From donlay at knology.net Fri Dec 7 03:43:13 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Dec 7 03:47:10 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
References: <009f01c837b1$e44efce0$b5c16018@DL01>
<4757E198.000005.05940@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <002201c8387a$e9ed55b0$b5c16018@DL01>
W: Personal identity is a highly sophisticated human invention, the purpose of which should be obvious.
dl: Would this mean that human being is identical with its invention, and if identical with its own creation, what would be its relationship with the whole? Below you agree that the personal identity must be acted and pretended. Is that all one is -- his acting and pretending, his pretentiousness? Could that be what he is driven to the nut house, why he must take tranquilizers ... because he is identical with his acting and pretending?
Is it possible that pretentious, personal phoniness relates to what db references as fragmentation and what some other serious thinkers reference as alienation and fragmentation?
W: It is the foundation of many other inventions such as property, money, law and liability.
dl: Is this "foundation" you speak of sufficient to replace man's Spiritual connection to the whole of all that is ..., to the universe?
W: I am sure many books have been written about the development of personal identity and it's purpose.
dl: Maybe so. I don't know of any. Most people treat identity as if it is necessity. Not so, says Bohm.
W: It's true, personal identity has to be acted out but the intellectual capacity of people is generally sufficient to do this.
dl: That does not seem to be Bohm's opinion. Maybe I should have your opinion printed and laminated so that if anyone wants to know the opinion of a programmer on fragmentation, alienation, estrangement and the despair accompanying it, I'll hand out laminated prints.
W: I don't understand why you keep going on about this question of personal identity.
dl: It's because it's my opinion Bohm suggests it is related to faulty tas, and that it might be pollution. I don't understand why you should be so bothered by a few quotes of Bohm relating to personal identity, or by someone investigating and giving attention to what Bohm wrote about. (But maybe I do.)
W: Is this too complicated for you?
dl: Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not the one doing the whining.
Bore us some more about the "last time you saw Dave". Did you see Dave sitting on df's sofa, or df sitting on Dave's soffa?
If you are so bothered by what I'm working at, why not hit delete?
Is this too complicated for you? -- dl
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
>>Of course, personal identity is man-made. -- w
>Such a statement seems to suggest that people are somehow unreal, that people act
>and pretend they actually are their personal identity and, in that sense, are actors
>and pretenders as suggested by the idea of the mask of persona. What might be
>the meaning of this. -- dl
Personal identity is a highly sophisticated human invention, the purpose of which should be obvious. It is the foundation of many other inventions such as property, money, law and liability. I am sure many books have been written about the development of personal identity and it's purpose. It's true, personal identity has to be acted out but the intellectual capacity of people is generally sufficient to do this. I know of one or two people who cannot do it and they are in the care of someone who does it for them. I don't understand why you keep going on about this question of personal identity. Is this too complicated for you?
We are not at the end of this development. Nowadays, in complex organizations there is an increasing tendency to assign multiple identities to one and the same person. I was in one of those organizations for a while. With the "human resources" department you are registered under your civil identity but in the technical departments you would be known under different resource identities. The human resource manager assigns resource identities. I.e. one could work in one department as "resource X" for several hours, then switch identity to become "resource Y" and work for another department or on some other project. It has something to do with accounting and auditing requirements from the financial and legal departments. For instance, as resource X, i once needed authorization for something from resource Y, which happened to be one of my other identities. So, as resource X, i sent an email to resource Y requesting authorization. I subsequently authenticated myself as resource Y and granted resource X the requested authorization. The technical term for this identity management is 'impersonation', which is a special use of the word in the dictionary.
Until recently, personal identity was restricted to a simple "one man, one identity" scenario: A person was given one single permanent identity for the rest of one's life. That was easy. But in a more complex scenario, when you pick up the phone or log on to a computer, you have to remember which "resource" you are impersonating at the moment.
So, while i agree with you, Mr Lay, about your thing about "acting and pretending" as you like to call it, i still wonder what's the meaning of making such a fuss about it. Is it worth it to spend so much time on such an easy point?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071206/b18dbbc8/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Fri Dec 7 04:55:03 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Dec 7 04:58:54 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
In-Reply-To: <002201c8387a$e9ed55b0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <009f01c837b1$e44efce0$b5c16018@DL01>
<4757E198.000005.05940@VAIO-584793128F>
<002201c8387a$e9ed55b0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <4535E026-392E-4CC4-AEED-860B89B16505@dc.rr.com>
On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:43 PM, Don Lay wrote:
> dl: Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not the one doing the whining.
>
> Bore us some more about the "last time you saw Dave". Did you see
> Dave sitting on df's sofa, or df sitting on Dave's soffa?
>
> If you are so bothered by what I'm working at, why not hit delete?
>
> Is this too complicated for you? -- dl
This sort of reply has nothing to do with dialogue or the spirit of
dialogue. It is a defensive counter to what you must value as your
precious truths or assumptions or business. But this is a dialogue
list, not an arena for us to watch you struggling with a lot of ideas
the significance of which are beyond question any question. HItting
delete has nothing to do with dialogue. In fact it would be
destructive of the dialogue, unless it is a last resort. Dialogue, in
case you have forgotten, is about vulnerability, not defense. If you
feel it is valuable to spend years asking and answering the same
questions over and over while ignoring responses that just might
enrich your inquiry, why not just just do it in your own time.
Instead of writing what sound like childish complaints to those who
would really like to go deeper with you.
>
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071206/60e9205d/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Fri Dec 7 11:48:56 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Fri Dec 7 11:52:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <20071206.113837.2428.146.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <664044.91024.qm@web57410.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi ae.dropper. Thought-as-a-System. Over-Population-Dynamics. Sus-Pension. Birth-Control. "Anti-Conceptie". AL
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan " again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the "sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises. Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of "suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal. The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of "suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun. And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/67b06c31/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Fri Dec 7 13:05:24 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Fri Dec 7 13:09:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
References: <20071206.113837.2428.146.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <47593703.000001.03240@VAIO-584793128F>
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i think
you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I need to
counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the world, like
preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead of playing it.
Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are you coping with
this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language
Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when he
advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be ready to
sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which may point
to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of what
the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises. Or
one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what
further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really interested
in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of "suspension"
are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal. The
fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is read
or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying to
respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be able
to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete investment'
This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself
responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun. And
there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry "funny"
but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or could you
possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or some
brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is there
anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer nonsense? Or
if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you please come down
and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/f9a9bca5/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Fri Dec 7 13:45:28 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Fri Dec 7 13:49:28 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
References: <002201c8387a$e9ed55b0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <47594068.000003.03240@VAIO-584793128F>
>W: Personal identity is a highly sophisticated human invention, the
purpose of which should be obvious.
>
>dl: Would this mean that human being is identical with its invention,
No, personal identity is part of a human being, but only as an attribute
(not a property).
>and if identical with its own creation, what would be its relationship with
the whole?
Well, the personal identity is part of the human being as a whole. The
human being along with all its attributes already is a whole.
>Below you agree that the personal identity must be acted and pretended. Is
that all one is --
>his acting and pretending, his pretentiousness? Could that be what he is
driven to the nut house,
>why he must take tranquilizers ... because he is identical with his acting
and pretending?
No, not necessarily. If you know what you are doing there is no problem. It
may become a problem for people who don't know what they are doing, but that
is rare.
>Is it possible that pretentious, personal phoniness relates to what db
references as fragmentation and
>what some other serious thinkers reference as alienation and fragmentation?
Only if the personal identity is taken as a property instead of an attribute
>W: It is the foundation of many other inventions such as property,
money, law and liability.
>
>dl: Is this "foundation" you speak of sufficient to replace man's
Spiritual connection to the whole of all that is ..., to the universe?
I don't see a need for a "spiritual connection with the whole of all that is
. On the contrary, i see this "foundation" as a means of escaping from it.
>W: I am sure many books have been written about the development of
personal identity and it's purpose.
>
>dl: Maybe so. I don't know of any. Most people treat identity as if it
is necessity. Not so, says Bohm.
>
>W: It's true, personal identity has to be acted out but the intellectual
capacity of people is generally sufficient to do this.
>
>dl: That does not seem to be Bohm's opinion. Maybe I should have your
opinion printed and laminated so
>that if anyone wants to know the opinion of a programmer on fragmentation,
alienation, estrangement and the
>despair accompanying it, I'll hand out laminated prints.
but let me approve the draft before you do it.
>W: I don't understand why you keep going on about this question of
personal identity.
>
>dl: It's because it's my opinion Bohm suggests it is related to faulty
tas, and that it might be pollution.
> I don't understand why you should be so bothered by a few quotes of Bohm
relating to personal identity,
>or by someone investigating and giving attention to what Bohm wrote about.
(But maybe I do.)
I don't mind a few quotes on and off. I am objecting to your incessant
repetitions.
>W: Is this too complicated for you?
>
>dl: Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not the one doing the whining.
>
>Bore us some more about the "last time you saw Dave". Did you see Dave
sitting on df's sofa, or df sitting on Dave's soffa?
>
>If you are so bothered by what I'm working at, why not hit delete?
>
>Is this too complicated for you? -- dl
No, it is not complicated. It is easy to delete your subscription from the
list. I am seriously beginning to wonder if this is the right list for you.
You seem to be on a mission of your own and i cannot resist the temptation
to think that you may be using this list as a platform to promote your own
thing. Would it not be more appropriate for you to set up you own list and
have your own audience?
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
>>Of course, personal identity is man-made. -- w
>Such a statement seems to suggest that people are somehow unreal, that
people act
>and pretend they actually are their personal identity and, in that sense,
are actors
>and pretenders as suggested by the idea of the mask of persona. What might
be
>the meaning of this. -- dl
Personal identity is a highly sophisticated human invention, the purpose of
which should be obvious. It is the foundation of many other inventions such
as property, money, law and liability. I am sure many books have been
written about the development of personal identity and it's purpose. It's
true, personal identity has to be acted out but the intellectual capacity of
people is generally sufficient to do this. I know of one or two people who
cannot do it and they are in the care of someone who does it for them. I don
t understand why you keep going on about this question of personal identity.
Is this too complicated for you?
We are not at the end of this development. Nowadays, in complex
organizations there is an increasing tendency to assign multiple identities
to one and the same person. I was in one of those organizations for a while.
With the "human resources" department you are registered under your civil
identity but in the technical departments you would be known under different
resource identities. The human resource manager assigns resource identities.
I.e. one could work in one department as "resource X" for several hours,
then switch identity to become "resource Y" and work for another department
or on some other project. It has something to do with accounting and
auditing requirements from the financial and legal departments. For instance
as resource X, i once needed authorization for something from resource Y,
which happened to be one of my other identities. So, as resource X, i sent
an email to resource Y requesting authorization. I subsequently
authenticated myself as resource Y and granted resource X the requested
authorization. The technical term for this identity management is
impersonation', which is a special use of the word in the dictionary.
Until recently, personal identity was restricted to a simple "one man, one
identity" scenario: A person was given one single permanent identity for the
rest of one's life. That was easy. But in a more complex scenario, when you
pick up the phone or log on to a computer, you have to remember which
resource" you are impersonating at the moment.
So, while i agree with you, Mr Lay, about your thing about "acting and
pretending" as you like to call it, i still wonder what's the meaning of
making such a fuss about it. Is it worth it to spend so much time on such an
easy point?
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/ee6d4b55/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 7 18:16:47 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 7 18:22:28 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] What is "Waiting?"
Message-ID: <20071207.122001.2428.152.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Except maybe everyone else has to hang around waiting for your response
X (df)
Premature articulation is endemic.
And what is "waiting?" What does "waiting" really mean?
What are the different kinds of "waiting?" We have explored
"waiting" as "Passion" for one thing. What are the other
meanings/feelings
of "waiting?"?
-- funny
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:50:53 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Except maybe everyone else has to hang around waiting for your response
X
On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:19 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
They shed light on the processes of suspension that may be practiced in
Dialogue. (dl)
"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
"suspension" are appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to
show its appeal. The fruits of suspension [of action, which includes
speech, in relation to what is read or heard] are
that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
to respond with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take
awhile to be able to do this because the little bit of satisfaction needs
to be "invested." Very long story short, with each "reinvestment"
something even more amazing surfaces.
Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
investment'. This is the logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but
humble and simple proposal of "suspension'.
Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself
responding with things you have never heard of before. So the process is
never not fun. And there is no rush for the "completion."
-- funny
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:31:00 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
Pat (of anyone), if you're reading this, I'd appreciate your thoughts on
the above notions re measuring and describing experience with words that
are measures and descriptions of experience. -- dl
It's in the hopper.
[Looked up "hopper." Interesting.
"A tank holding a liquid and having a device for releasing its contents
through a pipe."
"A box into which a bill to be considered by a legislative body, is
dropped."
"A freight car with hinged doors in a sloping bottom."
"A usually funnel-shaped container for delivering material (as grain)."]
-- funny
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:11:48 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
Apology retracted because I did not put my paraphrase in quotes.
Eric, you might be very interested in Bohm's remarks regarding the
esthetics of science and art in his essay, On the Relationships of
Science and Art in On Creativity. I like very much Lee Nichol's
thoughts in the Foreword regarding Bohm's ideas of the similarity of
perception processes and the processes of abstraction use by both artist
and scientist.
They shed light on the processes of suspension that may be practiced in
Dialogue. As the artist must suspend the reflex to make a painting in
the same old way in order that creative processes may present new
formulations, in dialogue we may suspend the usual understanding of
dialogue (per Bohm) so that creative processes may present new
formulations.
Obviously the "usual understanding of dialogue" is that it is just
reflexive, mechanical talk. Bohm says he gives it different meaning
which seems to mean that he goes to the origin of the idea of dialogue in
the Greek which has something to do with the structure of the universe as
Reason and Meaning.
Part of the problems of modern civilization is that both artists and
scientists must formulate their discoveries using language that fits the
paradigm of physical evolution -- that is we must use the language that
has evolved. Even to talk about the inadequacy of language, we must use
the inadequate language. Is it possible to see similarity here of using
the electron microscope to measure an electron?
My view as artist is that just as science discovered that measuring an
electron with an electron measuring device is inadequate because the
electron that measures is indivisible from the electron that is measured
-- similarly the word that may be used to measure and describe experience
is itself a measure of experience.
Pat (of anyone), if you're reading this, I'd appreciate your thoughts on
the above notions re measuring and describing experience with words that
are measures and descriptions of experience. -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities
Eric, that appears to be a paraphrase of material in On Creativity where
Bohm addresses how Scientists and Artists have similar goals, etc. It
should not have been in quotation marks. My apology. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: eric scott nelson
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities
where can i find "In the same way, scientists do that except the
scientists (and the artist says Bohm) intend their language maps to
represent "things" in space and time."? is that from "On Dialogue"?
what page(s)?
-esn
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:39:41 -0500
More on this theme:
Rajath and I talked briefly about Googling up some material, maybe from
Wikipedia, and then presenting it online as if we (our identity) knew and
had that knowledge all along.
It can give a little pleasure "rush". I've done that and noticed the
rush, and evidently Rajath had also.
Are we the only ones or are we the only ones able to see that talking
about it is a use of db/thought presented in Though as a System? I know,
of course, that Pat knows because she has talked about it and pointed it
out on list.
Is not that another little example of a self without a territory? And
doesn't tas give us a way to talk about that kind of situation without
digging deeper the false identity hole? -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:31 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities
Language can create a mental scenario, something like a map. In a way,
that's what novelists do.
The science fiction novelist may construct a language map which may only
stand for fantasy.
In the same way, scientists do that except the scientists (and the
artist says Bohm) intend their language maps to represent "things" in
space and time. Something like that. The map or mental scenario created
by the fiction writer only has a make-believe reality. The map is not
intended to be used to explore space-time.
I have read two or three little essays regarding how people can "get on
line" and create an identity, i.e., create imagery for the imagination of
others -- and then become confused about that identity as if it might
actually be their identity, what they actually are.
For example, someone could log onto a chat line and create a completely
false identity in someone's mind.
In such a case, would it not be adequate to say that was a self identity
without a territory
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live
Spaces. It's easy! Try it!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/64117f6e/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 7 18:19:55 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 7 18:22:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] What is written is not "the truth."
Message-ID: <20071207.122001.2428.154.ae.dropper@juno.com>
What is written or said is not felt as "the truth." All of it is just
words that are being heard/written/spoken. If "felt" at all,
individually, each of these written words is felt
as a feather or a little tiny cloud. They disintegrate as written/spoken.
No 'blowing' is even
necessary to their disintegration and 'departure'. If a word is
challenged or attacked, and a
battle takes place, it goes on "elsewhere" than "here." There is nothing
"here' with which to battle
back. There is no awareness of the battle "here." But there is no battle,
is there? It takes two to battle. Well, no battle between people anyway.
If there is a battle [that is not between two people], where is it? What
is the nature of it?
But if a word that is written is met with inquiry, the inquiry is
immediately shared. What is this
"inquiry?" "Inquiry" is a true interest in what can be found within the
word that has been brought to attention. It is that true interest in
"something more and something different."
It is a silent looking that has gone mutual. A mutual "gaze" that is
'fixed'
on the unknown.
-- funny
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 7 18:16:02 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 7 18:22:33 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspension
Message-ID: <20071207.122001.2428.151.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Read from top to bottom for the sequence. Most recent posting at bottom.
(funny)
~~
They shed light on the processes of suspension that may be practiced in
Dialogue. (dl)
~~
"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
"suspension" are appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to
show its appeal. The fruits of suspension [of action, which includes
speech, in relation to what is read or heard] are
that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
to respond with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take
awhile to be able to do this because the little bit of satisfaction needs
to be "invested." Very long story short, with each "reinvestment"
something even more amazing surfaces.
Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
investment'. This is the logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but
humble and simple proposal of "suspension'.
Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself
responding with things you have never heard of before. So the process is
never not fun. And there is no rush for the "completion." (funny)
~~
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
"funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee? (wm)
~~
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when
he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be
ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances
which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
again and again. The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It
draws on more of what the group is saying as a whole. And with a little
experience one comes to see the "sacrifices" [of the satisfactions] as
"investments" in evermore surprising surprises. Or, one could say that
one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded surprise from the start. It's
just an amazing discovery [the unfolding of this "layered" suspending]
for someone really interested in "suspension." Not recommending; just
reporting. (funny)
~~
Here's another quote that speaks to this:
"We cannot let our angels go. We do not see that they only go out that
archangels may come in." --Emerson
It's like this - and more. The "archangel" is suspended too and then the
arch-arch-angel, and so on. Each one [each response] is [optionally]
"spent" on "something more and something different." The development in
this direction is wondrous.
And maybe in more 'everydayish' kind of language - hopefully approaching
"chimpanzee" language: The experience seems to be that of suspending the
reactionary response [which is a given anyway] but then when the "good"
response comes there is a suspension of that too. And, when the "better'
response comes there can be a suspension of that too. And when the
perfect response comes - the absolutely irresistible response - I don't
know ... there's this temptation to suspend that one too. That's what
might be called taking this to "completion" just to see what happens. To
see what happens when that "absolutely perfect" response is suspended.
Can't say that I've experienced that "completion" yet. Although, I "have"
actually - it can go either way - this report.
Like I said, just reporting. And for dl especially [but not exclusively
of course] the question comes: Is this report an experience based on
language and measured by means of language based on experience. The guess
would be "yes." There's a fluid kind of feeling to it all though. It also
is sensed that the "whole thing" is "directed" by an unknown. Not even a
"something unknown." Just an unknown. We could say that the "whole thing"
is directed by itself and that the "whole thing" is not a "thing." Or
maybe the "whole thing" is a "thing" -- is just a thingk. And all
'else' is "Nothingk."
-- funny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/b84504e3/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 7 18:17:44 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 7 18:22:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspended words
Message-ID: <20071207.122001.2428.153.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Every word, about to be spoken, if, about to be spoken thoughtfully,
suspense-fully,
will feed back a sense of whether it is "an exact fit" or not. When it
is, it will almost
'click'. When it isn't, it won't yet. When words are spoken
non-thoughtfully - kind of
"rattled out" - that's exactly what they are. A "rattle," a bunch of
noise. All "understanding"
of that combination is pretense. The words themselves are self-aware,
each one, and will flow, musically,
when allowed their rhythm. Words are like people. They have relationships
with one another, based
on each having a relationship with the whole. And they themselves, each
of them, will tell you,
whether to say them or not. This is how suspension goes, each word begs
and offers, this
suspension.
-- funny
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 18:22:54 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 7 18:26:56 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] What is "Waiting?"
In-Reply-To: <20071207.122001.2428.152.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071207.122001.2428.152.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712070922o9db0a48m2400b7dd93b2eb03@mail.gmail.com>
Premature articulation?
I: That's funny! Pun intended?
On Dec 7, 2007 12:16 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Except maybe everyone else has to hang around waiting for your response
> X (df)
>
> Premature articulation is endemic.
>
> And what is "waiting?" What does "waiting" really mean?
> What are the different kinds of "waiting?" We have explored
> "waiting" as "Passion" for one thing. What are the other meanings/feelings
> of "waiting?"?
>
> -- funny
>
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:50:53 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
> writes:
>
> Except maybe everyone else has to hang around waiting for your response
> X
>
> On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:19 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> They shed light on the *processes of suspension that may be practiced in
> Dialogue*. (dl)
>
> "Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
> "suspension" are appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show
> its appeal. The fruits of suspension [of action, which includes speech, in
> relation to what is read or heard] are
> that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying to
> respond with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to
> be able to do this because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be
> "invested." Very long story short, with each "reinvestment" something even
> more amazing surfaces.
>
> Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
> investment'. This is the logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble
> and simple proposal of "suspension'.
>
> Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself
> responding with things you have never heard of before. So the process is
> never not fun. And there is no rush for the "completion."
>
> -- funny
>
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:31:00 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
>
> Pat (of anyone), if you're reading this, I'd appreciate your thoughts on
> the above notions re measuring and describing experience with words that are
> measures and descriptions of experience. -- dl
>
> It's in the hopper.
>
> [Looked up "hopper." Interesting.
>
> "A tank holding a liquid and having a device for releasing its contents
> through a pipe."
> "A box into which a bill to be considered by a legislative body, is
> dropped."
> "A freight car with hinged doors in a sloping bottom."
> "A usually funnel-shaped container for delivering material (as grain)."]
>
> -- funny
>
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:11:48 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
>
> Apology retracted because I did not put my paraphrase in quotes.
>
> Eric, you might be very interested in Bohm's remarks regarding the
> esthetics of science and art in his essay, *On the Relationships of
> Science and Art* in *On Creativity*. I like very much Lee Nichol's
> thoughts in the Foreword regarding Bohm's ideas of the similarity of
> perception processes and the processes of abstraction use by both artist and
> scientist.
>
> They shed light on the *processes of suspension that may be practiced in
> Dialogue*. As the artist must *suspend *the reflex to make a painting in
> the same old way in order that *creative processes may present new
> formulations*, in dialogue we may suspend the usual understanding of
> dialogue (per Bohm) so that *creative processes may present new
> formulations*.
>
> Obviously the "usual understanding of dialogue" is that it is *just
> reflexive, mechanical talk*. Bohm says he gives it different meaning
> which seems to mean that he goes to the origin of the idea of dialogue in
> the Greek which has something to do with the *structure of the universe as
> Reason and Meaning*.
>
> Part of the problems of modern civilization is that both artists and
> scientists must formulate their discoveries using language that fits the
> paradigm of physical evolution -- that is we must use the language that has
> evolved. Even to talk about the inadequacy of language, we must use the
> inadequate language. Is it possible to see similarity here of using the
> electron microscope to measure an electron?
>
> My view as artist is that just as science discovered that measuring an
> electron with an electron measuring device is inadequate because the
> electron that measures is indivisible from the electron that is measured --
> similarly the word that may be used to *measure and describe experience*is itself
> *a measure of experience*.
>
> Pat (of anyone), if you're reading this, I'd appreciate your thoughts on
> the above notions re measuring and describing experience with words that are
> measures and descriptions of experience. -- dl
>
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:48 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities
>
> Eric, that appears to be a paraphrase of material in *On Creativity* where
> Bohm addresses how Scientists and Artists have similar goals, etc. It
> should not have been in quotation marks. My apology. -- dl
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* eric scott nelson <obsolete_idiom@hotmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:33 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities
>
> where can i find "In the same way, scientists do that except the
> scientists (and the artist says Bohm) intend their language maps to
> represent "things" in space and time."? is that from "On Dialogue"? what
> page(s)?
> -esn
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities
> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:39:41 -0500
>
> More on this theme:
>
> Rajath and I talked briefly about Googling up some material, maybe from
> Wikipedia, and then presenting it online *as if* we (*our identity*) knew and
> had that knowledge all along.
>
> It can give a little pleasure "rush". I've done that and noticed the
> rush, and evidently Rajath had also.
>
> Are we the only ones or are we the only ones able to see that talking
> about it is a use of db/thought presented in *Though as a System*? I
> know, of course, that Pat knows because she has talked about it and pointed
> it out on list.
>
> Is not that another little example of a *self without a territory*? And
> doesn't tas give us a way to talk about that kind of situation without *digging
> deeper the false identity hole?* -- dl
>
>
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Monday, December 03, 2007 1:31 PM
> *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] Language, Map, and Email Identities
>
> Language can create a *mental scenario*, something like a *map*. In a
> way, that's what novelists do. The science fiction novelist may construct
> a language map which may only stand for fantasy.
>
> In the same way, scientists do that except the scientists (and the
> artist says Bohm) intend their language maps to represent "things" in space
> and time. Something like that. The *map* or *mental scenario* created by
> the fiction writer only has a *make-believe reality*. The map is not
> intended to be used to explore space-time.
>
> I have read two or three little essays regarding how people can "get on
> line" and *create an identity*, i.e., create *imagery* for the *imagination
> of others* -- and then become confused about that *identity as if* it
> might actually be their identity, what they *actually are*.
>
> For example, someone could log onto a *chat line* and create a completely
> false *identity* in someone's mind.
>
> In such a case, would it not be adequate to say that was a *self identity
> without a territory*
>
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/5250496c/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 7 19:04:12 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 7 19:06:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self, Society and Proprioception
Message-ID: <20071207.130630.2428.158.ae.dropper@juno.com>
PREFACE
The material in the two conversations that follow is varied, yet
complementary. The first conversation, "Self, Society, and
Proprioception" is basically concerned with Dr. Bohm's analysis of what
we call the "self", the "ego", or the "me". It is suggested that this
self, though compelling in its demands and projections, is essentially an
image-structure, with no substantial reality independent of the
projections themselves. Further, these projections, though experienced as
quite unique and personal, derive from the larger societal pool, and are
therefore generic in essence. Particular combinations do indeed have a
certain novelty, but Dr. Bohm raises serious questions as to whether any
person's "private mixture" (the root meaning of idiosyncrasy) really
constitutes a self as we normally think of it.
Dr. Bohm then proceeds to lead the reader toward the possibility of
having a direct experience of the mirage-like nature of the self. He
points out that through basic common sense we can see the difficulties
created by the self. But this very observation, and any action proceeding
from it, is usually rooted in the apparent creation of a second self, who
is watching, and acting upon, the first self. This is the problem of the
observer and the observed, a cognitive structure which is appropriate and
effective in some domains, but riddled with contradictions when applied
psychologically.
Unfortunately, according to Bohm, this "self watching self' activity is
deeply reflexive, and reinforced by the society at large. What to do?
Here Bohm introduces the notion of proprioception. By this he means a
quality of awareness, attention, or observation that is something other
than one projected self observing another projected self. What, then, is
this awareness, and how might one encounter it? These are the issues
explored in the first conversation. Lee Nichol
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 7 19:06:26 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 7 19:06:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
Message-ID: <20071207.130630.2428.160.ae.dropper@juno.com>
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but
indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a
"something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this
imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral
experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i
think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I
need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the
world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead
of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are
you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when
he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be
ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances
which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of
what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
"sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises.
Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what
further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
"suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal.
The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is
read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be
able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
"suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun.
And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
"funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/45731e0e/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 7 19:05:52 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 7 19:06:27 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Self, Society and Proprioception
Message-ID: <20071207.130630.2428.159.ae.dropper@juno.com>
This piece that I had scanned is almost cleaned up now. I will send it a
little at a time and then try to figure out how to attach the whole piece
at once - at least to dl so he can get it onto his website.
-- funny
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 19:06:37 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 7 19:10:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <47593703.000001.03240@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <20071206.113837.2428.146.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<47593703.000001.03240@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <c47283890712071006n7f326030m5e8360155c6d09c7@mail.gmail.com>
I: Yes, me too in some ways. But at a certain point, I feel something
missing and have to go for the actual physical interaction. It can
definitely equate with acting and pretending! Fantasy works only up to a
point.
Musical improvisation is necessary and satisfactory up to a point, but I
prefer ensemble improvisation. And this is definitely a lonely field
because today only jazz musicians are supposed to improvise.Think of this as
both actuality and metaphor. Anyone else?
On Dec 7, 2007 7:05 AM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
> Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i
> think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I
> need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the
> world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead of
> playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are you
> coping with this?
>
>
>
>
> *-------Original Message-------*
>
> *From:* ae.dropper@juno.com
> *Date:* 06.12.2007 17:34:58
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
> Language,Map, and Email Identities
>
>
> "The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when he
> advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be ready to
> sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which may point
> to an *entirely fresh approach* to their material."
>
> from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
>
> This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
> again and again.
>
> The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of
> what the group
>
> is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
> "sacrifices"
>
> [of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises.
> Or, one
>
> could say that one is "*spending*" the satisfaction of the response on
> what further
>
> "*suspending*" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
>
>
>
> Simple suspension alone though has yielded
>
> surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
>
> [the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really interested
> in "suspension."
>
> Not recommending; just reporting.
>
> -- funny
>
>
> >"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
> "suspension" are
> >appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal. The
> fruits of
> >suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is read
> or heard] are
> >that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
> to respond
> >with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be
> able to do this
> >because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
> story short, with
> >each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
> >Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
> investment'. This is the
> >logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
> "suspension'.
> >Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
> yourself responding with
> >things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun.
> And there is no
> >rush for the "completion."
> >-- funny
>
> Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
> "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
> could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
> some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
> there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
> nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
> please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/ccad7639/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 7 19:38:08 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 7 19:37:58 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with a single thought.
Message-ID: <20071207.133813.2428.162.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The most difficult thing to do is to stay with a single thought.
What the thought is, although it matters a lot, is less important
by light years, then the fact of staying with it. This "fact of staying
with a thought," and following it to its progenitors, and continuing
'down
the line' with it through its strata of "generations." is of the nature
of true inquiry.
Every true inquiry into thought will lead in the end to an inquiry into
self image.
Bohm always left this for last in his seminars and says why he does so
too. It is because
there is zero chance that cold inquiry into self image will lead anywhere
but into
defensiveness that knows no equal and that the workings of thought as a
system
in general must be understood somewhat first - before tackling the BIG
ONE.
-- funny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/0593e13e/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Fri Dec 7 19:46:14 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Fri Dec 7 19:50:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
In-Reply-To: <4535E026-392E-4CC4-AEED-860B89B16505@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <926775.50693.qm@web57410.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Don. Evening came, and morning followed--the fifth day. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened: God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was. AL
On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:43 PM, Don Lay wrote:
dl: Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not the one doing the whining.
Bore us some more about the "last time you saw Dave". Did you see Dave sitting on df's sofa, or df sitting on Dave's soffa?
If you are so bothered by what I'm working at, why not hit delete?
Is this too complicated for you? -- dl
This sort of reply has nothing to do with dialogue or the spirit of dialogue. It is a defensive counter to what you must value as your precious truths or assumptions or business. But this is a dialogue list, not an arena for us to watch you struggling with a lot of ideas the significance of which are beyond question any question. HItting delete has nothing to do with dialogue. In fact it would be destructive of the dialogue, unless it is a last resort. Dialogue, in case you have forgotten, is about vulnerability, not defense. If you feel it is valuable to spend years asking and answering the same questions over and over while ignoring responses that just might enrich your inquiry, why not just just do it in your own time. Instead of writing what sound like childish complaints to those who would really like to go deeper with you.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/e260a45a/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 20:00:01 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 7 20:03:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with a single thought.
In-Reply-To: <20071207.133813.2428.162.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071207.133813.2428.162.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712071100h5b302fb7x51622a70593d0184@mail.gmail.com>
the nature of true inquiry.
I: Can we not add to this 'the purpose of true inquiry'?
How about finding out what all those different parts of self have to tell
us, then getting them to work together in the interest of physical and
mental health. If we are the microcosm of the macrocosm, would that not be
essential? And for me, thet requires the balance and ensemble, which
implies good, working - not imaginary - relationships, of all who are and
all that is.
On Dec 7, 2007 1:38 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> The most difficult thing to do is to stay with a single thought.
> What the thought *is, *although it matters a lot, is less important
> by light years, then the fact of staying with it. This "fact of staying
> with a thought," and following it to its progenitors, and continuing 'down
>
> the line' with it through its strata of "generations." is of the nature of
> true inquiry.
>
> Every true inquiry into thought will lead in the end to an inquiry into
> self image.
> Bohm always left this for last in his seminars and says why he does so
> too. It is because
> there is zero chance that cold inquiry into self image will lead anywhere
> but into
> defensiveness that knows no equal and that the workings of thought as a
> system
> in general must be understood somewhat first - before tackling the BIG
> ONE.
>
> -- funny
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/b70da0af/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Fri Dec 7 20:17:23 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Dec 7 20:21:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
In-Reply-To: <926775.50693.qm@web57410.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <926775.50693.qm@web57410.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9A9EB8D0-1FE1-43DA-8CAE-FD3EF810BC17@dc.rr.com>
On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
> Hi Don. Evening came, and morning followed--the fifth day. Then God
> said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures:
> cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it
> happened: God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle,
> and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it
> was. AL
Hi, AL
I would say that this is true with one exception. Mosquitos. I have
heard on good authority that he realized that mosquitos were a
mistake, but it was too late to do anything about it,
don
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:43 PM, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> dl: Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not the one doing the whining.
>>
>> Bore us some more about the "last time you saw Dave". Did you see
>> Dave sitting on df's sofa, or df sitting on Dave's soffa?
>>
>> If you are so bothered by what I'm working at, why not hit delete?
>>
>> Is this too complicated for you? -- dl
>
> This sort of reply has nothing to do with dialogue or the spirit of
> dialogue. It is a defensive counter to what you must value as your
> precious truths or assumptions or business. But this is a dialogue
> list, not an arena for us to watch you struggling with a lot of
> ideas the significance of which are beyond question any question.
> HItting delete has nothing to do with dialogue. In fact it would be
> destructive of the dialogue, unless it is a last resort. Dialogue,
> in case you have forgotten, is about vulnerability, not defense. If
> you feel it is valuable to spend years asking and answering the
> same questions over and over while ignoring responses that just
> might enrich your inquiry, why not just just do it in your own
> time. Instead of writing what sound like childish complaints to
> those who would really like to go deeper with you.
>>
> don
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/c0f56e87/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 7 21:03:59 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 7 21:04:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
Message-ID: <20071207.150429.2428.164.ae.dropper@juno.com>
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment"
or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many
childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when
I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not
feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying
something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for
its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to
just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but
indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a
"something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this
imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral
experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i
think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I
need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the
world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead
of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are
you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when
he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be
ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances
which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of
what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
"sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises.
Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what
further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
"suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal.
The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is
read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be
able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
"suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun.
And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
"funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/dec3ef3c/attachment.html