From w at david-bohm.net Mon Nov 6 00:28:27 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Tue Nov 7 01:31:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
References: <BAY22-F230BBAA4F7C8C00DCFBE08A5FC0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <454E739B.000001.04060@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Morgan Jett
>... Yes, Peter,Kris and Zoe should be part of the group.
>...I have never met Peter.
"Kris" and "Zoe" is an alias of Peter Krauss. I have once met him
personally in New York City. He is a tall slender male person who at that
time rode a bicycle called "Pink Lady" through Manhattan. I was in New York
with my friend Deborah and we arranged a meeting. However, he only wanted to
see me but not Deborah. I assumed he has an aversion against women. So i
dropped off Deborah at Starbucks around the corner and had lunch with Peter
while Deborah had a coffee at Starbucks. After lunch Peter got on his "Pink
Lady" and disappeared in the New York traffic, passing Starbucks where
Deborah was looking out through the window. But they didn't see each other.
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/cba15a93/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Mon Nov 6 01:46:56 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Nov 7 02:54:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] core/periphery and power
Message-ID: <20061105.164656.2424.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
What you say is true, Joachim,
It seems that every list or group on the internet attracts what has come
to be known as "trolls." Just search to find what I mean if you're not
familiar with the term.
Actually, Dialogue tends to attract people who do not prefer to be in
control. This preference and tolerance tends to encourage trolls. I know
that pat and I have "embraced" the advantages of OD at times, because we
both enjoy the art of using language and I'm an artist too.
True that Jung said that if you integrate the shadow side *of yourself,*
problems will go away. But that's not true in the Internet world because
the same troll named Peter in different impersonations returns here over
an over again. Many here have tried the strategy of filtering out the
troll, and only responding to posts that others find interesting the the
troll wrote. Trolls do not "go away by themselves" because they thrive on
attention and getting some sort of "rise" out of people. Because they
are not getting enough attention, ignoring trolls only encourages them to
"flood" the list with nonsensical garbage. They are betting by sheer
numbers that someone will reply to one of their hundreds of posts.
Peter Krauss has a definite purpose of joining this list and representing
himself as a different name each time. It is that Peter is recruiting
potential new members of his Optical Dialogue.
His modus operendi is this: Peter Krauss joins this Dialogue list as a
new invented persona such as Kris, Zoe, etc. Then he behaves himself
long enough to find sympathetic Dialogue members. He gradually encourages
them to say and do things that he knows will cause them to get
unsubscribed eventually, such as when he taught Kathryn to send huge
pictures embedded inside the email.
As gradually people here start wondering if a particular person is
another incarnation of Peter Krauss, himself, then Peter, (as Zoe, Kris,
etc.) encourages the newer sympathetic Dialogue members to join OD
instead, where "everything is allowed and there are no rules."
Another advantage to impersonation for Peter Kraus is then he doesn't
have the responsibility, authority and control that embodying the great
Peter Kraus who started OD might have. He can also admire his own
website/ideas of OD from the point of view of another person, giving it
more votes.
I agree with pat, it is kind of fascinating to watch this very
sophisticated dance that goes on here with Peter Krauss and his potential
recruits.
Franis
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:21:29 -0600 Joachim Faust
<joachimfaust@earthlink.net> writes:
> Hi Don and Pat,
>
> I agree, Don, "core" can definitely be associated with "power," and
> "
> top of a hierarchy". In the context
> of colonialism e.g., you can think of the center of an empire vs.
> the
> relative powerless
> periphery in the colonies.
>
> In my understanding, this has always been the main point of
> contention for the different
> incarnations of the Peter Krauss-troll: in his/her view (as I
> understand it!), it is problematic,
> perhaps even completely unacceptable, to have a "power center" in a
>
> dialogue, e.g. people
> who have the power to unsubscribe others, and, therefore, to
> "define"
> what is dialogue and
> what isn't. Zoe's statement in the passage you quote (see below)
> also
> reflects the same concern.
>
> The underlying question is elementary, and can hardly be avoided:
> can it be dialogue (specifically Bohmian-dialogue), if it is
> controlled in this way?
>
> In my view, the troll has a point here, and there is something that
>
> should be/could be explored
> more deeply. From my peripheral viewpoint, after having observed
> this
> dialogue for almost two years now,
> it seems clear that the "trolls" are essentially your own creation,
>
> not necessarily literally, in the sense that you are yourself
> creating them (although this could be also the case, of course, as
> in: Don Factor and Pat are really the same person,
> and Peter Krauss is their creation, which would be particularly
> funny, or unfunny, depending how you are looking at it. I certainly
> would not be able to tell, if this was so), but in a psychological
> sense, as in: Peter Krauss is your shadow, he
> represents those of your own character features that you don't want
>
> to see, which is why s/he always
> pops up in new incarnations. In the spirit of traditional Jungian
> psychotherapy, you would want to face and embrace
> this shadow, and as a result, the trolls should go away by
> themselves. Which character features are your shadow features?
> I don't know, of course, but my first guess would be something like:
>
> the desire to be right, the desire to be in control?
>
>
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
> > Didn't know that you had unsubbed the "zoe" character.
> >
> > No your experience does not sound like fun at all. Glad it is not
> me
> > responsible for "moderating" here. I don't think I would last long
>
> > at that.
> > I think I would take a "benevolent dictator" position. I would
> give
> > very clear guidelines and oust anyone who broke the [tacit]
> > agreement in my opinion and in my opinion alone, no hesitation, no
>
> > questions asked. So we are lucky (perhaps) to have
> > you doing this, not me. Much appreciation for your difficult role
>
> > here.
> >
> > pat
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:36:24 +0000 Donald Factor
> <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> > writes:
> > Thought you all might like to see this, especially Pat.
> >
> > Recently I have been having a conversation with Kathryn about
> > inviting Zoe back on the list. The feeling was that we, along with
>
> > William, would consider inviting her back, if she would write and
>
> > tell us why she wants to participate here or what it might mean to
>
> > her. K raised this question with her and got this reply:
> >
> > "Satisfactory (Factory;-) reply", what kind of non-sense is that?
>
> > Did you ever read Bohm? Oh, this goes so diametrically against
> > Bohm's vision, Kay. It is rather embarrassing coming from them,
> who
> > boast themselves to be the 'heirs' of Bohm's-(dialouge)-work. I
> > cannot believe you, Kay, would put up with rubbish like that.
> > Dialouge does not need "satisfactory" approval. Please read Bohm.
> I
> > will go ahead and forward that to TT/OD. Regards --- Zoe
> >
> > Then this arrived in my inbox from kirsten. To give you some
> > context: For a while, some of my posts were being forwarded to TT/
>
> > OD - those are Peter Krauss's products - and appeared to be
> > forwarded to them by pat and then sent on to me by Peter or
> another
> > member of TT/OD, Pat insisted that it wasn't her. I still don't
> > know who was actually sending these. But note here Zoe's
> reference
> > to that list in her note above. And notice also that the one below
>
> > from kirsten is actually a forward of pat's message to this list.
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us several
>
> > years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS
> > peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have
>
> > mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was peter
> again
> > (with a new name) and were interested when finding this suspicion
>
> > either wrong or right. This continues. No one has mentioned it
> for
> > awhile. But I brought it up because I noticed it happening with
> the
> > new voices. With each one of them. There seems to be this easy,
> > automatic process that occurs in thought, regarding this. It's
> VERY
> > fun. And it is based on an assumption (which could be wrong - or
> > turn wrong at any time) that peter
> > REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
> >
> >
> > dear donf, this one in from pat, very interesting, is it not
> ;;--))
> >
> > ps: it is good to have "friends". try it.
> >
> > miss you
> >
> > but
> >
> > will be
> >
> > back
> >
> > lovbot
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >
> >
> > Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? My comment it that
> it
> > isn't fun. Its a distraction.
> >
> > don
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Joachim Faust
> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From franis_franis at juno.com Mon Nov 6 01:30:58 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Nov 7 02:54:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] core/periphery and power
Message-ID: <20061105.164656.2424.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
On this Dialogue group when I joined ten years ago or so (with the
plymouth server) there was a guy named Brent who participated. Brent was
a gatekeeping troll. He was really into philosophy and had his own
website about his beliefs that was extensive. When he would introduce his
views of "how the world was," newcomers would ask him what he meant
because he was a difficult writer to understand, and off he would go,
expounding his ideas about reality and truth ad infinum.
After watching this for about the tenth time, I really got curious about
where these beliefs came from with Brent. I kept asking and offering what
my own core experiences were. It finally came out that Brent had
experienced a mental breakdown and needed these constructs of how he cam
to define reality to shore up his fear of losing his sense of it and
going into an emotionally distressing fugue state.
This made all of us much more tolerant of his actions. It became obvious
to all of us that Brent's imperatives needed to be there to justify his
hold on being able to function in the world in the most elementary sense.
Because he did admit these things and would interact with us and he would
answer and ask questions (and there was no way to unsubscribe anyone
anyway,) nobody ever suggested that we "ban" Brent. He seemed to be a
"circumstancial" troll who did not intend to be a nuisance on purpose. We
never did ban him, but in one of Brent's mental illness episodes of being
crazy for awhile when he couldn't work a computer, he got interested in
other groups when he returned and drifted away from Bohm Dialogue.
Perhaps he suspected that telling the truth about himself to us was a
mistake and contributed to his mental demise so he left Dialogue for that
reason, but I hope not.
Franis Engel
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:41:37 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Aha! you must be one of them. (joke)
>
> What you write here certainly entered my mind not long after peter
> first turned up. I mean, with peter it wasn't so much shadow as
> "fool". As in the tarot deck. This seemed terrific in the beginning
>
> - a kind of well informed tease. I enjoyed it , but after a while,
> it
> seemed that I wasn't responding in a way that would satisfy whatever
>
> it was that he was attempting, so he just kept pushing it further.
> He
> did display himself as a talented artist, with some of his graphics
>
> ffor example, but when I complimented him on his art he responded
> angrily (it may have been faux anger) and wrote long diatribes
> against such labels. Okay, I thought, its simply a contrarian
> position. I could do along with that. But after a while, he didn't
> seem to be able to go along with it. So he kept up his pushing and
>
> until he finally succeeded in shutting the group down. That was his
>
> goal it seemed. The shut down, by the way, was preceded by most of
> the participants getting fed up and leaving. They could see no way
> that they could continue to participate at that level. There was not
>
> in those days any way to unsubscribe someone. The shut down was, we
>
> felt, the only way we could save the list. So it wasn't based on an
>
> objection to leadership or facilitation or hierarchy.
>
> One interesting point was that some people who remained until the
> end
> also objected to our shutting it down and refused to resubscribe to
>
> the new list. A couple of these people even picked up on his style
> and joined him in sending similar posts. It must have been much more
>
> fun than pondering the subtleties of life, the universe and
> everything.
>
> Anyway, it is true that we seem to attract these people. I don't
> know
> about Pat's experience but I have from time to time. The first one
> we was in a face to face group that included David Bohm. There was
> a
> woman who would speak up during the dialogue and go off into a kind
>
> of rant that was completely incomprehensible to any of those who
> were
> there. We were a group of about 30 people who had been meeting
> weekly
> for a couple of years when she turned up. Anyway, every time she did
>
> this, someone in the group would ask her if she could explain what
> she was saying because it was difficult to understand, whereupon she
>
> would berate the questioner until someone else jumped in and the
> subject got changed. Sometimes this would go on for as much as a
> half
> hour and our sessions were only around two hours. She did did this
> in
> each session for about three or four week. David Bohm did not
> interfere. He, like most of the rest of us just paid attention to
> see
> what was going on. But after about the fourth week, he spoke to a
> few
> of us, a kind of core group, i guess, and suggested that we ask her
>
> to leave. We felt uncertain about this for the sorts of reasons you
>
> have suggested. Bohm's response was that dialogue was still a very
> delicate activity, It needed to be protected so that it could
> continue its inquiry without so much difficulty. We were not there
> to
> satisfy the ego needs of one participant. That might have been okay
>
> when someone revealed the need for help and this has happened from
> time to time. But it couldn't be done in this way. So that
> established a sort of precedent which boiled down to something that
>
> could be called protecting the process.
>
> Now there have also been those who demanded, why do we need to
> remove
> the difficult people, what are we trying to protect? The tone of
> these questions seemed to me to be based on a misundderstanding of
> group dialogue. These people seem to see it as a kind of encounter
> group. But that l not it at all. Dialogue requires a kind of empathy
>
> or compassion which certainly seems to me as it did to Bohm as an
> essential precusor to what we are trying to do. Arrogance or hubris
>
> just didn't fit and it certainly doesn't fit. Group therapy, I would
>
> say, is one thing, but dialogue is something different.
>
> I noticed that Bill Isaacs who has been the most prominent and
> successful practitioner of Bohm style dialogue in the commercial
> world has established the idea of what he calls a container. The
> creation of a container is the first stage in the development of a
> group that will thereby be able to continue doing what it needs to
> do. Without it the dialogue group might as well be just a gathering
>
> of strangers picked up on a busy street and made to sit down and
> talk
> together. Or just another encounter group. What would be missing
> would be, the shared intent to set aside one's personal necessities
>
> or to suspend them and observe them, as part of a shared concern
> for
> a process that might allow an opening to serious inquiry. Then
> when
> we discover blocks we can begin to explore them in a context that we
>
> all might be party to without fear of attack or ridicule.
>
> What you and Kathryn have suggested strikes me as an impossible
> state
> for a dialogue, at least at this stage of the game. It is not a
> therapy group or social group that is in any way exclusive. Maybe,
>
> as the dialogue meme gets spread further it might get easier. But
> so
> far as I can see, not yet.
>
> don
>
>
> On 5 Nov 2006, at 20:21, Joachim Faust wrote:
>
> > Hi Don and Pat,
> >
> > I agree, Don, "core" can definitely be associated with "power,"
> and
> > " top of a hierarchy". In the context
> > of colonialism e.g., you can think of the center of an empire vs.
>
> > the relative powerless
> > periphery in the colonies.
> >
> > In my understanding, this has always been the main point of
> > contention for the different
> > incarnations of the Peter Krauss-troll: in his/her view (as I
> > understand it!), it is problematic,
> > perhaps even completely unacceptable, to have a "power center" in
> a
> > dialogue, e.g. people
> > who have the power to unsubscribe others, and, therefore, to
> > "define" what is dialogue and
> > what isn't. Zoe's statement in the passage you quote (see below)
> also
> > reflects the same concern.
> >
> > The underlying question is elementary, and can hardly be avoided:
> > can it be dialogue (specifically Bohmian-dialogue), if it is
> > controlled in this way?
> >
> > In my view, the troll has a point here, and there is something
> > that should be/could be explored
> > more deeply. From my peripheral viewpoint, after having observed
> > this dialogue for almost two years now,
> > it seems clear that the "trolls" are essentially your own
> creation,
> > not necessarily literally, in the sense that you are yourself
> > creating them (although this could be also the case, of course, as
>
> > in: Don Factor and Pat are really the same person,
> > and Peter Krauss is their creation, which would be particularly
> > funny, or unfunny, depending how you are looking at it. I
> certainly
> > would not be able to tell, if this was so), but in a psychological
>
> > sense, as in: Peter Krauss is your shadow, he
> > represents those of your own character features that you don't
> want
> > to see, which is why s/he always
> > pops up in new incarnations. In the spirit of traditional Jungian
>
> > psychotherapy, you would want to face and embrace
> > this shadow, and as a result, the trolls should go away by
> > themselves. Which character features are your shadow features?
> > I don't know, of course, but my first guess would be something
> > like: the desire to be right, the desire to be in control?
> >
> >
> >
> > Joachim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 06.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org
> wrote:
> >
> >> Didn't know that you had unsubbed the "zoe" character.
> >>
> >> No your experience does not sound like fun at all. Glad it is not
> me
> >> responsible for "moderating" here. I don't think I would last
> long
> >> at that.
> >> I think I would take a "benevolent dictator" position. I would
> >> give very clear guidelines and oust anyone who broke the [tacit]
>
> >> agreement in my opinion and in my opinion alone, no hesitation,
> no
> >> questions asked. So we are lucky (perhaps) to have
> >> you doing this, not me. Much appreciation for your difficult role
>
> >> here.
> >>
> >> pat
> >>
> >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:36:24 +0000 Donald Factor
> >> <dfactor@dc.rr.com> writes:
> >> Thought you all might like to see this, especially Pat.
> >>
> >> Recently I have been having a conversation with Kathryn about
> >> inviting Zoe back on the list. The feeling was that we, along
> with
> >> William, would consider inviting her back, if she would write and
>
> >> tell us why she wants to participate here or what it might mean
> to
> >> her. K raised this question with her and got this reply:
> >>
> >> "Satisfactory (Factory;-) reply", what kind of non-sense is
> that?
> >> Did you ever read Bohm? Oh, this goes so diametrically against
> >> Bohm's vision, Kay. It is rather embarrassing coming from them,
> >> who boast themselves to be the 'heirs' of Bohm's-(dialouge)-work.
>
> >> I cannot believe you, Kay, would put up with rubbish like that.
> >> Dialouge does not need "satisfactory" approval. Please read Bohm.
>
> >> I will go ahead and forward that to TT/OD. Regards --- Zoe
> >>
> >> Then this arrived in my inbox from kirsten. To give you some
> >> context: For a while, some of my posts were being forwarded to
> TT/
> >> OD - those are Peter Krauss's products - and appeared to be
> >> forwarded to them by pat and then sent on to me by Peter or
> >> another member of TT/OD, Pat insisted that it wasn't her. I still
>
> >> don't know who was actually sending these. But note here Zoe's
> >> reference to that list in her note above. And notice also that
> the
> >> one below from kirsten is actually a forward of pat's message to
>
> >> this list.
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >> Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with us
> several
> >> years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years, AS
>
> >> peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long,
> have
> >> mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was peter
> >> again (with a new name) and were interested when finding this
> >> suspicion either wrong or right. This continues. No one has
> >> mentioned it for awhile. But I brought it up because I noticed it
>
> >> happening with the new voices. With each one of them. There seems
>
> >> to be this easy, automatic process that occurs in thought,
> >> regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an assumption
> >> (which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time) that peter
> >> REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
> >>
> >>
> >> dear donf, this one in from pat, very interesting, is it not
> ;;--))
> >>
> >> ps: it is good to have "friends". try it.
> >>
> >> miss you
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >> will be
> >>
> >> back
> >>
> >> lovbot
> >>
> >> --------------------------
> >> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >>
> >>
> >> Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? My comment it that
>
> >> it isn't fun. Its a distraction.
> >>
> >> don
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Joachim Faust
> > joachimfaust@earthlink.net
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 6 01:58:25 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 7 03:01:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
In-Reply-To: <454E739B.000001.04060@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F638195B45A20278E85CA2A5F30@phx.gbl>
William, I am not denying that Peter Krauss exists. I simply said I'd never
met him. I will certainly keep my eyes open for a Pink Lady bicycle since
we seem to live in the same town. I would very much like to meet him after
all this!
Zoe is where our experience seems to differ. There is nothing about her
that fits Kris or Peter. And whether she's male or female, s/he doesn't act
like a misogynist with me.
Why are you so sure she is Peter? Not only do her actions with me not fit
the Peter Profile, her writing style doesn't either. Peter's uses p for b,
and often sounds like he doesn't know good English grammar. It has no
rhythm and flow. It's plain ugly. Zoe's isn't, and exhibits a consistent,
coherent style. We correspond off and on all day long when we have something
to say, and in both images and words that totally fit the topic and context.
The voice is coherent and consistent. And nothing like Kris. Kris
emails me very rarely. If they are one and the same, zpk deserves an
Academy Award. k
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:28:27 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>
>From: Morgan Jett
> >... Yes, Peter,Kris and Zoe should be part of the group.
> >...I have never met Peter.
>
>"Kris" and "Zoe" is an alias of Peter Krauss. I have once met him
>personally in New York City. He is a tall slender male person who at that
>time rode a bicycle called "Pink Lady" through Manhattan. I was in New York
>with my friend Deborah and we arranged a meeting. However, he only wanted
>to
>see me but not Deborah. I assumed he has an aversion against women. So i
>dropped off Deborah at Starbucks around the corner and had lunch with Peter
>while Deborah had a coffee at Starbucks. After lunch Peter got on his
>"Pink
>Lady" and disappeared in the New York traffic, passing Starbucks where
>Deborah was looking out through the window. But they didn't see each other.
>
>william
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From franis_franis at juno.com Mon Nov 6 02:09:32 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Nov 7 03:16:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
Message-ID: <20061105.170933.2424.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
Peter Krauss used to be a journalist, so he's completely capable of
writing to impersonate an entirely new character. He's also capable of
"behaving" as a normally articulate person, being very friendsly and not
being a troll.
Franis
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:58:25 -0600 "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
writes:
> William, I am not denying that Peter Krauss exists. I simply said
> I'd never
> met him. I will certainly keep my eyes open for a Pink Lady bicycle
> since
> we seem to live in the same town. I would very much like to meet
> him after
> all this!
>
> Zoe is where our experience seems to differ. There is nothing about
> her
> that fits Kris or Peter. And whether she's male or female, s/he
> doesn't act
> like a misogynist with me.
> Why are you so sure she is Peter? Not only do her actions with me
> not fit
> the Peter Profile, her writing style doesn't either. Peter's uses p
> for b,
> and often sounds like he doesn't know good English grammar. It has
> no
> rhythm and flow. It's plain ugly. Zoe's isn't, and exhibits a
> consistent,
> coherent style. We correspond off and on all day long when we have
> something
> to say, and in both images and words that totally fit the topic and
> context.
> The voice is coherent and consistent. And nothing like Kris.
> Kris
> emails me very rarely. If they are one and the same, zpk deserves
> an
> Academy Award. k
>
>
> >From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
> >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:28:27 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
> >
> >
> >
> >From: Morgan Jett
> > >... Yes, Peter,Kris and Zoe should be part of the group.
> > >...I have never met Peter.
> >
> >"Kris" and "Zoe" is an alias of Peter Krauss. I have once met him
> >personally in New York City. He is a tall slender male person who
> at that
> >time rode a bicycle called "Pink Lady" through Manhattan. I was in
> New York
> >with my friend Deborah and we arranged a meeting. However, he only
> wanted
> >to
> >see me but not Deborah. I assumed he has an aversion against women.
> So i
> >dropped off Deborah at Starbucks around the corner and had lunch
> with Peter
> >while Deborah had a coffee at Starbucks. After lunch Peter got on
> his
> >"Pink
> >Lady" and disappeared in the New York traffic, passing Starbucks
> where
> >Deborah was looking out through the window. But they didn't see
> each other.
> >
> >william
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the
> best
> route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 6 02:36:26 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 7 03:39:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
In-Reply-To: <20061105.170933.2424.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F11ACEE2714FA4F6FEED2FCA5F30@phx.gbl>
Thank you Franis. That seems to me a little difficult if he's a mysogonist,
tho. I would also appreciate hearing William's response. k
>From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:09:32 -0800
>
>Peter Krauss used to be a journalist, so he's completely capable of
>writing to impersonate an entirely new character. He's also capable of
>"behaving" as a normally articulate person, being very friendsly and not
>being a troll.
>Franis
>
>On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:58:25 -0600 "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>writes:
> > William, I am not denying that Peter Krauss exists. I simply said
> > I'd never
> > met him. I will certainly keep my eyes open for a Pink Lady bicycle
> > since
> > we seem to live in the same town. I would very much like to meet
> > him after
> > all this!
> >
> > Zoe is where our experience seems to differ. There is nothing about
> > her
> > that fits Kris or Peter. And whether she's male or female, s/he
> > doesn't act
> > like a misogynist with me.
> > Why are you so sure she is Peter? Not only do her actions with me
> > not fit
> > the Peter Profile, her writing style doesn't either. Peter's uses p
> > for b,
> > and often sounds like he doesn't know good English grammar. It has
> > no
> > rhythm and flow. It's plain ugly. Zoe's isn't, and exhibits a
> > consistent,
> > coherent style. We correspond off and on all day long when we have
> > something
> > to say, and in both images and words that totally fit the topic and
> > context.
> > The voice is coherent and consistent. And nothing like Kris.
> > Kris
> > emails me very rarely. If they are one and the same, zpk deserves
> > an
> > Academy Award. k
> >
> >
> > >From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> > >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
> > >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:28:27 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >From: Morgan Jett
> > > >... Yes, Peter,Kris and Zoe should be part of the group.
> > > >...I have never met Peter.
> > >
> > >"Kris" and "Zoe" is an alias of Peter Krauss. I have once met him
> > >personally in New York City. He is a tall slender male person who
> > at that
> > >time rode a bicycle called "Pink Lady" through Manhattan. I was in
> > New York
> > >with my friend Deborah and we arranged a meeting. However, he only
> > wanted
> > >to
> > >see me but not Deborah. I assumed he has an aversion against women.
> > So i
> > >dropped off Deborah at Starbucks around the corner and had lunch
> > with Peter
> > >while Deborah had a coffee at Starbucks. After lunch Peter got on
> > his
> > >"Pink
> > >Lady" and disappeared in the New York traffic, passing Starbucks
> > where
> > >Deborah was looking out through the window. But they didn't see
> > each other.
> > >
> > >william
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >info:
> > >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >dialogue facilitator:
> > >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >Administrator of the mailing list:
> > >admin@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the
> > best
> > route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 6 11:28:54 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Nov 7 12:32:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F11ACEE2714FA4F6FEED2FCA5F30@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F11ACEE2714FA4F6FEED2FCA5F30@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <13AA196E-613F-4D20-9C24-7C7C7E77A620@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Just in case any of your missed this:
> miss you
>
> but
>
> will be
>
> back
>
> lovbot
>
don
On 6 Nov 2006, at 01:36, Morgan Jett wrote:
> Thank you Franis. That seems to me a little difficult if he's a
> mysogonist, tho. I would also appreciate hearing William's
> response. k
>
>
>> From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>> Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:09:32 -0800
>>
>> Peter Krauss used to be a journalist, so he's completely capable of
>> writing to impersonate an entirely new character. He's also
>> capable of
>> "behaving" as a normally articulate person, being very friendsly
>> and not
>> being a troll.
>> Franis
>>
>> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:58:25 -0600 "Morgan Jett"
>> <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>> writes:
>> > William, I am not denying that Peter Krauss exists. I simply said
>> > I'd never
>> > met him. I will certainly keep my eyes open for a Pink Lady
>> bicycle
>> > since
>> > we seem to live in the same town. I would very much like to meet
>> > him after
>> > all this!
>> >
>> > Zoe is where our experience seems to differ. There is nothing
>> about
>> > her
>> > that fits Kris or Peter. And whether she's male or female, s/he
>> > doesn't act
>> > like a misogynist with me.
>> > Why are you so sure she is Peter? Not only do her actions with me
>> > not fit
>> > the Peter Profile, her writing style doesn't either. Peter's
>> uses p
>> > for b,
>> > and often sounds like he doesn't know good English grammar. It has
>> > no
>> > rhythm and flow. It's plain ugly. Zoe's isn't, and exhibits a
>> > consistent,
>> > coherent style. We correspond off and on all day long when we have
>> > something
>> > to say, and in both images and words that totally fit the topic and
>> > context.
>> > The voice is coherent and consistent. And nothing like Kris.
>> > Kris
>> > emails me very rarely. If they are one and the same, zpk deserves
>> > an
>> > Academy Award. k
>> >
>> >
>> > >From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> > >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> > >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>> > >Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:28:27 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >From: Morgan Jett
>> > > >... Yes, Peter,Kris and Zoe should be part of the group.
>> > > >...I have never met Peter.
>> > >
>> > >"Kris" and "Zoe" is an alias of Peter Krauss. I have once met him
>> > >personally in New York City. He is a tall slender male person who
>> > at that
>> > >time rode a bicycle called "Pink Lady" through Manhattan. I was in
>> > New York
>> > >with my friend Deborah and we arranged a meeting. However, he only
>> > wanted
>> > >to
>> > >see me but not Deborah. I assumed he has an aversion against
>> women.
>> > So i
>> > >dropped off Deborah at Starbucks around the corner and had lunch
>> > with Peter
>> > >while Deborah had a coffee at Starbucks. After lunch Peter got on
>> > his
>> > >"Pink
>> > >Lady" and disappeared in the New York traffic, passing Starbucks
>> > where
>> > >Deborah was looking out through the window. But they didn't see
>> > each other.
>> > >
>> > >william
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > >_______________________________________________
>> > >info:
>> > >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> > >
>> > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> > >
>> > >dialogue facilitator:
>> > >facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> > >
>> > >Administrator of the mailing list:
>> > >admin@david-bohm.net
>> > >
>> > >_______________________________________________
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
> then map the
>> > best
>> > route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > info:
>> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >
>> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > dialogue facilitator:
>> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > Administrator of the mailing list:
>> > admin@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live
> Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?
> href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/
> friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Nov 6 11:53:22 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 12:56:45 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
In-Reply-To: <20061107110002.DA5D32466F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF591E408E.CF8411AA-ON8525721E.003B62DD-8525721E.003BD16C@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ hi Dorothy, I think a measuring of self-importance is a tell tale
of longing or searching for meaning -- whether the measurments be on a
basis of who we know, or on a basis of good deeds we do. _R
.
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:03:16 -0500
From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04D7@msw2k.msw.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I heard someone last night claiming he was something because he had his
picture taken with Senator Frist. I thought he was some thingk because
he was foolish enough to think Frist was a decent man to whom he wanted
to be connected. The something I thought he was was not what he
thought. D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/0ac2f053/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Nov 6 12:27:58 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 13:31:20 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
In-Reply-To: <20061107110002.DA5D32466F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFA690EC80.C84F0616-ON8525721E.003C6CAB-8525721E.003EFC7E@dialogos.com>
Rodger__I think everything about human expression is emotional. Ideas of
being rational or logical -beyond feelings- are shaped by emotional
preferences. I.e. Appearing rational is usually about a preference to be
accepted among a group of people who aspire to seeming rational.
Similarly, when the audio-visual arts are used as a means of dialogue --
behind the preference to do so there is the desire to be accepted among a
group of people who aspire to seeming artistic-viaual &/or musical etc.
On a Bohm-audio-visual-dialogue-list it seems likely one would find a group
of people who prefer to use audio-visual mediums. In other Bohm dialogues
it seems likely there will be other people who enjoy other ways.
Why would a dialogue of audio-visual artists insist that a dialogue among
scientist-academics become more like the artists? Why would an
academic/philosophical dialogue enter into the audio-visual dialogue and
insist that the artists prefer a more word oriented exchange? _R
.
.
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
Actually, emoticons could be considered part of OD.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/069ac2d4/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Nov 6 12:39:02 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 13:42:23 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] core/periphery and power
In-Reply-To: <20061107110002.DA5D32466F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFE13B0C4D.61F26E3F-ON8525721E.003F26FC-8525721E.003FFFFB@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ this is funny. Of all the ways of interpreting an idea of
Bohmian dialogue, why would you lock onto an interpretation in which it
seems you are not going to get the dialogue that you think you should?
As long as a persons intelligence is selecting/ choosing a way of
expressing thought, feeling or action -- there is control. If you are
suggesting that control and dialogue are incompatable then why are you
interested in sharing dialogue? _R
.
.
From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] core/periphery and power
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
.
The underlying question is elementary, and can hardly be avoided: can it be
dialogue (specifically Bohmian-dialogue), if it is controlled in this
way.?
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/3d256a0a/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Nov 6 13:00:34 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 14:03:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Skype
In-Reply-To: <20061107110002.DA5D32466F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF037CA411.FE54E39B-ON8525721E.0041530E-8525721E.0041F873@dialogos.com>
Rodger __As I said before, I think it is only a matter of time before SKYPE
becomes a common laptop feature -- and our dialogue & email correspondence
will have audio-visual, reat-time, connection, thus eliminating most
mystery around the existance a person.
Until then we have our hearts to discern by, our intuition and paranoia to
sense through -- and as always; our plain old preferences.._R
.
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/47123e35/attachment.html
From facilitator at david-bohm.net Mon Nov 6 13:08:50 2006
From: facilitator at david-bohm.net (facilitator)
Date: Tue Nov 7 14:12:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores
References: <mailman.12.1162901402.4564.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <6FDC23D6-4258-426D-B4FF-C363EFFD0589@david-bohm.net>
>
> I tend to agree with K regarding Zoe or ZoeChuzero as she signs off
> on other lists. I don't think she is a peter clone, but she is in
> some way involved. Her knowledge of ODTT is evidence of that. I
> found her on another list and her stuff there was quite ordinary,
> but the nature of the list was such that I can now understand why
> she was so pissed off when I questioned the accuracy of her
> comments on how awful everything is. It appears to be a successor
> of dieoff.com a famous list devoted to the end of oil and
> associated fears.
>
> More to the point, I will repeat. Bohm dialogue is NOT a form of
> group therapy and certainly not an encounter group. In the tight
> bandwidth of this virtual dialogue - if that's what it is - there
> is no room for this. Bohm never intended it as such. There are, by
> the way, a number of other Bohm oriented groups on the net. I
> found three on Yahoo groups and i know there are others. So if
> somebody loves Bohm so much they want to dialogue about him there
> are plenty of other places they can do it. There are also an even
> larger number of group therapy oriented sites.
>
> * Franis, is the OD group still in operation? I can find no entry
> point to it, either on Peter's site or elsewhere. TT used to be a
> Yahoo group but it is no longer. The last I saw, in a message
> forwarded to me by janoh - remember her? - there appeared to be
> only about six or seven remaining members. And William doubts that
> he is even still in the country because his visa would have expired
> long ago.
>
> Oh, and on another note. I will be leaving for California tomorrow
> but don't worry, I'll be back
>
> don
>
> PS I ran across this in my archive. The writer was pretty
> hypersensitive herself, but this struck me as accurate.
>
> From : Sharon Bale <sharonmaeb@earthlink.net>
> Reply-To : bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent : Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:49 PM
> To : <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Subject : Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Depression, Insanity, Pialogicity
>
> peter krauss is a sick person. i know that dialogue opens psychic
> connections. i found this on optical dialogue. it is an amazing
> thing, thought effects and transforms without written or spoken
> words. i am not going to open, mind-meld and be vulnerable to such
> a perverted and distorted person. i dropped out of optical dialogue
> and i am going to drop out of this dialogue.
> there is more to life. please remove me from this list. sharon
What may prove of interest here is the date on this message. Peter
was no longer a member of this group in 2005.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6 Nov 2006, at 00:58, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> William, I am not denying that Peter Krauss exists. I simply said
>> I'd never met him. I will certainly keep my eyes open for a Pink
>> Lady bicycle since we seem to live in the same town. I would very
>> much like to meet him after all this!
>>
>> Zoe is where our experience seems to differ. There is nothing
>> about her that fits Kris or Peter. And whether she's male or
>> female, s/he doesn't act like a misogynist with me.
>> Why are you so sure she is Peter? Not only do her actions with me
>> not fit the Peter Profile, her writing style doesn't either.
>> Peter's uses p for b, and often sounds like he doesn't know good
>> English grammar. It has no rhythm and flow. It's plain ugly.
>> Zoe's isn't, and exhibits a consistent, coherent style. We
>> correspond off and on all day long when we have something to say,
>> and in both images and words that totally fit the topic and
>> context. The voice is coherent and consistent. And nothing like
>> Kris. Kris emails me very rarely. If they are one and the same,
>> zpk deserves an Academy Award. k
>>
>>
>>> From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>>> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:28:27 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Morgan Jett
>>> >... Yes, Peter,Kris and Zoe should be part of the group.
>>> >...I have never met Peter.
>>>
>>> "Kris" and "Zoe" is an alias of Peter Krauss. I have once met him
>>> personally in New York City. He is a tall slender male person who
>>> at that
>>> time rode a bicycle called "Pink Lady" through Manhattan. I was
>>> in New York
>>> with my friend Deborah and we arranged a meeting. However, he
>>> only wanted to
>>> see me but not Deborah. I assumed he has an aversion against
>>> women. So i
>>> dropped off Deborah at Starbucks around the corner and had lunch
>>> with Peter
>>> while Deborah had a coffee at Starbucks. After lunch Peter got
>>> on his "Pink
>>> Lady" and disappeared in the New York traffic, passing Starbucks
>>> where
>>> Deborah was looking out through the window. But they didn't see
>>> each other.
>>>
>>> william
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/ceea57df/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Mon Nov 6 10:59:05 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Tue Nov 7 14:22:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
References: <BBDDEDAD-0A49-4FAD-B05E-C68068E9EDBB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <454F0769.000001.04076@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Don Factor
>So, are you suggesting that passion is a form of resistance
>the cause of pain or suffering, and that a point comes -
>something like the maximum or breaking point of passion -
>and then this is transformed into compassion? That's what
>it sounds like.
No, the pain comes from somewhere else, but resisting it builds it up.
Resistance blocks and prevents it from flowing off. The "passion point" is
when the block is lifted and the pain can go. Thus, passion is the opposite
of resistance. It is somewhat counter-intuitive but when you "let go", it
feels like getting flooded, which is why you may have to do it in a
controlled way to prevent you from panicking. This requires a fairy well
developed sense of proprioception because intuitively you wouldn't want to
do this. Intuitively, one would be more inclined to block the pain, or do
something about the cause of the pain. If the pain had a physical cause this
would probably be the right thing to do, but psychological pain is different
in this respect. When you do "let go" if feels like a relief; a sense of
gratitude sets in. Together with the sense of being "flooded" you relax into
a diffused state of mind that could be described as compassion. From this
perspective you experience the world differently, many things that
previously caused pain no longer work. As a result, many reactions have
become obsolete, and that makes you a different person.
If you like to keep it short you could say; passion is the passage to
compassion.
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/1d68587e/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Mon Nov 6 11:13:28 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Tue Nov 7 14:22:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
References: <D3EA59E3-5CA1-4E3A-9948-F56F2CE5A835@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <454F0AC8.000003.04076@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Don Factor
>...Its just that William (and Bohm) somewhere appears to be treating
>passion in a more general way, that includes ideas of passivity.
>To me neither passion or compassion are passive states. They are
>active, even if the urge to action is internal.
The trouble is you have loaded the word 'passive' to mean something else.
This word, along with the word 'passion', has been badly mangled in the
course of time. You should take your etymological dictionary and find its
original sense. If you download the original meaning into these words then
it will make you see things differently.
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/0e5fe771/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Mon Nov 6 13:24:14 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Tue Nov 7 14:27:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores
References: <6FDC23D6-4258-426D-B4FF-C363EFFD0589@david-bohm.net>
Message-ID: <454F296E.000001.04196@VAIO-584793128F>
Morgan Jett:
>...I will certainly keep my eyes open for a Pink
>Lady bicycle since we seem to live in the same town.
>I would very much like to meet him after all this!
William: When I met him I found him to be quit a nice person. It was good to
talk to him and it was generally a pleasant experience; I would have met him
again anytime. But there was no resemblance with the character I knew from
the dialogue list. I did feel a bit disappointed that he refused to meet
Deborah although he knew she was with me. He also didn't want to meet Franis
who was in NY state at the same time. I met Franis in Woodstock and wanted
to arrange a meeting with Peter but he didn't want to. This is why I figured
he must have an aversion against women, but he didn't actually said that; it
is just an assumption on my part, so I may be wrong. However, I don't think
he is in NYC anymore. Has has been staying on a special journalist visum
pretending to work as a journalist. Presumably, his visum has not been
extended.
I don't know why Peter presents himself on the dialogue list the way he does
He is German and my guess is that he reacts strongly against his father who
appears to have been very strict with him and may well have been a Nazi,
perhaps even an SS, which would explain his exaggerated aversion against
authority of any kind. It would also explain why he doesn't want people to
like him. His father has died now but this kind of influence sticks with you
for the rest of your life. For some reason I suddenly have to think of a
demonstration I once saw in Munich. They were Communists and one of them
carried a board that said: "we are the people that your parents warned you
against".
William
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/4d074771/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Mon Nov 6 13:42:10 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Nov 7 14:50:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores
Message-ID: <20061106.044211.2424.3.franis_franis@juno.com>
Yes, I attempted to make contact with Peter in 2002 when I was in NYC to
meet, and he did not respond. I did hear from a former dialogue member
janoh who I later met in south UK that Peter at one point had quite a few
women friends who became sort of dueling girlfriends. Maybe what was
going on was he wanted to avoid discussing why he was meeting "strange"
women from online; perhaps a particular women friend was going to be
questioning him about that if he did? - Franis
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:24:14 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
> > Morgan Jett: > >...I will certainly keep my eyes open for a Pink
> >Lady bicycle since we seem to live in the same town. > >I would
very much like to meet him after all this! > > William: When I met him
I found him to be quit a nice person. It was
> good to
> talk to him and it was generally a pleasant experience; I would have
> met him
> again anytime. But there was no resemblance with the character I
> knew from
> the dialogue list. I did feel a bit disappointed that he refused to
> meet
> Deborah although he knew she was with me. He also didn't want to
> meet Franis
> who was in NY state at the same time. I met Franis in Woodstock and
> wanted
> to arrange a meeting with Peter but he didn't want to. This is why I
> figured
> he must have an aversion against women, but he didn't actually said
> that; it
> is just an assumption on my part, so I may be wrong. However, I
> don't think
> he is in NYC anymore. Has has been staying on a special journalist
> visum
> pretending to work as a journalist. Presumably, his visum has not
> been
> extended. > > I don't know why Peter presents himself on the dialogue
list the way
> he does
> He is German and my guess is that he reacts strongly against his
> father who
> appears to have been very strict with him and may well have been a
> Nazi,
> perhaps even an SS, which would explain his exaggerated aversion
> against
> authority of any kind. It would also explain why he doesn't want
> people to
> like him. His father has died now but this kind of influence sticks
> with you
> for the rest of your life. For some reason I suddenly have to think
> of a
> demonstration I once saw in Munich. They were Communists and one of
> them
> carried a board that said: "we are the people that your parents
> warned you
> against". > > > William > >
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 6 14:07:17 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Nov 7 15:10:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <454F0769.000001.04076@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <BBDDEDAD-0A49-4FAD-B05E-C68068E9EDBB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<454F0769.000001.04076@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <89E8D507-CE9D-47DE-94A7-428B72E2D865@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Yeah, this all sound familiar and right. It's only the word passion
that I don't like. Passion is a powerful emotion that means
something more like enthusiasm or excitement. I know Bohm used it
differently, probably a usage picked up from Krishnamurti like so
many English words that acquired special meanings for the initiates.
don
On 6 Nov 2006, at 09:59, william wrote:
>
>
> From: Don Factor
> >So, are you suggesting that passion is a form of resistance
> >the cause of pain or suffering, and that a point comes -
> >something like the maximum or breaking point of passion -
> >and then this is transformed into compassion? That's what
> >it sounds like.
>
> No, the pain comes from somewhere else, but resisting it builds it
> up. Resistance blocks and prevents it from flowing off. The
> "passion point" is when the block is lifted and the pain can go.
> Thus, passion is the opposite of resistance. It is somewhat counter-
> intuitive but when you "let go", it feels like getting flooded,
> which is why you may have to do it in a controlled way to prevent
> you from panicking. This requires a fairy well developed sense of
> proprioception because intuitively you wouldn't want to do this.
> Intuitively, one would be more inclined to block the pain, or do
> something about the cause of the pain. If the pain had a physical
> cause this would probably be the right thing to do, but
> psychological pain is different in this respect. When you do "let
> go" if feels like a relief; a sense of gratitude sets in. Together
> with the sense of being "flooded" you relax into a diffused state
> of mind that could be described as compassion. From this
> perspective you experience the world differently, many things that
> previously caused pain no longer work. As a result, many reactions
> have become obsolete, and that makes you a different person.
>
> If you like to keep it short you could say; passion is the passage
> to compassion.
>
> william
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/0664c806/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 6 14:10:13 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Nov 7 15:13:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <454F0AC8.000003.04076@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <D3EA59E3-5CA1-4E3A-9948-F56F2CE5A835@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<454F0AC8.000003.04076@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <80B60844-E647-406F-9DE1-95824244811D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
But this is just my complaint. There are many words, most maybe, that
have changed their meanings over the centuries. But I am interested
in in communicating, now, in 2006. Anyway, Bohm was interested in the
possibility that words had implicate meanings, meanings from their
pasts that still had some sort of effect, even if they were very
different from their present meanings and more importantly, their
common usage.
don
On 6 Nov 2006, at 10:13, william wrote:
>
>
> From: Don Factor
> >...Its just that William (and Bohm) somewhere appears to be treating
> >passion in a more general way, that includes ideas of passivity.
> >To me neither passion or compassion are passive states. They are
> >active, even if the urge to action is internal.
> The trouble is you have loaded the word 'passive' to mean something
> else. This word, along with the word 'passion', has been badly
> mangled in the course of time. You should take your etymological
> dictionary and find its original sense. If you download the
> original meaning into these words then it will make you see things
> differently.
>
> william
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/037ec2bd/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Nov 6 14:59:36 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Nov 7 16:03:35 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
References: <OF591E408E.CF8411AA-ON8525721E.003B62DD-8525721E.003BD16C@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <005901c701ab$d880e5f0$1f5a153f@DL01>
Dorothy: I heard someone last night claiming he was something because he had his
picture taken with Senator Frist. I thought he was some thingk because
he was foolish enough to think Frist was a decent man to whom he wanted
to be connected. The something I thought he was was not what he
thought. D
Don L: I'm understanding Bohm as saying that kind of stuff is going on "in there", in the brain/mind systems, but it is not "us" doing it. That is, there are systems operating in the Frist friend (as in all of us) that create endorphin pleasure. Bohm says the systems run on their own, in us, "in there", and usually we are unaware. Both K and B say "looking at" and "awareness of" these systems and "what they do" can stop the systematic activity.
Further, I'm understanding the personal identity defensiveness to be mechanical and reflexive .. reflexively defending the endorphin pleasure of talking about the imaginary self. This seems to be the most economical way to explain both (1) the excessive personal pronoun use and (2) the reflexive defense of the system when it is mentioned.
Rodger: I think a measuring of self-importance is a tell tale of longing or searching for meaning -- whether the measurements be on a basis of who we know, or on a basis of good deeds we do.
Don L: What about the idea that Being is ultimate importance, and the being of the self is thus ultimately important? But as pointed out by Bohm, self becomes confused with personal identity. In the example of the Frist friend, maybe the imaginary thought systems portrayed the man with the important politician.
What about the idea that meaning can be conceptualized as the intention of the whole. Thusly, natural individual thought processes might become fused with societal thought processes such that confusion occurs in imagination between the natural and societal personal identity. -- Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/8d9d797b/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 6 15:10:46 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 7 16:14:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores
In-Reply-To: <454F296E.000001.04196@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F254872010A699184BE7175A5F30@phx.gbl>
my guess is that he reacts strongly against his father who appears to have
been very strict with him and may well have been a Nazi, perhaps even an SS,
William, I came to the same conclusion through various experiences with
Kris, plus research on both of them. I Google everybody, because I consider
it a safety precaution. I still think those two might be the same person.
I was quite alarmed by the violence in some of Kris's images, and I told
himer so in a private email. There were no more, and s/he was never
insulting to me. But once I was very angry, and discussed the situation
with Zoe. Here is part of her response:
Anger only clouds your preception/perspective. Just keep your eyes and your
heart open. Anger is just a(nother) flower. --- Zoe. So I began visualizing
anger as a flower, then Googled to find a match. By the time I finished, I
could breathe and was calm, therefore able to deal more rationally with the
problem. (If you're interested, the flower turned out to be a fractal.)
That's so different from a Kris response.
i completely agree that clashing and confrontation in dialog can bring up
psychological issues, and there is a point where those issues need to be
handled by professionals, not a list. This is a whole other area to think
aabout. Not only am I convinced that Zoe and Peter are two different
people, my relationship with Zoe tells me she is a stable, supportive
person, and that the hard questions she asks may not make me feel
comfortable, but they make me think. That is why I petitioned to reinstate
her under guidelines similar to the following:
inappropriate behavior would result in a warning detailing
specifically the offensive behavior i.e. your images are too violent.
Please find another way - or tone it down.
After a specified number of warnings, the person would be unsubscribed.
Also, the list would be informed that such action was in progress, so they
would know the situation was being dealt with. Actually, that procedure is
followed on other lists, and I don't think it's a bad one. And arguments
between two list members are to be taken off list. Also, I would have no
qualms about telling someone to back off whether or not the moderator called
him/her on it.
I have no idea whether Zoe would agree with this or not, but I think it's
fair, appropriate, and applicable to all list members, and I hope it will be
considered.
Zoe tells me Kris is in Zurich. No denying there is a connection between
them, and I suppose my friendship with Zoe continues the thread. But you
don't have to speculate about me. I'm up front about it.
I do have compassion for Peter. How do we stop people from doing violence
to each other?
Hozhoon, k
PS - William, on Googling you, I found you had written an article in English
on Compassion. Everything else sends me to a website in German - Munich, I
think. And something called Rathaus. Do you have a copy you could post?
I'd love to read it, and I don't understand German.
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:24:14 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>Morgan Jett:
> >...I will certainly keep my eyes open for a Pink
> >Lady bicycle since we seem to live in the same town.
> >I would very much like to meet him after all this!
>
>William: When I met him I found him to be quit a nice person. It was good
>to
>talk to him and it was generally a pleasant experience; I would have met
>him
>again anytime. But there was no resemblance with the character I knew from
>the dialogue list. I did feel a bit disappointed that he refused to meet
>Deborah although he knew she was with me. He also didn't want to meet
>Franis
> who was in NY state at the same time. I met Franis in Woodstock and
>wanted
>to arrange a meeting with Peter but he didn't want to. This is why I
>figured
>he must have an aversion against women, but he didn't actually said that;
>it
>is just an assumption on my part, so I may be wrong. However, I don't think
>he is in NYC anymore. Has has been staying on a special journalist visum
>pretending to work as a journalist. Presumably, his visum has not been
>extended.
>
>I don't know why Peter presents himself on the dialogue list the way he
>does
> He is German and my guess is that he reacts strongly against his father
>who
>appears to have been very strict with him and may well have been a Nazi,
>perhaps even an SS, which would explain his exaggerated aversion against
>authority of any kind. It would also explain why he doesn't want people to
>like him. His father has died now but this kind of influence sticks with
>you
>for the rest of your life. For some reason I suddenly have to think of a
>demonstration I once saw in Munich. They were Communists and one of them
>carried a board that said: "we are the people that your parents warned you
>against".
>
>
>William
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Nov 6 15:59:02 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 17:02:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: seeming artistic
In-Reply-To: <20061107110002.DA5D32466F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFB164194A.5A0FA4B6-ON8525721E.0051A942-8525721E.00524F33@dialogos.com>
Rodger__hmm, when I wrote that behind the explorations of audio-visual
dialogue -- there is a desire to be accepted among a group of people who
aspire to seeming artistic-visual &/or musical etc.
I should also have added that there are also those of course, who are so
passionately focused on explorations of audio-visual dialogue, that they
have little to no time for issues about how all the other people dialogue.
_R
.
.
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
Actually, emoticons could be considered part of OD.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/d2d1a02f/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 6 16:03:11 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 7 17:06:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: seeming artistic
In-Reply-To: <OFB164194A.5A0FA4B6-ON8525721E.0051A942-8525721E.00524F33@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F17CF5D55DC3043D5F79939A5F30@phx.gbl>
>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: seeming artistic
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:59:02 -0500
aspire to seeming
that they have little to no time for issues about how all the other people
dialogue
What are the assumptions behind these words, I wonder? k
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger__hmm, when I wrote that behind the explorations of audio-visual
>dialogue -- there is a desire to be accepted among a group of people who
>aspire to seeming artistic-visual &/or musical etc.
>
>I should also have added that there are also those of course, who are so
>passionately focused on explorations of audio-visual dialogue, that they
>have little to no time for issues about how all the other people dialogue.
>_R
>.
>.
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>.
>Actually, emoticons could be considered part of OD.
>.
>.
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From joachimfaust at earthlink.net Mon Nov 6 17:19:49 2006
From: joachimfaust at earthlink.net (Joachim Faust)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:23:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue
In-Reply-To: <20061107110002.4E5E2244F0@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
References: <20061107110002.4E5E2244F0@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <4DB3DC55-30DC-4F1C-BBE9-521A7096AA9A@earthlink.net>
Hi Don,
Thanks for the elaborate explanation. Just to clarify my position: I
am not arguing
in favor of one or the other procedure regarding the "PKZ-troll."
What you are saying about
protecting the "delicate" activity of dialogue sounds perfectly
reasonable to me. If anything,
then my position is that whichever way you go on this (let Zoe and/or
Kirsten and/or Peter back in, or
not), will be o.k. I don't think there is any pressure on you or
anyone else to
make the "right" decision. Of course, you'll create a different
world, if you let them back in, but again,
that world will be all right, too, in my view at least. The worst
that can happen is that all ends in complete
chaos, but usually, a new order arises out of chaos (which seems to
have been the experience with the earlier
incarnation of this list). And there is always the chance that the
worst won't happen.
But again, this is not meant to argue in favor of letting them back in.
Clearly, this world- the one without them - has some noticeable
advantages.
Reading your post, the question comes up whether dialogue is really
as "delicate," as you (and David Bohm) say it is,
and if yes, why is that so? I think this would be an interesting
question to explore further, and I also
think it relates directly to the core/periphery-issue, as well as the
suffering/passion/compassion-issue.
Is there anything we can do to create the conditions
that allow a more robust structure to emerge, a structure that would
be able to deal with "trolls" in a new and different,
perhaps more creative way?
I hope this question is not too abstract. I am struggling at this
point with making it more concrete, so I'll
leave off here. Perhaps, we can make it more concrete together.
Joachim
On 07.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
> Aha! you must be one of them. (joke)
>
> What you write here certainly entered my mind not long after peter
> first turned up. I mean, with peter it wasn't so much shadow as
> "fool". As in the tarot deck. This seemed terrific in the
> beginning - a kind of well informed tease. I enjoyed it , but
> after a while, it seemed that I wasn't responding in a way that
> would satisfy whatever it was that he was attempting, so he just
> kept pushing it further. He did display himself as a talented
> artist, with some of his graphics ffor example, but when I
> complimented him on his art he responded angrily (it may have been
> faux anger) and wrote long diatribes against such labels. Okay, I
> thought, its simply a contrarian position. I could do along with
> that. But after a while, he didn't seem to be able to go along with
> it. So he kept up his pushing and until he finally succeeded in
> shutting the group down. That was his goal it seemed. The shut
> down, by the way, was preceded by most of the participants getting
> fed up and leaving. They could see no way that they could continue
> to participate at that level. There was not in those days any way
> to unsubscribe someone. The shut down was, we felt, the only way
> we could save the list. So it wasn't based on an objection to
> leadership or facilitation or hierarchy.
>
> One interesting point was that some people who remained until the
> end also objected to our shutting it down and refused to
> resubscribe to the new list. A couple of these people even picked
> up on his style and joined him in sending similar posts. It must
> have been much more fun than pondering the subtleties of life, the
> universe and everything.
>
> Anyway, it is true that we seem to attract these people. I don't
> know about Pat's experience but I have from time to time. The first
> one we was in a face to face group that included David Bohm. There
> was a woman who would speak up during the dialogue and go off into
> a kind of rant that was completely incomprehensible to any of those
> who were there. We were a group of about 30 people who had been
> meeting weekly for a couple of years when she turned up. Anyway,
> every time she did this, someone in the group would ask her if she
> could explain what she was saying because it was difficult to
> understand, whereupon she would berate the questioner until someone
> else jumped in and the subject got changed. Sometimes this would go
> on for as much as a half hour and our sessions were only around two
> hours. She did did this in each session for about three or four
> week. David Bohm did not interfere. He, like most of the rest of us
> just paid attention to see what was going on. But after about the
> fourth week, he spoke to a few of us, a kind of core group, i
> guess, and suggested that we ask her to leave. We felt uncertain
> about this for the sorts of reasons you have suggested. Bohm's
> response was that dialogue was still a very delicate activity, It
> needed to be protected so that it could continue its inquiry
> without so much difficulty. We were not there to satisfy the ego
> needs of one participant. That might have been okay when someone
> revealed the need for help and this has happened from time to time.
> But it couldn't be done in this way. So that established a sort of
> precedent which boiled down to something that could be called
> protecting the process.
>
> Now there have also been those who demanded, why do we need to
> remove the difficult people, what are we trying to protect? The
> tone of these questions seemed to me to be based on a
> misundderstanding of group dialogue. These people seem to see it as
> a kind of encounter group. But that l not it at all. Dialogue
> requires a kind of empathy or compassion which certainly seems to
> me as it did to Bohm as an essential precusor to what we are trying
> to do. Arrogance or hubris just didn't fit and it certainly doesn't
> fit. Group therapy, I would say, is one thing, but dialogue is
> something different.
>
> I noticed that Bill Isaacs who has been the most prominent and
> successful practitioner of Bohm style dialogue in the commercial
> world has established the idea of what he calls a container. The
> creation of a container is the first stage in the development of a
> group that will thereby be able to continue doing what it needs to
> do. Without it the dialogue group might as well be just a gathering
> of strangers picked up on a busy street and made to sit down and
> talk together. Or just another encounter group. What would be
> missing would be, the shared intent to set aside one's personal
> necessities or to suspend them and observe them, as part of a
> shared concern for a process that might allow an opening to
> serious inquiry. Then when we discover blocks we can begin to
> explore them in a context that we all might be party to without
> fear of attack or ridicule.
>
> What you and Kathryn have suggested strikes me as an impossible
> state for a dialogue, at least at this stage of the game. It is not
> a therapy group or social group that is in any way exclusive.
> Maybe, as the dialogue meme gets spread further it might get
> easier. But so far as I can see, not yet.
>
> don
>
Joachim Faust
joachimfaust@earthlink.net
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 6 16:40:44 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:24:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] checking
Message-ID: <20061106.112003.2556.10.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I tend to agree with K regarding Zoe or ZoeChuzero as she signs off on
other lists. (don)
How did the "Kirsten" [Kris] [Hotmail] character write from
the "Zoe" [Yahoo] character's e-mail address on Sept 24?
The only answer I got to this question was about how
you could do anything over at MIT.
p.s. don, you think oil is NOT peaking (now or very soon)?
You think global warming is NOT real? Just checking.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/f8c042b9/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 6 17:09:12 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:25:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
Message-ID: <20061106.112003.2556.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Etymology is an extraordinary tool or means for moving into
a state of awe beyond words. Perennial wisdom never
changes (and always wears a different face) and is
made available by tracing words to their roots.
Where does a word "come from?"
Tracing back a word often brings one to
the original insight (and a further
swelling of it through noting other
words sharing the same root).
It is like the experience of a "great"
painting taking one into the state
of mind of the "great painter"
just by viewing the painting.
pat
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:10:13 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
But this is just my complaint. There are many words, most maybe, that
have changed their meanings over the centuries. But I am interested in in
communicating, now, in 2006. Anyway, Bohm was interested in the
possibility that words had implicate meanings, meanings from their pasts
that still had some sort of effect, even if they were very different from
their present meanings and more importantly, their common usage.
don
On 6 Nov 2006, at 10:13, william wrote:
From: Don Factor
>...Its just that William (and Bohm) somewhere appears to be treating
>passion in a more general way, that includes ideas of passivity.
>To me neither passion or compassion are passive states. They are
>active, even if the urge to action is internal.
The trouble is you have loaded the word 'passive' to mean something else.
This word, along with the word 'passion', has been badly mangled in the
course of time. You should take your etymological dictionary and find its
original sense. If you download the original meaning into these words
then it will make you see things differently.
william
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/009f8de9/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 6 16:53:31 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:25:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
Message-ID: <20061106.112003.2556.11.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The "passion point" is when the block is lifted and the pain can go.
(william)
When we talk about "opening" to others, what can easily be forgotten
is that two "openings" (so to speak) are needed, one in the "front" and
one in the "back," not just one in "front." This is the way to really
"know"the other's pain without it's turning into energy draining
debilitation. It "comes" very truly [in though the 'front' opening],
and it "leaves" [out through the 'rear' opening]. This is another
way of speaking about the simultaneity of
unfolding/enfolding.
pat
From: Don Factor
>So, are you suggesting that passion is a form of resistance
>the cause of pain or suffering, and that a point comes -
>something like the maximum or breaking point of passion -
>and then this is transformed into compassion? That's what
>it sounds like.
No, the pain comes from somewhere else, but resisting it builds it up.
Resistance blocks and prevents it from flowing off. The "passion point"
is when the block is lifted and the pain can go. Thus, passion is the
opposite of resistance. It is somewhat counter-intuitive but when you
"let go", it feels like getting flooded, which is why you may have to do
it in a controlled way to prevent you from panicking. This requires a
fairy well developed sense of proprioception because intuitively you
wouldn't want to do this. Intuitively, one would be more inclined to
block the pain, or do something about the cause of the pain. If the pain
had a physical cause this would probably be the right thing to do, but
psychological pain is different in this respect. When you do "let go" if
feels like a relief; a sense of gratitude sets in. Together with the
sense of being "flooded" you relax into a diffused state of mind that
could be described as compassion. From this perspective you experience
the world differently, many things that previously caused pain no longer
work. As a result, many reactions have become obsolete, and that makes
you a different person.
If you like to keep it short you could say; passion is the passage to
compassion.
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/de1fd708/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 6 16:02:45 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:25:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Passion
Message-ID: <20061106.112003.2556.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Exactly. And the interesting thing is that there is always
the "direct experience" - which is 'then' refracted by the
reflection. Sort of like the difference between the laser [direct] and
incoherent [scattered] light.
I'm about to say even more but it is obvious that I have said too much
already. As more is said, the point gets less clear - which is the
perfect
illustration of the point!
pat
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 08:32:38 -0600 Lynne Tolk
<lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
I really like this idea of intimacy which is beyond intimacy. Maybe it?s
a very direct experience of what is real, where we normally experience
the reflection.
Lynne
On 11/5/06 8:09 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
This "passion" of which we speak is the same as "facing" something
or "being with" something. It is intimacy with "what is" whatEVER "is."
And it is beyond "intimacy" because this implies an interface
but with this "passion" about which we try to speak, there is
no interface.
"Passion" is far from the only way to refer to this.
It is one more of many ways to notice a perennial
wisdom sort of thing.
Etymology is no more "for everyone" than
is astrology, archeology, or sociology.
Each 'field' is a fertile field for the sparking
of insight and finding explicit guidance - for some.
Etymology is fertile for me. But it need not be
for 'you.'
pat
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:36:59 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
I would say that this is anything but passive, although it might look
that way on the surface. But it is passionate. Don't you agree?
don
On 5 Nov 2006, at 12:39, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
Rodger __By passive-passion do we mean, for example, the level of
determination to endure, recover and survive a crisis like terminal
cancer or severe disablement?
Where a key passive eliment would be the ingredient of TIME -- externally
it seems very little can be done in an active way except endure
conditions and hope -- but in fact a great deal is being done within by
way of focus, vision, gratitude, determination, etc. _R
.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:36:58 +0000
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Message-ID:
<1F82D16A-829A-4C49-BDB4-F63344A52270@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
William, you know I have read a lot of what you have to say about
passion and all of it, at some level. makes intriguing sense...
...Maybe an example, even fictional will do?
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/6420423c/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 6 15:51:33 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:25:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
Message-ID: <20061106.112003.2556.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Just in case any of your missed this:
> miss you
>
> but
>
> will be
>
> back
>
> lovbot
>
don
redundant.
Peter has never been "not back." Why stop at 2 guises, or 3, or 4?
Absolute necessity will have its way. Like a bulldozer to a pebble.
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 6 16:04:52 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:25:05 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
Message-ID: <20061106.112003.2556.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I think everything about human expression is emotional. Ideas of being
rational or logical - beyond feelings- are shaped by emotional
preferences. (rodger)
Beautiful.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/cd2cd5cb/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 6 16:21:17 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:25:06 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
Message-ID: <20061106.112003.2556.9.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The Bohm dialogue experiment uses words. "The problem is in the verbal
sphere." It is when we try to talk with one another that the territory
reveals the "land mines"
of our implicit convictions at every third step.
This does not mean that other kinds of experiments, under other tags,
are unwelcome or undesirable. The more the better. I personally attend
5 different kinds of talking circles.
And have a friend (who was a friend of Bohm's as well) who does
a spin off version of bohm dialogue using paintings. She has a warehouse
full of them, done by many different artists whose paintings are done in
response to the other paintings.
There is no limit to what we, as people, might do and try
and enjoy together.
pat
Rodger__I think everything about human expression is emotional. Ideas of
being rational or logical -beyond feelings- are shaped by emotional
preferences. I.e. Appearing rational is usually about a preference to be
accepted among a group of people who aspire to seeming rational.
Similarly, when the audio-visual arts are used as a means of dialogue --
behind the preference to do so there is the desire to be accepted among a
group of people who aspire to seeming artistic-viaual &/or musical etc.
On a Bohm-audio-visual-dialogue-list it seems likely one would find a
group of people who prefer to use audio-visual mediums. In other Bohm
dialogues it seems likely there will be other people who enjoy other
ways.
Why would a dialogue of audio-visual artists insist that a dialogue among
scientist-academics become more like the artists? Why would an
academic/philosophical dialogue enter into the audio-visual dialogue and
insist that the artists prefer a more word oriented exchange? _R
.
.
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
Actually, emoticons could be considered part of OD.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/e50f7998/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 6 17:21:21 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:30:00 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <OF1B45F3B5.6EBECC74-ON8525721C.004F5E77-8525721C.004FA501@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C1751181.3787%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Rodger,
Back on line after a busy weekend!
Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to what I
call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being compassionate and also
aware and being willing to challenge. And finding a response and action that
is not embedded within the same cultural assumptions. I find so often the
response or action taken to a situation maintains the same culture.
Anyway its something to aim for ...
Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as you
suggest.
For me just responding doesn?t mean you become part of the core I think it
is something to do with how you are received and whether you are responded
to and what the response is.
Gill
on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
wrote:
> Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something missing in
> a group process it is because no one else sees it as clearly as you do --
> therefore you are the missing link._R
> .
> .
> From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> In so many different ways. I have felt sometimes that some ways here are
> embraced more fully than others ...
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061106/c05ba5af/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 6 17:24:24 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:34:45 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <86BB3CEA-23FD-4478-8A46-CCB493D0803C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C1751238.3789%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Don,
You might have already left for California ...
Yes for me too core/periphery is about hierarchy. And yes if a person is at
the top of a hierarchy they aren't going to realise it. This reminds me of
something Paulo Freire said - that the oppressed had to free themselves from
the oppressors, it can't be the other way round.
Gill
on 4/11/06 16:21, Don Factor at donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk wrote:
> It struck me that this core periphery-distinction might also be
> similar to hierarchical ones. I recall saying to one of the top dogs
> in an organisation that I was once involved in that I, along with a
> lot of others, were unhappy with the hierarchy that had evolved in a
> group that was supposed to be non-hierarchical. He said, "but I'm not
> aware of any hierarchy." He was an old friend and I could see that he
> was being completely honest with me. But after thinking about it for
> a while I came to see that when you are at the top of the hill, you
> don't notice that there's not a lot of room up there and you just
> assume that everyone who wanted could be up there with you.
>
> don
>
> On 4 Nov 2006, at 14:22, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>
>> Rodger __hi Gill, you describe a few ways that core & periphery can
>> be seen, and each apply within their given context. Core &
>> periphery also apply to interactions in almost countless numbers of
>> ways.
>>
>> Almost every definition of core & periphery will apply to each
>> interaction. Those definitions are core-periphery interactions
>> taking place within the mind of each individual -- how they sees
>> themself in regard to others, near-or-far, agree-or-disagree, and
>> they then project accordingly onto the larger group exchange.
>>
>> Personally, in relation to dialogue, the way I tend to see core is;
>> anyone who offers their insight, thought, feeling, into the
>> dialogue is at the center, is the core of the process during that
>> offering. And when we stay quiet we are doing a quiet part of being
>> core. When we disengage from the dialogue completely we become
>> periphery to the dialogue.
>>
>> And mind or soul connection/oneness among us human beings will tend
>> to continue influencing the dialogue regardless of whether a person
>> is actively a member or not. _R
>> .
>> .
>> From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> .
>> I think a core/periphery distinction exists in every discussion
>> group to
>> some degree whether its decreed simply from how much people are
>> engaged, or
>> how much people are actively participating, or whether it has an
>> additional
>> dimension attached which derives from who holds the power within
>> the group,
>> who determines what is 'right' (I hasten to say, however I don't
>> operate
>> within a right/wrong dichotomy), or what is the dominant culture. What
>> weight is given to who's contributions.
>> .
>> .
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 6 17:37:28 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:45:18 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue
Message-ID: <20061106.113734.2556.13.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Is there anything we can do to create the conditions
that allow a more robust structure to emerge, a structure that would
be able to deal with "trolls" in a new and different,
perhaps more creative way?
I hope this question is not too abstract. I am struggling at this
point with making it more concrete, so I'll
leave off here. Perhaps, we can make it more concrete together.
Joachim
Yes. I think that the "concreteness"
of this would have to happen in the
"togetherness" of it.
The abstract question, remaining abstract,
if treated with actual inquiry (in the direction
if "inner" depth) can't NOT concretize
it AS "results" that are "something more
& something different from repetition
of old ways. "Old" ways were not "bad"
ways - they were good ways - they were
the only ways. But "old" ways are not
the only ways now. One thing about
"new" ways though - we can never
say what they are in advance.
Peripherals Unite!
pat
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 6 17:45:13 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:49:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] checking
In-Reply-To: <20061106.112003.2556.10.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061106.112003.2556.10.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <626A2FB5-4DC8-4EE7-BEAB-51D6C5343463@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
The e-mail address is still a mystery. My remarks about MIT could be
correct but then why are
Zoe's e-mails to Kathryn coming from California? Anyway, I think that
peak oil and global warming
are challenging, but i am not prepared to accept only the worst-case
scenario espoused by some of
the dieoff crowd of which I was a member for about ten years after
meeting the founder, Jay ? in a coffee house in
London. He by the way, gave it up a year or two ago because it was
getting too tin hattish even for him.
In the meanwhile,
Major new discoveries of oil and gas have occurred in politically not-
too sensitive areas and many predictions about the effects of global
warming have turned out to be incorrect. Have you noticed that this
year's hurricane systems have not been the worst ever as predicted?
It seems that dust storms in Africa have served to calm down the baby
storms that start up in the Atlantic. These were not taken into
account in the computer simulations because nobody knew about them.
This planet is a lot more complex than the boffins think it is or are
able to think it is. We know that CO2 is increasing and tht things
are getting warmer but what it all means remains unknown. That's not
to say that we don't have to deal with these situations, but we don't
have to deal with them in a panic. Take note of what happened when we
tried to stop Saddam from nuking us.
don\
On 6 Nov 2006, at 15:40, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with K regarding Zoe or ZoeChuzero as she signs off
> on other lists. (don)
>
> How did the "Kirsten" [Kris] [Hotmail] character write from
> the "Zoe" [Yahoo] character's e-mail address on Sept 24?
>
> The only answer I got to this question was about how
> you could do anything over at MIT.
>
> p.s. don, you think oil is NOT peaking (now or very soon)?
> You think global warming is NOT real? Just checking.
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/2c0ef045/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Mon Nov 6 17:56:21 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:56:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] checking
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04F9@msw2k.msw.local>
I' believe it is pie in the sky to not be more concerned about whatever
it is we are doing to the environment. Call it global warning or
whatever, we are destroying our world. Not the least problem is over
population. D
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:45 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] checking
The e-mail address is still a mystery. My remarks about MIT could be
correct but then why are
Zoe's e-mails to Kathryn coming from California? Anyway, I think that
peak oil and global warming
are challenging, but i am not prepared to accept only the worst-case
scenario espoused by some of
the dieoff crowd of which I was a member for about ten years after
meeting the founder, Jay ? in a coffee house in
London. He by the way, gave it up a year or two ago because it was
getting too tin hattish even for him.
In the meanwhile,
Major new discoveries of oil and gas have occurred in politically
not-too sensitive areas and many predictions about the effects of global
warming have turned out to be incorrect. Have you noticed that this
year's hurricane systems have not been the worst ever as predicted? It
seems that dust storms in Africa have served to calm down the baby
storms that start up in the Atlantic. These were not taken into account
in the computer simulations because nobody knew about them. This planet
is a lot more complex than the boffins think it is or are able to think
it is. We know that CO2 is increasing and tht things are getting warmer
but what it all means remains unknown. That's not to say that we don't
have to deal with these situations, but we don't have to deal with them
in a panic. Take note of what happened when we tried to stop Saddam from
nuking us.
don\
On 6 Nov 2006, at 15:40, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I tend to agree with K regarding Zoe or ZoeChuzero as she signs
off on other lists. (don)
How did the "Kirsten" [Kris] [Hotmail] character write from
the "Zoe" [Yahoo] character's e-mail address on Sept 24?
The only answer I got to this question was about how
you could do anything over at MIT.
p.s. don, you think oil is NOT peaking (now or very soon)?
You think global warming is NOT real? Just checking.
pat
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061106/0d36d576/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 6 17:54:22 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:58:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <20061106.112003.2556.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061106.112003.2556.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <E753C134-5EC8-4E7C-890C-A6CBDE759E72@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 6 Nov 2006, at 16:09, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Etymology is an extraordinary tool or means for moving into
> a state of awe beyond words. Perennial wisdom never
> changes (and always wears a different face) and is
> made available by tracing words to their roots.
> Where does a word "come from?"
>
> Tracing back a word often brings one to
> the original insight (and a further
> swelling of it through noting other
> words sharing the same root).
>
> It is like the experience of a "great"
> painting taking one into the state
> of mind of the "great painter"
> just by viewing the painting.
>
> pat
>
Yes, there is much to be learned from looking at a word\s history or
chldhood. But we must be careful not to take an ancient meaning as
the actual meaning here and now. Like all else, meaning change and
words change their meaning too. This makes sense, but many words now
have opposite meanings to their original ones and to use them in this
manner can only cause confusion. My interest is in reducing the
amount of confusion not adding to it by splashing my esoteric
knowledge around
don
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Mon Nov 6 17:58:05 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Tue Nov 7 18:58:33 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04FA@msw2k.msw.local>
At least the oppressed need to be aware they are oppressed. That old
saying, if you don't know you're being spit on, you don't know nothing.
D
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Gill Wyatt
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:24 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
Hi Don,
You might have already left for California ...
Yes for me too core/periphery is about hierarchy. And yes if a person is
at the top of a hierarchy they aren't going to realise it. This reminds
me of something Paulo Freire said - that the oppressed had to free
themselves from the oppressors, it can't be the other way round.
Gill
on 4/11/06 16:21, Don Factor at donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk wrote:
> It struck me that this core periphery-distinction might also be
> similar to hierarchical ones. I recall saying to one of the top dogs
> in an organisation that I was once involved in that I, along with a
> lot of others, were unhappy with the hierarchy that had evolved in a
> group that was supposed to be non-hierarchical. He said, "but I'm not
> aware of any hierarchy." He was an old friend and I could see that he
> was being completely honest with me. But after thinking about it for a
> while I came to see that when you are at the top of the hill, you
> don't notice that there's not a lot of room up there and you just
> assume that everyone who wanted could be up there with you.
>
> don
>
> On 4 Nov 2006, at 14:22, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>
>> Rodger __hi Gill, you describe a few ways that core & periphery can
>> be seen, and each apply within their given context. Core & periphery
>> also apply to interactions in almost countless numbers of ways.
>>
>> Almost every definition of core & periphery will apply to each
>> interaction. Those definitions are core-periphery interactions taking
>> place within the mind of each individual -- how they sees themself in
>> regard to others, near-or-far, agree-or-disagree, and they then
>> project accordingly onto the larger group exchange.
>>
>> Personally, in relation to dialogue, the way I tend to see core is;
>> anyone who offers their insight, thought, feeling, into the dialogue
>> is at the center, is the core of the process during that offering.
>> And when we stay quiet we are doing a quiet part of being core. When
>> we disengage from the dialogue completely we become periphery to the
>> dialogue.
>>
>> And mind or soul connection/oneness among us human beings will tend
>> to continue influencing the dialogue regardless of whether a person
>> is actively a member or not. _R .
>> .
>> From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> .
>> I think a core/periphery distinction exists in every discussion group
>> to some degree whether its decreed simply from how much people are
>> engaged, or how much people are actively participating, or whether it
>> has an additional dimension attached which derives from who holds the
>> power within the group, who determines what is 'right' (I hasten to
>> say, however I don't operate within a right/wrong dichotomy), or what
>> is the dominant culture. What weight is given to who's contributions.
>> .
>> .
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 6 17:58:58 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Nov 7 19:03:17 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <C1751238.3789%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
References: <C1751238.3789%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <0FD93927-C15E-43CE-A15E-FEA1FEE4564B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Well, in Friere's world that was correct. But I think that the
opposite also holds true.
The opressors might also have to free themselves from the opressed. A
leader is only
a leader if he has followers. He is therefore dependent on them. If
they don't want to
go where he leads, then he has to either force them to follow or
change direction
himself. So all of these distinctions are more complicated than they
might at first appear.
don
On 6 Nov 2006, at 16:24, Gill Wyatt wrote:
> Hi Don,
>
> You might have already left for California ...
>
> Yes for me too core/periphery is about hierarchy. And yes if a
> person is at
> the top of a hierarchy they aren't going to realise it. This
> reminds me of
> something Paulo Freire said - that the oppressed had to free
> themselves from
> the oppressors, it can't be the other way round.
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 4/11/06 16:21, Don Factor at donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>> It struck me that this core