From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 5 02:48:45 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 6 03:45:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
References: <20061004.122715.1448.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00e301c6e818$0a4c0090$b439153f@DL01>
"that which is cannot be named" or defined is the "void" of being, and words
can't suffice. -- Franis
Yes. Seems to me that whatever the whole is, the words we use and their
definitions have only limited meaning.
I'm unsure what you mean by "personal history". My interest in Bohm and db
Dialogue relates to the interest in truth, in 'that which is, whatever it
is. Those people who tuned me in to Bohm generally have been interested in
truth and in relating Eastern and Western thought regarding what actually
is, with the whole -- not in playing group therapy or playing psychology.
Personally, I am a dummy, mediocre artist at best with an interest in truth,
in the logos and what it may mean for the future of homo-sap. I have used
up most of my future and am now content to be present. -- Don L
From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
> ...a sacred belief, almost superstitious that "that which is cannot be
> named" or defined is the "void" of being, and words can't suffice. I've
> been inside that one. It's the sort of sceptics religious conviction, or
> at least sceptics are the people who have said that sort of thing to me.
>
> I agree - words fall short of this description of what "it" means. Do you
> have a personal history of when you began this conviction - or your
> interest in meaning?
> Franis
>
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:56:23 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
>> Please, can you say, what it means for You? -- donF
>>
>> I really do not want to say just now ... perhaps fearing the answer
>> would sully, contaminate the meaning of Being. Maybe it sort of
>> holy, something like that. -- Don L
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Factor
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>>
>>
>> DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important
>> to you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me,
>> its just an interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing
>> something.
>>
>>
>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>> Don L: What is "meaning"?
>>
>>
>> Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give
>> you a sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest
>> me here,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of
>> significance. Whatever meanings there may be 'in our minds', these
>> are, as we have seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic
>> structures and therefore from what we are.
>> Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater
>> levels of subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a
>> movement from the explicate toward the implicate. This can only take
>> place however when new meanings are being perceived freshly from
>> moment to moment.
>>
>>
>> Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to
>> define. We run out of analogies here. Differences become more
>> subtle, similarities abound. The terms are more and more capable of
>> covering everything. They are more general. Words are defined in
>> terms of other words, and eventually, the original word will come
>> back (energy-work, work-energy). So you have to explore the word,
>> and unfold its meaning, begin to perceive it.
>>
>>
>> Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be
>> given a direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may
>> also arouse energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back
>> and forth and being trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may
>> allow that energy to be liberated.
>>
>>
>> The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level
>> and gives rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on
>> the matter. Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of
>> one reality. In the implicate order energy and matter are imbued
>> with a certain kind of meaning which gives form to their overall
>> activity, and to the matter which arises in that activity. The
>> middle term enfolds the other two.
>>
>>
>> The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the
>> enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds
>> meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of
>> the possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole,
>> including itself.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it
>> seems that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful is closely related
>> to commune, community, communion. But I can find nothing from the
>> Greek. They must have known about it, because it so fundamental, but
>> like other such ideas it probably was never brought to the surface
>> for closer inspection. If you know what I mean.
>>
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 5 03:04:35 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 6 04:01:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
References: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
<009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
<7502D172-3B27-407A-B5FC-CDFD68DD36DB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<007201c6e7dd$e147b700$0a16153f@DL01>
<096644F2-80BB-48A4-BC7F-39ABC4995772@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <010601c6e81a$3c277390$b439153f@DL01>
i can only assume ... -- donF
You assume correctly! I do not find much of what you prate about very interesting (since it seems self-aggrandizing), though I do read most of it as time permits. Right now I'm busy trying to get the bathroom finished so I can hit the road next week, get to the mountains before the leaves fall. -- DonL
And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes ... -- donF
"Your pre-Socratic folk heroes ...". It is unclear why you are disturbed enough to name-call. A couple of weeks ago it was some kind of guilt by association with Hitler because of quoting Heidegger, and before that guilt for quoting a Christian theologian. How sad, how pitiful! I wonder if it makes you feel good, if it elevates your self-esteem. -- donL
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
i can only assume that you didn't read the various clips that i sent some hours ago and that are attached to this post, on the meanings of meaning in the context of dialogue. They have nothing whatsoever to do with idle curiosity although I must admit that curiosity is a valid approach to understanding.
And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes don't seem to have ever mentioned anything that can be translated as meaning. Actually they opposed each other philosophically. P was a fire man and H was into water. Logos has the meanings you assign to it but Bohm did not make up the word "dialogue" as a kind of neologism. It was a common word that described the kind of activity that he was interested in pursuing. if you or I had dreamed it up, we might well have chosen the same word. in fact he, along with the rest of us in our small group, wasn't satisfied with the word because we all felt it could cause confusion. So we settled for group dialogue or Dialogue with a capital D.
And 'meaning' is not limited in Bohm's cosmology to reason or ratio although it certainly includes these amongst its many meanings. What for Bohm was most interesting about meaning as a principle in considering 'the whole' is that it could refer to itself. One cannot speak of the matter of matter nor the energy of energy, but we can consider the meaning of meaning. That's what interested him. In dealing with the whole, meaning in that sense is fundamental.
don
On 4 Oct 2006, at 18:52, Don Lay wrote:
to me, its just an interesting curiosity. -- donF
Surely you don't actually mean that meaning only means idle curiousness. :) -- donL
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its just an interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing something.
On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:
Don L: What is "meaning"?
Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give you a sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest me here,
The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of significance. Whatever meanings there may be 'in our minds', these are, as we have seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic structures and therefore from what we are.
Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater levels of subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a movement from the explicate toward the implicate. This can only take place however when new meanings are being perceived freshly from moment to moment.
Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to define. We run out of analogies here. Differences become more subtle, similarities abound. The terms are more and more capable of covering everything. They are more general. Words are defined in terms of other words, and eventually, the original word will come back (energy-work, work-energy). So you have to explore the word, and unfold its meaning, begin to perceive it.
Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be given a direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may also arouse energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back and forth and being trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may allow that energy to be liberated.
The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level and gives rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on the matter. Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of one reality. In the implicate order energy and matter are imbued with a certain kind of meaning which gives form to their overall activity, and to the matter which arises in that activity. The middle term enfolds the other two.
The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of the possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole, including itself.
This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it seems that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful is closely related to commune, community, communion. But I can find nothing from the Greek. They must have known about it, because it so fundamental, but like other such ideas it probably was never brought to the surface for closer inspection. If you know what I mean.
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061004/cc8844dc/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com Thu Oct 5 09:16:27 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Fri Oct 6 10:12:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Especially for Mark
Message-ID: <bdf.54e78df.32560b4b@aol.com>
Hi Lynne,
Here's something you might like to try, if you want to explore more what
"taking yourself seriously" might mean (you might have done this already, in
which case my apologies):
When I'm challenged by others to think about certain words, I try to get
extra meaning out of things, I do a simple sketch of what the words convey, and
then describe the drawing. For example, my group asked me to think about what
"integrated" meant for me, and in my notes afterward I came up with some
pretty conventional, emotionally-neutral stuff: "Bringing all parts of one?s
experience to bear, accessing and drawing on different faces / facets, somehow
grounded because of a broad base of wisdom about things".
Then I did a tiny sketch of a walled garden with different plants and a
pond. Out of that, I came up with some much more surprising, richer words: "a
garden of delights, fountain in the middle, different species, variety,
diversity, ecosystem, contained, responsive to a wide range of external stimuli
(self-regulating biodiversity), beauty, cultivation, weeding, ravishing the senses
(smell, colour, texture, water, sounds), a symbiosis of nature and nurture".
I'm always staggered at the richness that comes from considering something
in another medium (another point of view, I suppose you'd describe it) and I
think the richness comes not from the drawing process, but in the activity of
taking that drawing and putting it back into words.
Anyway, just an idea, and I wonder if you haven't tried this, whether
drawing "taking myself seriously" would give you some insights...
I appreciate your challenge to my phrase ?taking myself seriously? - I?ve
been thinking and journaling about those words.
Lynne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/47c11229/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 5 10:20:43 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 6 11:17:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
In-Reply-To: <010601c6e81a$3c277390$b439153f@DL01>
References: <C1487104.3519%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
<009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
<7502D172-3B27-407A-B5FC-CDFD68DD36DB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<007201c6e7dd$e147b700$0a16153f@DL01>
<096644F2-80BB-48A4-BC7F-39ABC4995772@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<010601c6e81a$3c277390$b439153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <F45F3A47-10F7-4682-93DC-2748738CFA6E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Good, you've finally explained it. For you Bohm and dialogue are
primarily an intellectual exercise, or a search for what you call
truth or that which is. While for me, that is all interesting but
secondary. For me Bohm's work is anything but that. It is an attempt
to understand the stuff that is going on our heads and to see if
there is any way to make that behave more coherently or intelligently
than it appears to be at the moment. As a scientist, he put this into
a context that was natural to him, He thought of it in terms of
physics. His insight was that the mind must act in a way that is
similar to the way the quantum world acts, or appears to act. This
led him to the idea of getting groups of people to dialogue to
together as means of exploring the process of thought. He was not
interested in developing a history of the mind or a theory of
consciousness. That, I suppose, he left to Krishnamurti.
But in this light, my question to you would be, Do you think that the
discovery that DeKooning's space is, on close examination, actually a
cubist space, will help make you or anyone a better painter?
don
On 5 Oct 2006, at 02:04, Don Lay wrote:
> i can only assume ... -- donF
>
> You assume correctly! I do not find much of what you prate about
> very interesting (since it seems self-aggrandizing), though I do
> read most of it as time permits. Right now I'm busy trying to get
> the bathroom finished so I can hit the road next week, get to the
> mountains before the leaves fall. -- DonL
>
> And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes ... -- donF
>
> "Your pre-Socratic folk heroes ...". It is unclear why you are
> disturbed enough to name-call. A couple of weeks ago it was some
> kind of guilt by association with Hitler because of quoting
> Heidegger, and before that guilt for quoting a Christian
> theologian. How sad, how pitiful! I wonder if it makes you feel
> good, if it elevates your self-esteem. -- donL
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>
> i can only assume that you didn't read the various clips that i
> sent some hours ago and that are attached to this post, on the
> meanings of meaning in the context of dialogue. They have nothing
> whatsoever to do with idle curiosity although I must admit that
> curiosity is a valid approach to understanding.
>
> And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes don't seem to have
> ever mentioned anything that can be translated as meaning. Actually
> they opposed each other philosophically. P was a fire man and H was
> into water. Logos has the meanings you assign to it but Bohm did
> not make up the word "dialogue" as a kind of neologism. It was a
> common word that described the kind of activity that he was
> interested in pursuing. if you or I had dreamed it up, we might
> well have chosen the same word. in fact he, along with the rest of
> us in our small group, wasn't satisfied with the word because we
> all felt it could cause confusion. So we settled for group dialogue
> or Dialogue with a capital D.
>
> And 'meaning' is not limited in Bohm's cosmology to reason or ratio
> although it certainly includes these amongst its many meanings.
> What for Bohm was most interesting about meaning as a principle in
> considering 'the whole' is that it could refer to itself. One
> cannot speak of the matter of matter nor the energy of energy, but
> we can consider the meaning of meaning. That's what interested him.
> In dealing with the whole, meaning in that sense is fundamental.
>
> don
>
>
> On 4 Oct 2006, at 18:52, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> to me, its just an interesting curiosity. -- donF
>>
>> Surely you don't actually mean that meaning only means idle
>> curiousness. :) -- donL
>>
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Factor
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>>
>> DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important
>> to you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me,
>> its just an interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still
>> missing something.
>>
>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:
>>>
>>> Don L: What is "meaning"?
>>
>> Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give
>> you a sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that
>> interest me here,
>>>
>>
>> The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of
>> significance. Whatever meanings there may be 'in our minds',
>> these are, as we have seen, inseparable from the totality of our
>> somatic structures and therefore from what we are.
>> Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater
>> levels of subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a
>> movement from the explicate toward the implicate. This can only
>> take place however when new meanings are being perceived freshly
>> from moment to moment.
>>
>> Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to
>> define. We run out of analogies here. Differences become more
>> subtle, similarities abound. The terms are more and more capable
>> of covering everything. They are more general. Words are defined
>> in terms of other words, and eventually, the original word will
>> come back (energy-work, work-energy). So you have to explore the
>> word, and unfold its meaning, begin to perceive it.
>>
>> Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be
>> given a direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may
>> also arouse energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back
>> and forth and being trapped, and a perception of a new meaning,
>> may allow that energy to be liberated.
>>
>> The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level
>> and gives rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on
>> the matter. Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of
>> one reality. In the implicate order energy and matter are imbued
>> with a certain kind of meaning which gives form to their overall
>> activity, and to the matter which arises in that activity. The
>> middle term enfolds the other two.
>>
>> The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the
>> enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds
>> meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of
>> the possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the
>> whole, including itself.
>>
>> This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it
>> seems that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful is closely related
>> to commune, community, communion. But I can find nothing from the
>> Greek. They must have known about it, because it so fundamental,
>> but like other such ideas it probably was never brought to the
>> surface for closer inspection. If you know what I mean.
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061005/be45c064/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Thu Oct 5 11:17:29 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Fri Oct 6 12:13:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <BAY107-F3D783BC0122C2612E4CF2A8120@phx.gbl>
YES, AND
Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue is not
to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them directly. It
is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are ready
to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we are talking
we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us and between
us. D Bohm
Don
What do you 'want' [= need; necessity]
To "communicate"
That 's not already ex'pressed [& re'pressed]
Over and over and over .....
Hm?
>I'm on my way in, then out again, but I couldn't resist.
>
>How DOES thought "really" work? Why couldn't anybody take it?
>
>Are you speaking from a cognitive neurological pov, or someplace else?
>
>Later, k
>
>
>On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>e
> > vent u all y
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the new Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 5 11:29:28 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 6 12:26:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Message-ID: <D658336F-F47D-4357-AAEB-D34DF482E33D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
i will be away from computers for about 12 days. So please save any
brilliant insights until I return.
Thanks
don
From MarkHarmer at aol.com Thu Oct 5 12:37:58 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Fri Oct 6 13:34:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Message-ID: <bfd.63dd67e.32563a86@aol.com>
Don, your insights have been fantastic for me - so likewise. Can you save
yours in your head?!
All the best,
Mark
i will be away from computers for about 12 days. So please save any
brilliant insights until I return.
Thanks
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/a2c1e9c2/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Thu Oct 5 14:23:55 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Fri Oct 6 15:20:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <bfd.63dd67e.32563a86@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F2909A47C7E92A7AC72579AA8120@phx.gbl>
>Don, your insights have been fantastic for me
Mark, which "insights" are you talking about? Kirsten
- so likewise. Can you save
>yours in your head?!
>
>All the best,
>
>Mark
>
>i will be away from computers for about 12 days. So please save any
>brilliant insights until I return.
>Thanks
>
>don
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the new Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
From MarkHarmer at aol.com Thu Oct 5 14:37:32 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Fri Oct 6 15:34:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Message-ID: <be7.5367cb7.3256568c@aol.com>
I'm not sure I have time to answer this!
Mark, which "insights" are you talking about? Kirsten
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/3865f78e/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Thu Oct 5 14:38:49 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Fri Oct 6 16:30:05 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <20061006100004.C1634238B7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF13AAED61.669511AB-ON852571FE.00452603-852571FE.004578F5@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ Do you mean to say: why not include early Greek in our notions of
meaning, re; Bohm dialogue? Or do you actually mean: Why not see Bohm's
notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos?
.
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
.
Why would we not regard dialogue or dia logos as did the "early Christians"
as well as at least several translators? Why not see Bohm's notions of
meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos? -- dbl
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/924b5a60/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Thu Oct 5 15:33:15 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Fri Oct 6 16:30:06 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <20061006100004.C1634238B7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF7219E54E.FCE54C9D-ON852571FE.00491CEC-852571FE.004A74B9@dialogos.com>
Rodger __this is not meant as a criticism, but an inquiry;
do you believe that you experience the context of the early Christian
living condition, internally & externally, so that its possible to regard
dia logos -as they did- ?
Or, is it by way of theory/ imagination about what the early Christian
conditions WERE LIKE -- and then construct thoughts about the emotions and
thought processes they experienced, and based upon that construct; regard
dia logos -as they did- ?
_R
.
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
.
Why would we not regard dialogue or dia logos as did the "early Christians"
as well as at least several translators? Why not see Bohm's notions of
meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos? -- dbl
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/ac127108/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Thu Oct 5 16:30:15 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Fri Oct 6 17:27:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] a fragment
Message-ID: <C14A8F39.358C%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: hippo
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23673 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/9cc609eb/hippo.jpe
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Thu Oct 5 17:35:51 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Fri Oct 6 18:32:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F16FADF72D751FB64930CE0A81D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14A9E97.3591%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially >
"How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)". Perhaps,
in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and
intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too often
investigated by our group members.
When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that you
might have some information on the relationship of recent developments in
cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence that
you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas that I
can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by scientific
experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of his
erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with his
life.
How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly has
bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and all
things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the intrinsic or
essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information you
are willing to share, best, k
On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the humanimal
>
> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick") :
>
>
> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
> "communication-thinkgiii
>
> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open' the
> flood&gate to
>
> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~ e
> vent u all y
>
>
>
> All wet & dreams ....
>
> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>
> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
>> YES, AND
>>
>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue is
>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them directly.
>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are
>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we are
>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us and
>> between us. D Bohm
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.m
> icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=hm
> tagline
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Thu Oct 5 17:31:23 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 6 18:37:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
Message-ID: <20061005.113959.3964.135.ae.dropper@juno.com>
You are still coming from a position of non - understanding. And it is a
kind of non - understanding that can only be "explained at." It cannot be
'explained away'. For one thing, the non - understanding is too huge. And
the combination of non - understanding with a presumption of
understanding is particularly tricky and can only be addressed, it seems,
by suspension of the presumption of understanding.
Has anyone here not had the experience of "Where do I begin?" when
contemplating the attempt to make something clear and plain (explain) to
a particular person? And it hasn't worked at all using a direct approach?
What tends to occur in a group dialogue setting is that the would be,
particular attempts to "make clear" just go into the general mix. Maybe
even to no avail regarding the original non - understanding, but it
richens the "mix" and for those who are giving general attention, much
can be gleaned from the "mix."
Understanding of content has never been an inherent necessity in
dialogue. We can't each go into the backgrounds of where each of the
others is "coming from" regarding the background of their studies. There
are enough people on the list now that there is a good chance that
someone will hear each of us. And when someone is heard in this way, it
is to be celebrated (such as with Mark and Kathy recently). It is
certainly not to be denigrated. There are tangential understandings that
can be drawn from the exchanges between people that have a particular
rapport - even if it is only the simple enjoyment of the pleasantries of
rapport.
And there is MUCH to be "gained" (in terms of looking at the function of
thought - where the content is not cooperating) in looking deeply at
objections to content.
And this is especially so when "personal character" aspects conspicuously
pepper content, those aspects that appeal to prejudice.
pat
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:20:43 +0100 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
Good, you've finally explained it. For you Bohm and dialogue are
primarily an intellectual exercise, or a search for what you call truth
or that which is. While for me, that is all interesting but secondary.
For me Bohm's work is anything but that. It is an attempt to understand
the stuff that is going on our heads and to see if there is any way to
make that behave more coherently or intelligently than it appears to be
at the moment. As a scientist, he put this into a context that was
natural to him, He thought of it in terms of physics. His insight was
that the mind must act in a way that is similar to the way the quantum
world acts, or appears to act. This led him to the idea of getting groups
of people to dialogue to together as means of exploring the process of
thought. He was not interested in developing a history of the mind or a
theory of consciousness. That, I suppose, he left to Krishnamurti.
But in this light, my question to you would be, Do you think that the
discovery that DeKooning's space is, on close examination, actually a
cubist space, will help make you or anyone a better painter?
don
On 5 Oct 2006, at 02:04, Don Lay wrote:
i can only assume ... -- donF
You assume correctly! I do not find much of what you prate about very
interesting (since it seems self-aggrandizing), though I do read most of
it as time permits. Right now I'm busy trying to get the bathroom
finished so I can hit the road next week, get to the mountains before the
leaves fall. -- DonL
And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes ... -- donF
"Your pre-Socratic folk heroes ...". It is unclear why you are disturbed
enough to name-call. A couple of weeks ago it was some kind of guilt by
association with Hitler because of quoting Heidegger, and before that
guilt for quoting a Christian theologian. How sad, how pitiful! I wonder
if it makes you feel good, if it elevates your self-esteem. -- donL
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
i can only assume that you didn't read the various clips that i sent some
hours ago and that are attached to this post, on the meanings of meaning
in the context of dialogue. They have nothing whatsoever to do with idle
curiosity although I must admit that curiosity is a valid approach to
understanding.
And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes don't seem to have ever
mentioned anything that can be translated as meaning. Actually they
opposed each other philosophically. P was a fire man and H was into
water. Logos has the meanings you assign to it but Bohm did not make up
the word "dialogue" as a kind of neologism. It was a common word that
described the kind of activity that he was interested in pursuing. if you
or I had dreamed it up, we might well have chosen the same word. in fact
he, along with the rest of us in our small group, wasn't satisfied with
the word because we all felt it could cause confusion. So we settled for
group dialogue or Dialogue with a capital D.
And 'meaning' is not limited in Bohm's cosmology to reason or ratio
although it certainly includes these amongst its many meanings. What for
Bohm was most interesting about meaning as a principle in considering
'the whole' is that it could refer to itself. One cannot speak of the
matter of matter nor the energy of energy, but we can consider the
meaning of meaning. That's what interested him. In dealing with the
whole, meaning in that sense is fundamental.
don
On 4 Oct 2006, at 18:52, Don Lay wrote:
to me, its just an interesting curiosity. -- donF
Surely you don't actually mean that meaning only means idle curiousness.
:) -- donL
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you.
Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its just an
interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing something.
On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:
Don L: What is "meaning"?
Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give you a
sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest me here,
The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of significance.
Whatever meanings there may be 'in our minds', these are, as we have
seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic structures and
therefore from what we are.
Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater levels of
subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a movement from the
explicate toward the implicate. This can only take place however when new
meanings are being perceived freshly from moment to moment.
Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to define. We
run out of analogies here. Differences become more subtle, similarities
abound. The terms are more and more capable of covering everything. They
are more general. Words are defined in terms of other words, and
eventually, the original word will come back (energy-work, work-energy).
So you have to explore the word, and unfold its meaning, begin to
perceive it.
Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be given a
direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may also arouse
energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back and forth and being
trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may allow that energy to be
liberated.
The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level and gives
rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on the matter.
Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of one reality. In
the implicate order energy and matter are imbued with a certain kind of
meaning which gives form to their overall activity, and to the matter
which arises in that activity. The middle term enfolds the other two.
The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the
enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds
meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of the
possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole,
including itself.
This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it seems
that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful is closely related to commune,
community, communion. But I can find nothing from the Greek. They must
have known about it, because it so fundamental, but like other such ideas
it probably was never brought to the surface for closer inspection. If
you know what I mean.
don
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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/20061005/cde996b9/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Thu Oct 5 17:52:18 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Fri Oct 6 18:48:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
In-Reply-To: <20061005.113959.3964.135.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C14AA272.3593%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Pat, what you say absolutely makes sense to me. kathy
On 10/5/06 11:31 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> You are still coming from a position of non - understanding. And it is a kind
> of non - understanding that can only be "explained at." It cannot be
> 'explained away'. For one thing, the non - understanding is too huge. And the
> combination of non - understanding with a presumption of understanding is
> particularly tricky and can only be addressed, it seems, by suspension of the
> presumption of understanding.
>
> Has anyone here not had the experience of "Where do I begin?" when
> contemplating the attempt to make something clear and plain (explain) to a
> particular person? And it hasn't worked at all using a direct approach? What
> tends to occur in a group dialogue setting is that the would be, particular
> attempts to "make clear" just go into the general mix. Maybe even to no avail
> regarding the original non - understanding, but it richens the "mix" and for
> those who are giving general attention, much can be gleaned from the "mix."
>
> Understanding of content has never been an inherent necessity in dialogue. We
> can't each go into the backgrounds of where each of the others is "coming
> from" regarding the background of their studies. There are enough people on
> the list now that there is a good chance that someone will hear each of us.
> And when someone is heard in this way, it is to be celebrated (such as with
> Mark and Kathy recently). It is certainly not to be denigrated. There are
> tangential understandings that can be drawn from the exchanges between people
> that have a particular rapport - even if it is only the simple enjoyment of
> the pleasantries of rapport.
>
> And there is MUCH to be "gained" (in terms of looking at the function of
> thought - where the content is not cooperating) in looking deeply at
> objections to content.
> And this is especially so when "personal character" aspects conspicuously
> pepper content, those aspects that appeal to prejudice.
>
> pat
>
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:20:43 +0100 Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> writes:
>>
>> Good, you've finally explained it. For you Bohm and dialogue are primarily
>> an intellectual exercise, or a search for what you call truth or that which
>> is. While for me, that is all interesting but secondary. For me Bohm's work
>> is anything but that. It is an attempt to understand the stuff that is going
>> on our heads and to see if there is any way to make that behave more
>> coherently or intelligently than it appears to be at the moment. As a
>> scientist, he put this into a context that was natural to him, He thought
>> of it in terms of physics. His insight was that the mind must act in a way
>> that is similar to the way the quantum world acts, or appears to act. This
>> led him to the idea of getting groups of people to dialogue to together as
>> means of exploring the process of thought. He was not interested in
>> developing a history of the mind or a theory of consciousness. That, I
>> suppose, he left to Krishnamurti.
>>
>>
>>
>> But in this light, my question to you would be, Do you think that the
>> discovery that DeKooning's space is, on close examination, actually a cubist
>> space, will help make you or anyone a better painter?
>>
>>
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 Oct 2006, at 02:04, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> i can only assume ... -- donF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You assume correctly! I do not find much of what you prate about very
>>> interesting (since it seems self-aggrandizing), though I do read most of it
>>> as time permits. Right now I'm busy trying to get the bathroom finished so
>>> I can hit the road next week, get to the mountains before the leaves fall.
>>> -- DonL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes ... -- donF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Your pre-Socratic folk heroes ...". It is unclear why you are disturbed
>>> enough to name-call. A couple of weeks ago it was some kind of guilt by
>>> association with Hitler because of quoting Heidegger, and before that guilt
>>> for quoting a Christian theologian. How sad, how pitiful! I wonder if it
>>> makes you feel good, if it elevates your self-esteem. -- donL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>> From: Don Factor <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>>>
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:15 PM
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i can only assume that you didn't read the various clips that i sent some
>>>> hours ago and that are attached to this post, on the meanings of meaning
>>>> in the context of dialogue. They have nothing whatsoever to do with idle
>>>> curiosity although I must admit that curiosity is a valid approach to
>>>> understanding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes don't seem to have ever
>>>> mentioned anything that can be translated as meaning. Actually they
>>>> opposed each other philosophically. P was a fire man and H was into water.
>>>> Logos has the meanings you assign to it but Bohm did not make up the word
>>>> "dialogue" as a kind of neologism. It was a common word that described the
>>>> kind of activity that he was interested in pursuing. if you or I had
>>>> dreamed it up, we might well have chosen the same word. in fact he, along
>>>> with the rest of us in our small group, wasn't satisfied with the word
>>>> because we all felt it could cause confusion. So we settled for group
>>>> dialogue or Dialogue with a capital D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And 'meaning' is not limited in Bohm's cosmology to reason or ratio
>>>> although it certainly includes these amongst its many meanings. What for
>>>> Bohm was most interesting about meaning as a principle in considering 'the
>>>> whole' is that it could refer to itself. One cannot speak of the matter of
>>>> matter nor the energy of energy, but we can consider the meaning of
>>>> meaning. That's what interested him. In dealing with the whole, meaning in
>>>> that sense is fundamental.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 18:52, Don Lay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> to me, its just an interesting curiosity. -- donF
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely you don't actually mean that meaning only means idle curiousness.
>>>>> :) -- donL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Don Factor <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you.
>>>>>> Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its just an
>>>>>> interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don L: What is "meaning"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give you a
>>>>>> sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest me here,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of significance.
>>>>>> Whatever meanings there may be 'in our minds', these are, as we have
>>>>>> seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic structures and
>>>>>> therefore from what we are.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater levels of
>>>>>> subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a movement from the
>>>>>> explicate toward the implicate. This can only take place however when
>>>>>> new meanings are being perceived freshly from moment to moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to define. We
>>>>>> run out of analogies here. Differences become more subtle, similarities
>>>>>> abound. The terms are more and more capable of covering everything. They
>>>>>> are more general. Words are defined in terms of other words, and
>>>>>> eventually, the original word will come back (energy-work, work-energy).
>>>>>> So you have to explore the word, and unfold its meaning, begin to
>>>>>> perceive it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be given a
>>>>>> direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may also arouse
>>>>>> energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back and forth and
>>>>>> being trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may allow that energy
>>>>>> to be liberated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level and
>>>>>> gives rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on the
>>>>>> matter. Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of one
>>>>>> reality. In the implicate order energy and matter are imbued with a
>>>>>> certain kind of meaning which gives form to their overall activity, and
>>>>>> to the matter which arises in that activity. The middle term enfolds the
>>>>>> other two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the
>>>>>> enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds
>>>>>> meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of the
>>>>>> possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole,
>>>>>> including itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it seems
>>>>>> that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful is closely related to
>>>>>> commune, community, communion. But I can find nothing from the Greek.
>>>>>> They must have known about it, because it so fundamental, but like other
>>>>>> such ideas it probably was never brought to the surface for closer
>>>>>> inspection. If you know what I mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> don
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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/20061005/99423628/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Thu Oct 5 20:03:03 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Fri Oct 6 20:59:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <C14A9E97.3591%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F328D58C3A703BC401EA23FA8120@phx.gbl>
Thought going (trying to) after thought
Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
'Allow" this
A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
"Dying for"
Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>
>Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially >
>
>"How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)". Perhaps,
>in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>
>I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
>recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception
>and
>intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>often
>investigated by our group members.
>
>When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that you
>might have some information on the relationship of recent developments in
>cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence that
>you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas that I
>can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by scientific
>experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of his
>erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with his
>life.
>
>How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly has
>bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and all
>things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the intrinsic or
>essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
>because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>
>I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information you
>are willing to share, best, k
>
>
>On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the humanimal
> >
> > (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick") :
> >
> >
> > The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
> > "communication-thinkgiii
> >
> > Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>the
> > flood&gate to
> >
> > How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>e
> > vent u all y
> >
> >
> >
> > All wet & dreams ....
> >
> > But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
> >
> > Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Love & Pleasure, Kbot
> > --------------------------
> > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >
> >
> >> YES, AND
> >>
> >> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
> >> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>is
> >> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
> >> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>directly.
> >> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are
> >> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>are
> >> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us
>and
> >> between us. D Bohm
> >>
> >> Don
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
> >
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.m
> >
>icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=hm
> > tagline
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Search—say hello!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Oct 5 20:06:57 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 6 21:05:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Message-ID: <20061005.140702.3964.138.ae.dropper@juno.com>
What are some of the meanings, in a group dialogue
such as this, to get "caught up in the content" of it?
How is "being caught up in content" actually being
"caught up in counter content?"
And in such a situation, is not 'awareness of the clear
nature of the counter content' the same as 'potential awareness of
the content of implicit assumptions [however tangentially obscured]',
and is this not a primary value of the dialogue, as proposed?
And if this is seen, can you say why this might be said to be
of critical importance* within the context of bohm's dialogue proposal?
*In remembrance of how Einstein and Bohr were "caught up in content"
and despite** their history of love for each other, were unable to speak
with one another.
** "despite," and maybe even "because of?"
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/0c421369/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Thu Oct 5 20:12:10 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Fri Oct 6 21:08:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
In-Reply-To: <20061005.113959.3964.135.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F16F79C5700ABF05CF6080EA8120@phx.gbl>
>Dropper drops the "knowledge"-bomb:
And there is MUCH
http://livingindryden.org/images/rt13366/lockewoods07062004B.jpg
to be "gained" (in terms of looking at the function of
>thought - where the content is not cooperating) in looking deeply at
>objections to content.
>pat
ps: Pat, you come across, under all your pea&cocking out&puts&post here as a
rather miserable older lady.... "despite" all those decades of a "life" of
dialogloglogloging?
Kirsten
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Search—say hello!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Thu Oct 5 20:14:12 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Fri Oct 6 21:10:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <be7.5367cb7.3256568c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F12BE95BD3B8FE3FEB24D24A8120@phx.gbl>
"Time"?
No-time-for-an-"insight"?
..... I am not sure this just didoes not stinkgkgk
>I'm not sure I have time to answer this!
>
>Mark, which "insights" are you talking about? Kirsten
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Thu Oct 5 20:19:08 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Fri Oct 6 21:15:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F328D58C3A703BC401EA23FA8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14AC4DC.35A2%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Thank you, Kris. I KNEW I was asking the right person.
Actually, I'm not "dying" for this, it's what I'm "living" for, in the sense
that it keeps me alive, energized, purposeful, and balanced while I complete
(Lento, I hope) the Pollen Path walk of life. And I'm applying it to the
structure and teaching of music, as well as anything else that presents
itself.
I've met plenty of mental disorders of varying degrees quantitatively and
qualitatively. Enough to have opted for compassion (the practice of maitre)
rather than persecution and anger, after a long period of searching myself.
But -
I'm afraid I must plead more help from you. I have no idea what TAS is. I
know this is involved. If you don't have time for an explanation, can you
refer me to readings - bibliography, websites - please. I would be most
grateful. k
On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>
> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>
> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>
> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>
> 'Allow" this
>
> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>
> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>
> "Dying for"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>
>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially >
>>
>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)". Perhaps,
>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>
>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception
>> and
>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>> often
>> investigated by our group members.
>>
>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that you
>> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments in
>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence that
>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas that I
>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by scientific
>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of his
>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with his
>> life.
>>
>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly has
>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and all
>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the intrinsic or
>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>
>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information you
>> are willing to share, best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the humanimal
>>>
>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick") :
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>
>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>> the
>>> flood&gate to
>>>
>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>> e
>>> vent u all y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>
>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>
>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>> --------------------------
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>
>>>
>>>> YES, AND
>>>>
>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>> is
>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>> directly.
>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are
>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>> are
>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us
>> and
>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
>>>
>>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.>>
m
>>>
>>
icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h>>
m
>>> tagline
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTA>
G
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tangykatt at earthlink.net Thu Oct 5 20:37:19 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Fri Oct 6 21:33:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F328D58C3A703BC401EA23FA8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14AC91F.35A4%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Whatever TAS is - what DOES it allow without causing a breakdown? Thanks, k
On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>
> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>
> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>
> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>
> 'Allow" this
>
> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>
> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>
> "Dying for"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>
>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially >
>>
>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)". Perhaps,
>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>
>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception
>> and
>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>> often
>> investigated by our group members.
>>
>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that you
>> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments in
>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence that
>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas that I
>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by scientific
>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of his
>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with his
>> life.
>>
>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly has
>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and all
>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the intrinsic or
>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>
>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information you
>> are willing to share, best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the humanimal
>>>
>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick") :
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>
>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>> the
>>> flood&gate to
>>>
>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>> e
>>> vent u all y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>
>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>
>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>> --------------------------
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>
>>>
>>>> YES, AND
>>>>
>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>> is
>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>> directly.
>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are
>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>> are
>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us
>> and
>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
>>>
>>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.>>
m
>>>
>>
icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h>>
m
>>> tagline
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTA>
G
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Thu Oct 5 21:05:17 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Fri Oct 6 22:01:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F16F79C5700ABF05CF6080EA8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F27C1A293DDBFF8B1059D4BB7120@phx.gbl>
Pat,
I believe only someone who is truly ALIVE, can offer such insight! Thanks
for your recent post! However, if you are a miserable older lady, please
know you are very much LOVED!
Regina
>From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:12:10 -0400
>
>
>>Dropper drops the "knowledge"-bomb:
>
>And there is MUCH
>
>http://livingindryden.org/images/rt13366/lockewoods07062004B.jpg
>
>to be "gained" (in terms of looking at the function of
>>thought - where the content is not cooperating) in looking deeply at
>>objections to content.
>
>>pat
>
>
>ps: Pat, you come across, under all your pea&cocking out&puts&post here as
>a rather miserable older lady.... "despite" all those decades of a "life"
>of dialogloglogloging?
>
>
>Kirsten
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The next generation of Search—say hello!
>http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 tubakari at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 21:09:55 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Fri Oct 6 22:06:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
Message-ID: <20061005190955.29174.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com>
what if she is both? :) a truly ALIVE mierable older lady who knows she is LOVE
im not saying she is, but it is just a thought.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Regina Bensch-Coe <benschcoe@hotmail.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 12:05:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
Pat,
I believe only someone who is truly ALIVE, can offer such insight! Thanks
for your recent post! However, if you are a miserable older lady, please
know you are very much LOVED!
Regina
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/b43265ce/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Thu Oct 5 21:10:54 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Fri Oct 6 22:07:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-F27C1A293DDBFF8B1059D4BB7120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14AD0FE.35A6%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Absolutely, Pat. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please don't stop.
k
On 10/5/06 3:05 PM, "Regina Bensch-Coe" <benschcoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Pat,
>
> I believe only someone who is truly ALIVE, can offer such insight! Thanks
> for your recent post! However, if you are a miserable older lady, please
> know you are very much LOVED!
>
> Regina
>
>
>> From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:12:10 -0400
>>
>>
>>> Dropper drops the "knowledge"-bomb:
>>
>> And there is MUCH
>>
>> http://livingindryden.org/images/rt13366/lockewoods07062004B.jpg
>>
>> to be "gained" (in terms of looking at the function of
>>> thought - where the content is not cooperating) in looking deeply at
>>> objections to content.
>>
>>> pat
>>
>>
>> ps: Pat, you come across, under all your pea&cocking out&puts&post here as
>> a rather miserable older lady.... "despite" all those decades of a "life"
>> of dialogloglogloging?
>>
>>
>> Kirsten
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMT
>> AG
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 zoechuzero at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 21:15:01 2006
From: zoechuzero at yahoo.com (Zoe Chu)
Date: Fri Oct 6 22:11:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <C14AC91F.35A4%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20061005191501.30984.qmail@web55013.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Kathryn , Tas is Though-As-a-System (a book also by Bohm), the 'whole' thinkg, you see... the super&structure that runs the show.
As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc etc....
good reading on that to start with: Ernest Becker's "denial of death" [I will send you a link to a private website that has a fair amount of the book online,,, but you cant post the link, copy-right issues!]. also: sigmund freud's "civilization and its discontents" [very tasty little pamphlet]... I am in a rush now... Ciao, Kris
Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
Whatever TAS is - what DOES it allow without causing a breakdown? Thanks, k
On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>
> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>
> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>
> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>
> 'Allow" this
>
> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>
> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>
> "Dying for"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>
>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially >
>>
>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)". Perhaps,
>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>
>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception
>> and
>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>> often
>> investigated by our group members.
>>
>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that you
>> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments in
>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence that
>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas that I
>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by scientific
>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of his
>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with his
>> life.
>>
>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly has
>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and all
>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the intrinsic or
>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>
>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information you
>> are willing to share, best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the humanimal
>>>
>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick") :
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>
>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>> the
>>> flood&gate to
>>>
>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>> e
>>> vent u all y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>
>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>
>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>> --------------------------
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>
>>>
>>>> YES, AND
>>>>
>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>> is
>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>> directly.
>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are
>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>> are
>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us
>> and
>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
>>>
>>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.>>
m
>>>
>>
icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h>>
m
>>> tagline
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTA>
G
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/ea8a6459/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Thu Oct 5 21:15:11 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Fri Oct 6 22:11:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <C14AC4DC.35A2%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <C14AB5DF.75FE%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Kathy,
Just to clarify, TAS is an acronym for "thought as system" which is pretty
basic to Bohm's ideas (there is a book by that name). Basically, my sense
is that Bohm's concept of thought includes everything humans have
accumulated, both conceptually and as artifacts. It is not only what we
have as content for thinking, but shapes how we think. It is not something
apart from us that we perceive and then respond to, though this is our usual
understanding, but actually is that in and around us that triggers reflexes
chemically in our bodies/brains. Some see this as pretty deterministic.
Bohm, however, saw something else, involved in creativity, that can break
through and cause insights, which can then alter the entire TAS system. He
felt dialogue was the best method for achieving these insights by providing
an opportunity for noticing one's own assumptions.
(I'm new to all this, so this is only my understanding of what I've read!)
Lynne
On 10/5/06 12:19 PM, "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Thank you, Kris. I KNEW I was asking the right person.
>
> Actually, I'm not "dying" for this, it's what I'm "living" for, in the sense
> that it keeps me alive, energized, purposeful, and balanced while I complete
> (Lento, I hope) the Pollen Path walk of life. And I'm applying it to the
> structure and teaching of music, as well as anything else that presents
> itself.
>
> I've met plenty of mental disorders of varying degrees quantitatively and
> qualitatively. Enough to have opted for compassion (the practice of maitre)
> rather than persecution and anger, after a long period of searching myself.
> But -
>
> I'm afraid I must plead more help from you. I have no idea what TAS is. I
> know this is involved. If you don't have time for an explanation, can you
> refer me to readings - bibliography, websites - please. I would be most
> grateful. k
>
>
> On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>>
>> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>>
>> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>>
>> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>>
>> 'Allow" this
>>
>> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>>
>> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>>
>> "Dying for"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>>
>>
>>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>>
>>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially >
>>>
>>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)". Perhaps,
>>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>>
>>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
>>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception
>>> and
>>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>>> often
>>> investigated by our group members.
>>>
>>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that you
>>> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments in
>>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence that
>>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas that I
>>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by scientific
>>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of his
>>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with his
>>> life.
>>>
>>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly has
>>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and all
>>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the intrinsic or
>>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
>>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>>
>>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information you
>>> are willing to share, best, k
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the humanimal
>>>>
>>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick") :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>>
>>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>>> the
>>>> flood&gate to
>>>>
>>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>>> e
>>>> vent u all y
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>>
>>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>>
>>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> YES, AND
>>>>>
>>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>>> is
>>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>>> directly.
>>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are
>>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>>> are
>>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us
>>> and
>>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>>
>>>>> Don
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
>>>>
>>>
>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.>>
>
> m
>>>>
>>>
>
icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h>>
>
> m
>>>> tagline
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>>
>
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTA>
>
> G
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Thu Oct 5 21:17:34 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Fri Oct 6 22:14:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
In-Reply-To: <20061005190955.29174.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F3180D157838D6E332E9722B7120@phx.gbl>
Absolutely!
Regina
>From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
>
>what if she is both? :) a truly ALIVE mierable older lady who knows she is
>LOVE
>im not saying she is, but it is just a thought.
>
>kari
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Regina Bensch-Coe <benschcoe@hotmail.com>
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 12:05:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>
>
>Pat,
>
>I believe only someone who is truly ALIVE, can offer such insight! Thanks
>for your recent post! However, if you are a miserable older lady, please
>know you are very much LOVED!
>
>Regina
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 tangykatt at earthlink.net Thu Oct 5 21:19:13 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Fri Oct 6 22:15:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <20061005191501.30984.qmail@web55013.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C14AD2F1.35AA%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Thank you very much! I?m looking forward to it. k
On 10/5/06 3:15 PM, "Zoe Chu" <zoechuzero@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Kathryn , Tas is Though-As-a-System (a book also by Bohm), the 'whole' thinkg,
> you see... the super&structure that runs the show.
>
>
>
> As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
>
>
>
> It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
>
>
>
> DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc etc....
>
>
>
> good reading on that to start with: Ernest Becker's "denial of death" [I will
> send you a link to a private website that has a fair amount of the book
> online,,, but you cant post the link, copy-right issues!]. also: sigmund
> freud's "civilization and its discontents" [very tasty little pamphlet]... I
> am in a rush now... Ciao, Kris
>
> Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Whatever TAS is - what DOES it allow without causing a breakdown? Thanks, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>
>>> > Thought going (trying to) after thought
>>> >
>>> > Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>>> >
>>> > It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>>> >
>>> > And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>>> >
>>> > 'Allow" this
>>> >
>>> > A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>>> >
>>> > Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>>> >
>>> > "Dying for"
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>>> >
>>> >
>>>> >> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
>>>> >> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >> To:
>>>> >> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>>>> >> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially
>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)".
>>>> Perhaps,
>>>> >> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
>>>> >> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>>>> >> often
>>>> >> investigated by our group members.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that you
>>>> >> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments
in
>>>> >> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence
>>>> that
>>>> >> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas that
I
>>>> >> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by
>>>> scientific
>>>> >> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of
>>>> his
>>>> >> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with
>>>> his
>>>> >> life.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly
>>>> has
>>>> >> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and all
>>>> >> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the intrinsic
or
>>>> >> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
>>>> >> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>>>> >> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information you
>>>> >> are willing to share, best, k
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the
>>>>> humanimal
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick")
:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>>>> >>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>>>> >> the
>>>>> >>> flood&gate to
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>>>> >> e
>>>>> >>> vent u all y
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>>>> >>> --------------------------
>>>>> >>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> YES, AND
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>>>> >>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>>>> >> is
>>>>>> >>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>>>> >>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>>>> >> directly.
>>>>>> >>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we
are
>>>>>> >>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>>>> >> are
>>>>>> >>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside
us
>>>> >> and
>>>>>> >>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Don
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>> 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
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> >>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
>>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>> >">http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://
>>> www.>>
>>> <http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://ww
>>> w.>
>> m
>>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>> icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h
>> >>
>> m
>>>>> >>> tagline
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >>> 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-b