments and that is what I  
> told him.
> Must be a technical glitch. Then in my Bohm_Dialogue today, I  
> noticed that quite a number of the comments were in attachment form.
>
> It means I can only read the attachment text if someone who  
> downloaded that text as normal and not attachment, is replying to  
> the comment thus includes a copy of some of the original statement.  
> Did that make sense?
>
> Anyway, I am wondering how many others are not receiving normal  
> text input, because it has been switched to attachment format? _R
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

From ae.dropper at juno.com  Sun Nov  5 15:09:12 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov  6 16:55:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Passion
Message-ID: <20061105.095002.2724.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>

This "passion" of which we speak is the same as "facing" something
or "being with" something. It is intimacy with "what is" whatEVER "is."
And it is beyond "intimacy" because this implies an interface
but with this "passion" about which we try to speak, there is 
no interface.

"Passion" is far from the only way to refer to this.
It is one more of many ways to notice a perennial
wisdom sort of thing. 

Etymology is no more "for everyone" than
is astrology, archeology, or sociology.

Each 'field' is a fertile field for the sparking
of insight and finding explicit guidance - for some. 

Etymology is fertile for me. But it need not be
for 'you.'

pat



On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:36:59 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
I would say that this is anything but passive, although it might look
that way on the surface. But it is passionate. Don't you agree?
don

On 5 Nov 2006, at 12:39, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:


Rodger __By passive-passion do we mean, for example, the level of
determination to endure, recover and survive a crisis like terminal
cancer or severe disablement? 

Where a key passive eliment would be the ingredient of TIME -- externally
it seems very little can be done in an active way except endure
conditions and hope -- but in fact a great deal is being done within by
way of focus, vision, gratitude, determination, etc. _R
.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:36:58 +0000
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Message-ID:
<1F82D16A-829A-4C49-BDB4-F63344A52270@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

William, you know I have read a lot of what you have to say about  
passion and all of it, at some level. makes intriguing sense... 
...Maybe an example, even fictional will do?
_______________________________________________
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/20061105/692c5599/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Sun Nov  5 15:49:55 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov  6 16:55:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Dialogue Moderation
Message-ID: <20061105.095002.2724.9.ae.dropper@juno.com>

Bohm Dialogue has no set leader. But the fact of a sustained dialogue
group requires designated leadership. This designated person (or persons)
is the buckstopper
regarding actual decisions (which, of course, cannot happen within the
dialogue circle. The circle is a free space where all assumptions are
suspendable. This "free space" is not possible without a "provider" for
that free space. This (dual role) setup is a perfect setup for
exploitation. It is, in fact, a magnet for exploitation.

I've done both (and I LOVED both). I've done both open dialogue and
dialogue by invitation. In order to do open bohm dialogue there has to be
a person who is willing to constantly recruit new people (I was that
person. It took LOTS of time and energy). The reason constant fresh blood
is necessary is because crazy people come to an open dialogue group and
sometimes even dance on the chairs, and drag in trash cans filled with
empty beer bottles (I love it all) and this turns a lot of people away.
One of the basics of the dialogue experiment is that a certain minimum
number of people participate. Can't hardly keep the numbers up WITHOUT
the wonderfully nutty people, let alone WITH them.

pat

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 08:34:36 -0500 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes:
Rodger__Those of us who gathered for dialogues with David and Saral, did
so largely by invitation. It might seem limiting or even ironic that
there was never a time when just anyone could join in the dialogues, at
anytime, to say or do anything.

Equally true; almost everyone is completely free to invite others to
share in dialogue -- anytime.

Sharing dialogue via internet is a move onto an entirely different level
or method. I am glad moderating exists. _R
.
.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 20:31:07 -0500
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] core-periphery-mystery
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
I think I would take a "benevolent dictator" position. I would give very
clear guidelines and oust anyone who broke the [tacit] agreement in my
opinion and in my opinion alone, no hesitation, no questions asked.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/e37008b0/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Sun Nov  5 14:50:18 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov  6 16:55:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
Message-ID: <20061105.095002.2724.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>

What do you mean?

pat

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:07:03 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
I know what you mean. Interesting isn't it? Could it be the wego in
process?


don

On 5 Nov 2006, at 01:17, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:


I'm not sure exactly. It might have been Robyn's second post (where I
decided that Robyn wasn't peter). I just remember laughing and picturing
an orange with spores growing on it - don't ask me why - I had just
gotten up. Maybe I had been dreaming of oranges. But remember this in the
context of my process that occurs when there is a new voice here that
doesn't like something about what they have been reading. This seems to
trigger the "is it or isn't it [peter]" process. 

pat

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:10:48 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:

Pat. what inspired you to writ this post at this particular time? 


I am asking for a particular reason that I am not yet at liberty to revea


don




On 4 Nov 2006, at 19:05, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:


Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us several years
ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS peter (or as
pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have mentioned that they
had thought a certain newcomer was  peter again (with a new name) and
were interested when finding this suspicion either  wrong or right. This
continues. No one has mentioned it for awhile. But I brought it up
because I noticed it happening with the new voices. With each one of
them. There seems to be this easy, automatic process that occurs in
thought, regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an assumption
(which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time) that peter
REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.

I remember both Matti [pretty sure it was Matti] 
and I flashed on a possibility that Mr. Frantisek Plessl  
might be peter when he first came on. But it wasn't long 
before we were certain that he wasn't.

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


post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net


dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net


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


_______________________________________________






_______________________________________________
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/20061105/15de6a6e/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Sun Nov  5 15:56:07 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Nov  6 16:59:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
In-Reply-To: <20061104.203245.1896.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061104.203245.1896.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <499ADDB6-021A-43C7-95EC-7F9FA2875BFA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

But there is something else that has occurred to me. Bohm was always  
keen to have the dialogue groups big enough so that the socio- 
cultural levels of the thought process would come out. He also called  
this level "the general" which he pointed out derives from the same  
root as generate, generative. genesis and so on. It has to do with  
beginnings or starting points. He said a number of times that the  
"pollution was generated at  this level. The eddies in the stream  
were not the cause but an effect of the flow of the stream. His  
metaphor was always about "the pollution upstream.

Now when I look back at the Peter, Gas. Kirsten, Zoe saga I begin to  
see it in these terms If we here are, as he suggested, a kind of  
microculture than we ought to expect that some of the stuff that  
causes difficulties in the larger culture might be seen and better  
understood here in close-up. Out in the big culture we have political  
parties that are at each other's throats, we have nation states that  
try to force their value systems down the throats of others, or  
failing that, murder them all, especially if those others have  
something that they want or need, There are religions that battle  
against one another and on and on. On the other hand if, along with  
Bohm, we define a culture as  "shared meaning" then we must have this  
too. We know what we mean by western culture, and most of us here  
would consider ourselves a part of it. Thus we share enough meaning  
to know more about one another than we might if we were dealing with  
a Sudanese tribesman for example, or Peter Krauss.

Now, if the above mentioned peter, gas, kirsten, zoe group  
represented something of a sub-culture or more than one sub-culture  
here we might be able to get a greater insight into the whole thing.  
Although we have banned them as dangerous illegal aliens, I think we  
gave them enough time to give us something to work with. Our attempts  
to get them to behave as we wished didn't work, so what have we  
learned? I mean, not only about what happens here in this little  
micro-culture but about the bigger one of which we are, possibly,  
only a peripheral part?

These are questions to which I have no ready answers, but I do think  
they ought to be investigated.

And I am also curious as to how long it will take for this post of  
mine to make its way back to peter and then back here to us.

don


On 5 Nov 2006, at 01:17, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:

> I'm not sure exactly. It might have been Robyn's second post (where  
> I decided that Robyn wasn't peter). I just remember laughing and  
> picturing an orange with spores growing on it - don't ask me why -  
> I had just gotten up. Maybe I had been dreaming of oranges. But  
> remember this in the context of my process that occurs when there  
> is a new voice here that doesn't like something about what they  
> have been reading. This seems to trigger the "is it or isn't it  
> [peter]" process.
>
> pat
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:10:48 +0000 Don Factor  
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> Pat. what inspired you to writ this post at this particular time?
>
> I am asking for a particular reason that I am not yet at liberty to  
> revea
>
> don
>
>
> On 4 Nov 2006, at 19:05, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us several  
>> years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS  
>> peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have  
>> mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was  peter  
>> again (with a new name) and were interested when finding this  
>> suspicion either  wrong or right. This continues. No one has  
>> mentioned it for awhile. But I brought it up because I noticed it  
>> happening with the new voices. With each one of them. There seems  
>> to be this easy, automatic process that occurs in thought,  
>> regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an assumption  
>> (which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time) that peter
>> REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
>>
>> I remember both Matti [pretty sure it was Matti]
>> and I flashed on a possibility that Mr. Frantisek Plessl
>> might be peter when he first came on. But it wasn't long
>> before we were certain that he wasn't.
>>
>> pat
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061105/2400f1e4/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Sun Nov  5 16:03:16 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Mon Nov  6 17:03:38 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04D7@msw2k.msw.local>

I heard someone last night claiming he was something because he had his
picture taken with Senator Frist.  I thought he was some thingk because
he was foolish enough to think Frist was a decent man to whom he wanted
to be connected.  The something I thought he was was not what he
thought. D   

-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 4:52 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate

 >I have never met anyone who believed himself to be a unicorn. -- d f

Neither have I.  I have seen many though who thought they were some
THINGK simply because they knew someone important.  Wasn't that
imaginary?

Maybe the point is that we can imagine almost anything, fantasize almost
anything -- however, there's a serious difference between imagery based
upon actual experience and imagery based only upon other images.  -- dbl




----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate


>I have never met anyone who believed himself to be a unicorn. But
somebody 
>once wrote that if you believe there are unicorns at the  bottom of
your 
>garden, you will eventually see unicorns at the bottom  of your garden.
> On 22 Oct 2006, at 22:24, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> just about  everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a
>> synthesis.  You are a synthesis  -- don F
>>
>> I believe I see your POV.  However, it  does not consider the idea
how, 
>> in
>> homo-sap affairs, there's the notion of image-identity and the
personal 
>> mask
>> of identity.
>>
>> Are you suggesting it is not useful or important to differentiate
what 
>> is
>> only man-made or synthetic imagery, e.g., the unicorn or one's purely
>> imaginary identity -- and what actually is? -- Don L
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Factor" 
>> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:21 AM
>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>>
>>
>>> I am also concerned about the word "synthetic" because just about
>>> everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a  synthesis.
You 
>>> are
>>> a synthesis that can be described as one of body-mind-spirit,  or
DNA 
>>> from
>>> two different parents, or a myriad of other combinations.  Bohm  was
a 
>>> fan
>>> of Hegel's logic based on the progression, thesis,  antithesis, 
>>> synthesis.
>>> This last being a higher order than the first  two. The synthesis
then
>>> becomes a thesis, etc. in an ongoing chain.  It was known as a 
>>> dialectic.
>>> Dialogue is a higher order synthesis of  dialectic and something
else - 
>>> I'm
>>> not sure what to call it - logos,  maybe. The idea is that a
synthesis 
>>> of,
>>> say, guilty and innocent does  not lie between the thesis and 
>>> antithesis
>>> but beyond them. "Complex"  comes to mind but that's too  general
.... 
>>> And
>>> then there is  perspective. Jean Gebser wrote about a state of  mind

>>> that
>>> would be  aperspectival. This doesn\t mean just a blending of
various
>>> perspectives but something beyond that, a way of perceiving that  is

>>> beyond
>>> perspective. Of course, he put this in the category of a  mutation
in 
>>> human
>>> consciousness that was just beginning to emerge -  something like 
>>> Bohm's
>>> insight that would change all the brains cells  once and for all.
>>>
>>> Sorry about the digression here, but its where the word took me.
>>> don
>>>
>>> On 19 Oct 2006, at 11:49, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rodger __I agree with your defining of synthetic and natural. 
>>>> Coherent.
>>>> Unfortunately the definition is usually loaded with views  of 
>>>> separation
>>>> and moral preference.
>>>>
>>>> Distinction, for the purpose of coherence, rather than looking-for-
>>>> truth; in this case, recognizing differences between synthetic and
>>>> natural without being influenced by emotional bais or investment 
>>>> based
>>>> on fear of change, or death -- re: that awesom, unstoppable,
>>>> evolutionary process!
>>>>
>>>> Did Atlantis ever exist or sink? Did the ending of previous
>>>> civilizations, end-the-world? Or simply end the world; as it was 
>>>> known
>>>> back then?
>>>>
>>>> The difference between natural and synthetic reminds me of Pats
poem. 
>>>> In
>>>> this case the loudest voice tends to shout about how
>>>>  unnatural -synthetics- are.
>>>> While the quiet voice whispers of the minor and temporary part
>>>> synthetics have in the grandeur of Nature.._R
>>>> .
>>>> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:35 -0400
>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> .
>>>> Might there be some valid reasons for distinguishing between 
>>>> "Natural"
>>>> and "Synthetic?" (Not looking for "truth" in thought,  just 
>>>> coherence).
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 

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

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

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

_______________________________________________


From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Sun Nov  5 16:15:47 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Mon Nov  6 17:16:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04D8@msw2k.msw.local>

I agree they ought to be investigated.  I think that is the real issue.
How do people who come from different "ground" learn to dialogue.  I'm
thinking of killing Hussein.  Could there ever be dialogue?  I think of
Bush.  I'd like to see him impeached because of the disaster he has
brought to the world and our country.  Could a Republican and I learn to
dialogue about that?  I think we must learn to.  My very best friend is
a Republican.  We talk but we are far from dialogue.  I tell him and he
tells me and there we sit on our own ground.
If we can't, who can.  We do remain friends and I wouldn't harm him.  So
maybe that is what we are after.  I see a lot of good in him but think
he is blind.  He wouldn't hurt me either and would fight to protect me
from harm.  Maybe we are asking for too perfect a dialogue?  Maybe Peter
should be a part of the group.  Would we protect him if someone tried to
harm him? D.

________________________________

From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 9:56 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?


But there is something else that has occurred to me. Bohm was always
keen to have the dialogue groups big enough so that the socio-cultural
levels of the thought process would come out. He also called this level
"the general" which he pointed out derives from the same root as
generate, generative. genesis and so on. It has to do with beginnings or
starting points. He said a number of times that the "pollution was
generated at  this level. The eddies in the stream were not the cause
but an effect of the flow of the stream. His metaphor was always about
"the pollution upstream.  

Now when I look back at the Peter, Gas. Kirsten, Zoe saga I begin to see
it in these terms If we here are, as he suggested, a kind of
microculture than we ought to expect that some of the stuff that causes
difficulties in the larger culture might be seen and better understood
here in close-up. Out in the big culture we have political parties that
are at each other's throats, we have nation states that try to force
their value systems down the throats of others, or failing that, murder
them all, especially if those others have something that they want or
need, There are religions that battle against one another and on and on.
On the other hand if, along with Bohm, we define a culture as  "shared
meaning" then we must have this too. We know what we mean by western
culture, and most of us here would consider ourselves a part of it. Thus
we share enough meaning to know more about one another than we might if
we were dealing with a Sudanese tribesman for example, or Peter Krauss. 

Now, if the above mentioned peter, gas, kirsten, zoe group represented
something of a sub-culture or more than one sub-culture here we might be
able to get a greater insight into the whole thing. Although we have
banned them as dangerous illegal aliens, I think we gave them enough
time to give us something to work with. Our attempts to get them to
behave as we wished didn't work, so what have we learned? I mean, not
only about what happens here in this little micro-culture but about the
bigger one of which we are, possibly, only a peripheral part?

These are questions to which I have no ready answers, but I do think
they ought to be investigated.

And I am also curious as to how long it will take for this post of mine
to make its way back to peter and then back here to us.

don


On 5 Nov 2006, at 01:17, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:


	I'm not sure exactly. It might have been Robyn's second post
(where I decided that Robyn wasn't peter). I just remember laughing and
picturing an orange with spores growing on it - don't ask me why - I had
just gotten up. Maybe I had been dreaming of oranges. But remember this
in the context of my process that occurs when there is a new voice here
that doesn't like something about what they have been reading. This
seems to trigger the "is it or isn't it [peter]" process. 
	 
	pat
	 
	On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:10:48 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:

		 

	Pat. what inspired you to writ this post at this particular
time? 

	I am asking for a particular reason that I am not yet at liberty
to revea

	don


	On 4 Nov 2006, at 19:05, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:


		Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with
us several years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years,
AS peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have
mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was  peter again
(with a new name) and were interested when finding this suspicion either
wrong or right. This continues. No one has mentioned it for awhile. But
I brought it up because I noticed it happening with the new voices. With
each one of them. There seems to be this easy, automatic process that
occurs in thought, regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an
assumption (which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time) that peter
		REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
		 
		I remember both Matti [pretty sure it was Matti] 
		and I flashed on a possibility that Mr. Frantisek Plessl
<mailto:frantisekplessl@yahoo.com>   
		might be peter when he first came on. But it wasn't long

		before we were certain that he wasn't.
		 
		pat
		_______________________________________________
		info:
		www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

		post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

		dialogue facilitator:
		facilitator@david-bohm.net

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

		_______________________________________________




	_______________________________________________
	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/20061105/5d9c2819/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com  Sun Nov  5 15:32:38 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Mon Nov  6 17:35:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Passion
In-Reply-To: <20061105.095002.2724.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C1735226.7CD8%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>

I really like this idea of intimacy which is beyond intimacy.  Maybe it?s a
very direct experience of what is real, where we normally experience the
reflection.

Lynne
On 11/5/06 8:09 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:

> This "passion" of which we speak is the same as "facing" something
> or "being with" something. It is intimacy with "what is" whatEVER "is."
> And it is beyond "intimacy" because this implies an interface
> but with this "passion" about which we try to speak, there is
> no interface.
>  
> "Passion" is far from the only way to refer to this.
> It is one more of many ways to notice a perennial
> wisdom sort of thing.
>  
> Etymology is no more "for everyone" than
> is astrology, archeology, or sociology.
>  
> Each 'field' is a fertile field for the sparking
> of insight and finding explicit guidance - for some.
>  
> Etymology is fertile for me. But it need not be
> for 'you.'
>  
> pat
>  
>  
>  
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:36:59 +0000 Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> writes:
>> I would say that this is anything but passive, although it might look that
>> way on the surface. But it is passionate. Don't you agree?
>> don
>> On 5 Nov 2006, at 12:39, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Rodger __By passive-passion do we mean, for example, the level of
>>> determination to endure, recover and survive a crisis like terminal cancer
>>> or severe disablement?
>>> 
>>> Where a key passive eliment would be the ingredient of TIME -- externally it
>>> seems very little can be done in an active way except endure conditions and
>>> hope -- but in fact a great deal is being done within by way of focus,
>>> vision, gratitude, determination, etc. _R
>>> .
>>> Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:36:58 +0000
>>> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <1F82D16A-829A-4C49-BDB4-F63344A52270@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>> 
>>> William, you know I have read a lot of what you have to say about
>>> passion and all of it, at some level. makes intriguing sense...
>>> ...Maybe an example, even fictional will do?
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> 
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 


-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
   208 376-1336
   www.lifedirectionscoach.com
    (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)


"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061105/a120d406/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Sun Nov  5 17:05:29 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Nov  6 18:08:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
In-Reply-To: <499ADDB6-021A-43C7-95EC-7F9FA2875BFA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <20061104.203245.1896.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
	<499ADDB6-021A-43C7-95EC-7F9FA2875BFA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <1037C365-C520-46C1-932A-2FE8BA871EAE@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

wego. pronounced weego. This was DB's coinage for the collective ego.  
The ego of a group. Most groups acquire a wego, an us rather than a  
them.

don


On 5 Nov 2006, at 14:56, Don Factor wrote:

> But there is something else that has occurred to me. Bohm was  
> always keen to have the dialogue groups big enough so that the  
> socio-cultural levels of the thought process would come out. He  
> also called this level "the general" which he pointed out derives  
> from the same root as generate, generative. genesis and so on. It  
> has to do with beginnings or starting points. He said a number of  
> times that the "pollution was generated at  this level. The eddies  
> in the stream were not the cause but an effect of the flow of the  
> stream. His metaphor was always about "the pollution upstream.
>
> Now when I look back at the Peter, Gas. Kirsten, Zoe saga I begin  
> to see it in these terms If we here are, as he suggested, a kind of  
> microculture than we ought to expect that some of the stuff that  
> causes difficulties in the larger culture might be seen and better  
> understood here in close-up. Out in the big culture we have  
> political parties that are at each other's throats, we have nation  
> states that try to force their value systems down the throats of  
> others, or failing that, murder them all, especially if those  
> others have something that they want or need, There are religions  
> that battle against one another and on and on. On the other hand  
> if, along with Bohm, we define a culture as  "shared meaning" then  
> we must have this too. We know what we mean by western culture, and  
> most of us here would consider ourselves a part of it. Thus we  
> share enough meaning to know more about one another than we might  
> if we were dealing with a Sudanese tribesman for example, or Peter  
> Krauss.
>
> Now, if the above mentioned peter, gas, kirsten, zoe group  
> represented something of a sub-culture or more than one sub-culture  
> here we might be able to get a greater insight into the whole  
> thing. Although we have banned them as dangerous illegal aliens, I  
> think we gave them enough time to give us something to work with.  
> Our attempts to get them to behave as we wished didn't work, so  
> what have we learned? I mean, not only about what happens here in  
> this little micro-culture but about the bigger one of which we are,  
> possibly, only a peripheral part?
>
> These are questions to which I have no ready answers, but I do  
> think they ought to be investigated.
>
> And I am also curious as to how long it will take for this post of  
> mine to make its way back to peter and then back here to us.
>
> don
>
>
> On 5 Nov 2006, at 01:17, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure exactly. It might have been Robyn's second post  
>> (where I decided that Robyn wasn't peter). I just remember  
>> laughing and picturing an orange with spores growing on it - don't  
>> ask me why - I had just gotten up. Maybe I had been dreaming of  
>> oranges. But remember this in the context of my process that  
>> occurs when there is a new voice here that doesn't like something  
>> about what they have been reading. This seems to trigger the "is  
>> it or isn't it [peter]" process.
>>
>> pat
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:10:48 +0000 Don Factor  
>> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> Pat. what inspired you to writ this post at this particular time?
>>
>> I am asking for a particular reason that I am not yet at liberty  
>> to revea
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>> On 4 Nov 2006, at 19:05, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>> Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us  
>>> several years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of  
>>> years, AS peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here  
>>> long, have mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer  
>>> was  peter again (with a new name) and were interested when  
>>> finding this suspicion either  wrong or right. This continues. No  
>>> one has mentioned it for awhile. But I brought it up because I  
>>> noticed it happening with the new voices. With each one of them.  
>>> There seems to be this easy, automatic process that occurs in  
>>> thought, regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an  
>>> assumption (which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time)  
>>> that peter
>>> REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
>>>
>>> I remember both Matti [pretty sure it was Matti]
>>> and I flashed on a possibility that Mr. Frantisek Plessl
>>> might be peter when he first came on. But it wasn't long
>>> before we were certain that he wasn't.
>>>
>>> pat
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20061105/7d03699c/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Sun Nov  5 18:42:02 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov  6 19:45:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04D8@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F230BBAA4F7C8C00DCFBE08A5FC0@phx.gbl>

Maybe Peter should be a part of the group.   Would we protect him if someone 
tried to
>harm him?

I would, Dorothy.  Yes, Peter,Kris and Zoe should be part of the group.  I 
have a friendship with Zoe offline, which I have mentioned in posts.  I have 
been trying to mediate some way for Zoe to rejoin us, and she is passionate 
about wanting to.  She objects to having to write an acceptable answer to 
why she wants to be part of the group, and what she expects from BD.  In my 
personal correspondence with her,  she has been sensitive, warm, 
considerate, coherent, intelligent and passionate, particularly about Bohm.  
When we are angry, we don't compete to be right.  Occasionally I have 
emailed with Kris.  S/he and I speak our minds, but we aren't snarky and 
abusive to each other, either.  I have never met Peter.

Let me make clear here that I am not the person who seems to be sending our 
posts to Kris.  I clarified that privately with Don, and offered to 
unsubscribe while he pursued the issue.  The offer still stands.

On passion, compassion, maitre and tonglen – I see all of us, including PKZ  
as compassionate warriors.  And I see Bohm and his aims and ideas as totally 
consonant with the way of the compassionate warrior.  Tonglen and maitre 
teach us to stay with the things and people that make us uncomfortable until 
we have confronted, understood, and come to terms with whatever of ourselves 
is being reflected.  That way, we make a better world.  This is part of 
Mahayana Buddhism that has a great deal in common with Bohm, and makes a lot 
more sense to me than Krishnamurti.

“Approach what you find repulsive, help the ones you think you cannot help, 
and go the places that scare you.”

>From “The Places That Scare You”.

That is what I expect from dialog, and why I joined the group.

If you are interested in exploring this further, I recommend Pema Chodron, 
"The Places That Scare You", "Awakening Loving Kindness", and "When Things 
Fall Apart".

I also want to go on record saying I'm investigating Peter's website, and 
like some of it very much, and find some of it could use revising. Whatever 
his faults, he's creative, and original.  Peter, himself, hasn't become part 
of my explicate order world.
I'm engaging in Optical Dialog with Zoe, and find it really makes me think 
to find an image, or several that express accurately what I want to convey.  
Nice thing about OD is that one explores in the sense of collage, and I 
occasionally resort to words.  I see OD as sprouting from BD - a variation 
on the theme - and able to lead to greater clarification of meaning, if we 
are patient enough to develop the language.  Actually, emoticons could be 
considered part of OD.

Maybe Zoe isn't the only one who should articulate why she wants to be part 
of the group, and what she expects from BD.  I think an occasional 
reaffirmation and review of that would help keep it from fragmenting, and 
keep us all on target.

Hozhoon, k


>From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:15:47 -0500
>
>I agree they ought to be investigated.  I think that is the real issue.
>How do people who come from different "ground" learn to dialogue.  I'm
>thinking of killing Hussein.  Could there ever be dialogue?  I think of
>Bush.  I'd like to see him impeached because of the disaster he has
>brought to the world and our country.  Could a Republican and I learn to
>dialogue about that?  I think we must learn to.  My very best friend is
>a Republican.  We talk but we are far from dialogue.  I tell him and he
>tells me and there we sit on our own ground.
>If we can't, who can.  We do remain friends and I wouldn't harm him.  So
>maybe that is what we are after.  I see a lot of good in him but think
>he is blind.  He wouldn't hurt me either and would fight to protect me
>from harm.  Maybe we are asking for too perfect a dialogue?  Maybe Peter
>should be a part of the group.  Would we protect him if someone tried to
>harm him? D.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
>Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 9:56 AM
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>
>
>But there is something else that has occurred to me. Bohm was always
>keen to have the dialogue groups big enough so that the socio-cultural
>levels of the thought process would come out. He also called this level
>"the general" which he pointed out derives from the same root as
>generate, generative. genesis and so on. It has to do with beginnings or
>starting points. He said a number of times that the "pollution was
>generated at  this level. The eddies in the stream were not the cause
>but an effect of the flow of the stream. His metaphor was always about
>"the pollution upstream.
>
>Now when I look back at the Peter, Gas. Kirsten, Zoe saga I begin to see
>it in these terms If we here are, as he suggested, a kind of
>microculture than we ought to expect that some of the stuff that causes
>difficulties in the larger culture might be seen and better understood
>here in close-up. Out in the big culture we have political parties that
>are at each other's throats, we have nation states that try to force
>their value systems down the throats of others, or failing that, murder
>them all, especially if those others have something that they want or
>need, There are religions that battle against one another and on and on.
>On the other hand if, along with Bohm, we define a culture as  "shared
>meaning" then we must have this too. We know what we mean by western
>culture, and most of us here would consider ourselves a part of it. Thus
>we share enough meaning to know more about one another than we might if
>we were dealing with a Sudanese tribesman for example, or Peter Krauss.
>
>Now, if the above mentioned peter, gas, kirsten, zoe group represented
>something of a sub-culture or more than one sub-culture here we might be
>able to get a greater insight into the whole thing. Although we have
>banned them as dangerous illegal aliens, I think we gave them enough
>time to give us something to work with. Our attempts to get them to
>behave as we wished didn't work, so what have we learned? I mean, not
>only about what happens here in this little micro-culture but about the
>bigger one of which we are, possibly, only a peripheral part?
>
>These are questions to which I have no ready answers, but I do think
>they ought to be investigated.
>
>And I am also curious as to how long it will take for this post of mine
>to make its way back to peter and then back here to us.
>
>don
>
>
>On 5 Nov 2006, at 01:17, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>
>	I'm not sure exactly. It might have been Robyn's second post
>(where I decided that Robyn wasn't peter). I just remember laughing and
>picturing an orange with spores growing on it - don't ask me why - I had
>just gotten up. Maybe I had been dreaming of oranges. But remember this
>in the context of my process that occurs when there is a new voice here
>that doesn't like something about what they have been reading. This
>seems to trigger the "is it or isn't it [peter]" process.
>
>	pat
>
>	On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:10:48 +0000 Don Factor
><donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>
>	Pat. what inspired you to writ this post at this particular
>time?
>
>	I am asking for a particular reason that I am not yet at liberty
>to revea
>
>	don
>
>
>	On 4 Nov 2006, at 19:05, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>
>		Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with
>us several years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years,
>AS peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have
>mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was  peter again
>(with a new name) and were interested when finding this suspicion either
>wrong or right. This continues. No one has mentioned it for awhile. But
>I brought it up because I noticed it happening with the new voices. With
>each one of them. There seems to be this easy, automatic process that
>occurs in thought, regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an
>assumption (which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time) that peter
>		REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
>
>		I remember both Matti [pretty sure it was Matti]
>		and I flashed on a possibility that Mr. Frantisek Plessl
><mailto:frantisekplessl@yahoo.com>
>		might be peter when he first came on. But it wasn't long
>
>		before we were certain that he wasn't.
>
>		pat
>		_______________________________________________
>		info:
>		www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>		post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>		dialogue facilitator:
>		facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>		Administrator of the mailing list:
>		admin@david-bohm.net
>
>		_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>	_______________________________________________
>	info:
>	www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>	post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>	dialogue facilitator:
>	facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>	Administrator of the mailing list:
>	admin@david-bohm.net
>
>	_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>


>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free 
trip! 
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline

From joachimfaust at earthlink.net  Sun Nov  5 21:21:29 2006
From: joachimfaust at earthlink.net (Joachim Faust)
Date: Mon Nov  6 22:24:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] core/periphery and power
In-Reply-To: <20061106110003.4FC692442E@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
References: <20061106110003.4FC692442E@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <51734970-F024-4F03-B4C6-72862175A200@earthlink.net>

Hi Don and Pat,

I agree, Don, "core" can definitely be associated with "power," and "  
top of a hierarchy". In the context
of colonialism e.g., you can think of the center of an empire vs. the  
relative powerless
periphery in the colonies.

In my understanding, this has always been the main point of  
contention for the different
incarnations of the Peter Krauss-troll: in his/her view (as I  
understand it!), it is problematic,
perhaps even completely unacceptable, to have a "power center" in a  
dialogue, e.g. people
who have the power to unsubscribe others, and, therefore, to "define"  
what is dialogue and
what isn't.  Zoe's statement in the passage you quote (see below) also
reflects the same concern.

The underlying question is elementary, and can hardly be avoided:
can it  be dialogue  (specifically Bohmian-dialogue), if it is  
controlled in this way?

In my view,  the troll has a point here, and there is something that  
should be/could be explored
more deeply. From my peripheral viewpoint, after having observed this  
dialogue for almost two years now,
it seems clear that the "trolls" are essentially your own creation,  
not necessarily literally, in the sense that you are yourself
creating them (although this could be also the case, of course, as  
in: Don Factor and Pat are really the same person,
and Peter Krauss is their creation, which would be particularly  
funny, or unfunny, depending how you are looking at it. I certainly
would not be able to tell, if this was so), but in a psychological  
sense, as in: Peter Krauss is your shadow, he
represents those of your own character features that you don't want  
to see, which is why s/he always
pops up in new incarnations. In the spirit of traditional Jungian  
psychotherapy, you would want to face and embrace
this shadow, and as a result, the trolls should go away by  
themselves. Which character features are your shadow features?
I don't know, of course, but my first guess would be something like:   
the desire to be right, the desire to be in control?



Joachim






On 06.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:

> Didn't know that you had unsubbed the "zoe" character.
>
> No your experience does not sound like fun at all. Glad it is not me
> responsible for "moderating" here. I don't think I would last long  
> at that.
> I think I would take a "benevolent dictator" position. I would give  
> very clear guidelines and oust anyone who broke the [tacit]  
> agreement in my opinion and in my opinion alone, no hesitation, no  
> questions asked. So we are lucky (perhaps) to have
> you doing this, not me. Much appreciation for your difficult role  
> here.
>
> pat
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:36:24 +0000 Donald Factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>  
> writes:
> Thought you all might like to see this, especially Pat.
>
> Recently I have been having a conversation with Kathryn about  
> inviting Zoe back on the list. The feeling was that we, along with  
> William, would consider inviting her back, if she would write and  
> tell us why she wants to participate here or what it might mean to  
> her. K raised this question with her and got this reply:
>
>  "Satisfactory (Factory;-) reply", what kind of non-sense is that?  
> Did you ever read Bohm? Oh, this goes so diametrically against  
> Bohm's vision, Kay. It is rather embarrassing coming from them, who  
> boast themselves to be the 'heirs' of Bohm's-(dialouge)-work. I  
> cannot believe you, Kay, would put up with rubbish like that.  
> Dialouge does not need "satisfactory" approval. Please read Bohm. I  
> will go ahead and forward that to TT/OD. Regards --- Zoe
>
> Then this arrived in my inbox from kirsten. To give you some  
> context: For a while, some of my posts were being forwarded to TT/ 
> OD  - those are Peter Krauss's products  - and appeared to be  
> forwarded to them by pat and then sent on to me by Peter or another  
> member of TT/OD, Pat insisted that it wasn't her. I still don't  
> know who was actually sending these. But note here  Zoe's reference  
> to that list in her note above. And notice also that the one below  
> from kirsten is actually a forward of pat's message to this list.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us several  
> years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS  
> peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have  
> mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was  peter again  
> (with a new name) and were interested when finding this suspicion  
> either  wrong or right. This continues. No one has mentioned it for  
> awhile. But I brought it up because I noticed it happening with the  
> new voices. With each one of them. There seems to be this easy,  
> automatic process that occurs in thought, regarding this. It's VERY  
> fun. And it is based on an assumption (which could be wrong - or  
> turn wrong at any time) that peter
> REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
>
>
> dear donf, this one in from pat, very interesting, is it not ;;--))
>
> ps: it is good to have "friends". try it.
>
> miss you
>
> but
>
> will be
>
> back
>
> lovbot
>
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? My comment it that it  
> isn't fun. Its a distraction.
>
> don
>
>
>
>
>

Joachim Faust
joachimfaust@earthlink.net


From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Sun Nov  5 22:41:37 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Nov  6 23:44:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] core/periphery and power
In-Reply-To: <51734970-F024-4F03-B4C6-72862175A200@earthlink.net>
References: <20061106110003.4FC692442E@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
	<51734970-F024-4F03-B4C6-72862175A200@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <915D2E9A-A980-48B7-93F0-64D86B16BE5D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

Aha! you must be one of them. (joke)

What you write here certainly entered my mind not long after peter  
first turned up. I mean, with peter it wasn't so much shadow as  
"fool". As in the tarot deck.  This seemed terrific in the beginning   
- a kind of well informed tease. I enjoyed it , but after a while, it  
seemed that I wasn't responding in a way that would satisfy whatever  
it was that he was attempting, so he just kept pushing it further. He  
did display himself as a talented artist, with some of his graphics  
ffor example, but when I complimented him on his art he responded  
angrily (it may have been faux anger) and  wrote long diatribes  
against such labels. Okay, I thought, its simply a contrarian  
position. I could do along with that. But after a while, he didn't  
seem to be able to go along with it. So he kept up his pushing and   
until he finally succeeded in shutting the group down. That was his  
goal it seemed. The shut down, by the way, was preceded by most of  
the participants getting fed up and leaving. They could see no way  
that they could continue to participate at that level. There was not  
in those days any way to unsubscribe someone. The shut down was, we  
felt,  the only way we could save the list. So it wasn't based on an  
objection to leadership or facilitation or hierarchy.

One interesting point was that some people who remained until the end  
also objected to our shutting it down and refused to resubscribe to  
the new list. A couple of these people even picked up on his style  
and joined him in sending similar posts. It must have been much more  
fun than pondering the subtleties of life, the universe and everything.

Anyway, it is true that we seem to attract these people. I don't know  
about Pat's experience but I have from time to time. The first one  
we  was in a face to face group that included David Bohm. There was a  
woman who would speak up during the dialogue and go off into a kind  
of rant that was completely incomprehensible to any of those who were  
there. We were a group of about 30 people who had been meeting weekly  
for a couple of years when she turned up. Anyway, every time she did  
this, someone in the group would ask her if she could explain what  
she was saying because it was difficult to understand, whereupon she  
would berate the questioner until someone else jumped in and the  
subject got changed. Sometimes this would go on for as much as a half  
hour and our sessions were only around two hours. She did did this in  
each session for about three or four week. David Bohm did not  
interfere. He, like most of the rest of us just paid attention to see  
what was going on. But after about the fourth week, he spoke to a few  
of us, a kind of core group, i guess, and suggested that we ask her  
to leave. We felt uncertain about this for the sorts of reasons you  
have suggested. Bohm's response was that dialogue was still a very  
delicate activity, It needed to be protected so that it could  
continue its inquiry without so much difficulty. We were not there to  
satisfy the ego needs of one participant. That might have been okay  
when someone revealed the need for help and this has happened from  
time to time. But it couldn't be done in this way. So that  
established a sort of precedent which boiled down to something that  
could be called protecting the process.

Now there have also been those who demanded, why do we need to remove  
the difficult people, what are we trying to protect? The tone of  
these questions seemed to me to be based on a misundderstanding of  
group dialogue. These people seem to see it as a kind of encounter  
group. But that l not it at all. Dialogue requires a kind of empathy  
or compassion which certainly seems to me as it did to Bohm as an  
essential precusor to what we are trying to do. Arrogance or hubris  
just didn't fit and it certainly doesn't fit. Group therapy, I would  
say, is one thing, but dialogue is something different.

I noticed that Bill Isaacs who has been the most prominent and  
successful practitioner of Bohm style dialogue in the commercial  
world has established the idea of what he calls a container. The  
creation of a container is the first stage in the development of a  
group that will thereby be able to continue doing what it needs to  
do. Without it the dialogue group might as well be just a gathering  
of strangers picked up on a busy street and made to sit down and talk  
together. Or just another encounter group. What would be missing  
would be, the shared intent to set aside one's personal necessities  
or to suspend them and observe them, as part of  a shared concern for  
a  process  that might allow an opening to serious inquiry. Then when  
we discover blocks we can begin to explore them in a context that we  
all might  be party to without fear of attack or ridicule.

What you and Kathryn have suggested strikes me as an impossible state  
for a dialogue, at least at this stage of the game. It is not a  
therapy group or social group that is in any way  exclusive. Maybe,  
as the dialogue meme gets spread  further it might get easier. But so  
far as I can see, not yet.

don


On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:21, Joachim Faust wrote:

> Hi Don and Pat,
>
> I agree, Don, "core" can definitely be associated with "power," and  
> " top of a hierarchy". In the context
> of colonialism e.g., you can think of the center of an empire vs.  
> the relative powerless
> periphery in the colonies.
>
> In my understanding, this has always been the main point of  
> contention for the different
> incarnations of the Peter Krauss-troll: in his/her view (as I  
> understand it!), it is problematic,
> perhaps even completely unacceptable, to have a "power center" in a  
> dialogue, e.g. people
> who have the power to unsubscribe others, and, therefore, to  
> "define" what is dialogue and
> what isn't.  Zoe's statement in the passage you quote (see below) also
> reflects the same concern.
>
> The underlying question is elementary, and can hardly be avoided:
> can it  be dialogue  (specifically Bohmian-dialogue), if it is  
> controlled in this way?
>
> In my view,  the troll has a point here, and there is something  
> that should be/could be explored
> more deeply. From my peripheral viewpoint, after having observed  
> this dialogue for almost two years now,
> it seems clear that the "trolls" are essentially your own creation,  
> not necessarily literally, in the sense that you are yourself
> creating them (although this could be also the case, of course, as  
> in: Don Factor and Pat are really the same person,
> and Peter Krauss is their creation, which would be particularly  
> funny, or unfunny, depending how you are looking at it. I certainly
> would not be able to tell, if this was so), but in a psychological  
> sense, as in: Peter Krauss is your shadow, he
> represents those of your own character features that you don't want  
> to see, which is why s/he always
> pops up in new incarnations. In the spirit of traditional Jungian  
> psychotherapy, you would want to face and embrace
> this shadow, and as a result, the trolls should go away by  
> themselves. Which character features are your shadow features?
> I don't know, of course, but my first guess would be something  
> like:  the desire to be right, the desire to be in control?
>
>
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
>> Didn't know that you had unsubbed the "zoe" character.
>>
>> No your experience does not sound like fun at all. Glad it is not me
>> responsible for "moderating" here. I don't think I would last long  
>> at that.
>> I think I would take a "benevolent dictator" position. I would  
>> give very clear guidelines and oust anyone who broke the [tacit]  
>> agreement in my opinion and in my opinion alone, no hesitation, no  
>> questions asked. So we are lucky (perhaps) to have
>> you doing this, not me. Much appreciation for your difficult role  
>> here.
>>
>> pat
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:36:24 +0000 Donald Factor  
>> <dfactor@dc.rr.com> writes:
>> Thought you all might like to see this, especially Pat.
>>
>> Recently I have been having a conversation with Kathryn about  
>> inviting Zoe back on the list. The feeling was that we, along with  
>> William, would consider inviting her back, if she would write and  
>> tell us why she wants to participate here or what it might mean to  
>> her. K raised this question with her and got this reply:
>>
>>  "Satisfactory (Factory;-) reply", what kind of non-sense is that?  
>> Did you ever read Bohm? Oh, this goes so diametrically against  
>> Bohm's vision, Kay. It is rather embarrassing coming from them,  
>> who boast themselves to be the 'heirs' of Bohm's-(dialouge)-work.  
>> I cannot believe you, Kay, would put up with rubbish like that.  
>> Dialouge does not need "satisfactory" approval. Please read Bohm.  
>> I will go ahead and forward that to TT/OD. Regards --- Zoe
>>
>> Then this arrived in my inbox from kirsten. To give you some  
>> context: For a while, some of my posts were being forwarded to TT/ 
>> OD  - those are Peter Krauss's products  - and appeared to be  
>> forwarded to them by pat and then sent on to me by Peter or  
>> another member of TT/OD, Pat insisted that it wasn't her. I still  
>> don't know who was actually sending these. But note here  Zoe's  
>> reference to that list in her note above. And notice also that the  
>> one below from kirsten is actually a forward of pat's message to  
>> this list.
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us several  
>> years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS  
>> peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have  
>> mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was  peter  
>> again (with a new name) and were interested when finding this  
>> suspicion either  wrong or right. This continues. No one has  
>> mentioned it for awhile. But I brought it up because I noticed it  
>> happening with the new voices. With each one of them. There seems  
>> to be this easy, automatic process that occurs in thought,  
>> regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an assumption  
>> (which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time) that peter
>> REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
>>
>>
>> dear donf, this one in from pat, very interesting, is it not ;;--))
>>
>> ps: it is good to have "friends". try it.
>>
>> miss you
>>
>> but
>>
>> will be
>>
>> back
>>
>> lovbot
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? My comment it that  
>> it isn't fun. Its a distraction.
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Joachim Faust
> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>