From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 03:30:09 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 8 04:33:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion
In-Reply-To: <1005B500-F775-4D42-A839-139546499562@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F585E2BD2A2153A531121AA5F20@phx.gbl>
And that was also the passion of the Christ. The ability to not only endure
pain but to actually rise above it and go beyond it to freedom.
Absolutely, Susan. k
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:45:17 +0000
>
>Welcome back. This is good stuff. It fits my image of passion very well.
>thanks
>don
>
>PS this is probably my last post here for a few days as we leave for
>California first thing in the morning
>
>don
>
>
>On 6 Nov 2006, at 19:58, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>>Hi everyone. I’ve been taking a vacation from the list for a while but I
>>have been logging on to the archives occasionally to keep up with what’s
>>going on. When I saw the subject of passion had come up again I decided
>>it was time to jump back in.
>>
>>As some of you know, I agree with many of Williams’ ideas about passion
>>(I think, although I didn’t know that he had written something specific
>>about it. If anyone has a link to what he has written I would love to
>>read it.) I love the direction this particular conversation about passion
>>has taken. I found the words associated with the etymology of passion
>>very interesting, particularly the ideas that passion is linked with
>>suffering and is passive. So I did a little research.
>>
>>Here’s what I found from the online Etymology Dictionary:
>>
>>Passive: 1388, in grammatical sense (opposed to active), from L. passivus
>>"capable of feeling or suffering," from pass-, pp. stem of pati "to
>>suffer" (see passion). Meaning "not active" is first recorded 1477.
>>Passive resistance first attested 1819 in Scott's "Ivanhoe"; re-coined by
>>Gandhi c.1906 in S.Africa.
>>
>>Suffer: c.1225, "to undergo, endure" (pain, death, punishment, judgment,
>>grief), from Anglo-Fr. suffrir, from O.Fr. sufrir, from V.L. *sufferire,
>>variant of L. sufferre "to bear, undergo, endure, carry or put under,"
>>from sub "up, under" + ferre "to carry" (see infer). Replaced O.E.
>>þolian, þrowian. Meaning "to tolerate, allow" is recorded from c.1290.
>>
>>I think it’s very interesting that the idea of being passive is linked to
>>feelings and emotions. In this sense, passive is linked to our internal
>>states. And that makes a lot of sense when I think of passion. In that
>>sense, passion is an internal state and passion itself is not an outer
>>form of action. However, it is an internal motivation and also an
>>internal source of energy for taking action in the outer world. And even
>>when we talk about "being" passive, the word being refers to an internal
>>experience.
>>
>>So in this definition of passive, it seems to be talking about a highly
>>emotional state and it’s linked to Gandhi. I would say that Gandhi was
>>very passionate about his cause and took very effective outer action as a
>>result of that passion. So, Passion is passive in the sense it is more of
>>a motivation and source of energy for taking action rather than the
>>action itself.
>>
>>When it comes to the suffering aspect of things, I think most people
>>assign the idea of suffering to someone who is passionate enough about
>>their cause to endure almost anything to be effective in furthering their
>>cause. However, it’s been my experience that when I am passionate about
>>something the kind of inner energy and motivation I have takes me beyond
>>my fears and beyond any pain I might have previously associated with a
>>particular action so that I no longer suffered from taking the action.
>>But the people looking on at my actions might very easily have thought I
>>was suffering because if they were taking that action (without passion)
>>they would be suffering.
>>
>>And I can give you an example of this. As some of you know, when I was in
>>my 20’s I was agoraphobic. It reached a point where I was terrified of
>>walking half a block to the store on the corner of my street. At the same
>>time I had a desire for freedom. And it was developing a passion for
>>freedom that finally got me beyond my agoraphobia (I think you asked me
>>about this once Don, and I finally know the answer). When I first began
>>to use my passion as a way to go beyond my fears and move out into the
>>world again, people who knew me imagined that I was suffering from some
>>of the positions I was putting myself into. However, what was really
>>happening was that the passion gave me the strength and energy to endure
>>the first pangs of fear and move beyond my fears and pain into the
>>accomplishment of my goal of freedom. The passion I felt was actually the
>>ability to surpass the pain and go beyond suffering.
>>
>>On the other hand, being dispassionate is considered to be a popular
>>theme these days and is associated with an absences of emotions and a
>>strong use of reason and logic as a motivation for actions. And I think
>>we can all begin to see that it really doesn’t work very well. Logic and
>>reasoning without passion are ineffective. And I think our current
>>political situation is a graphic representation of that idea.
>>
>>Look at Bush and Kerry. Bush is passionate about his cause. Kerry
>>believed in a dispassionate form of logic and reasoning. Body language
>>alone tells us which form of motivation is effective and which isn’t. And
>>of course, if that isn’t enough then simply look at the effects.
>>
>>So, passion is not an action in and of itself, so it’s passive in that
>>sense, but it takes desire as an underlying energy to take action. Desire
>>fuels action. The stronger the desire, the more effective the action.
>>Passion is a type of fuel that sustains us and gives us the endurance
>>which can even take us beyond our fear, pain, and suffering. And that was
>>also the passion of the Christ. The ability to not only endure pain but
>>to actually rise above it and go beyond it to freedom.
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 03:33:13 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 8 04:36:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores
In-Reply-To: <454FBAA0.000003.04508@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F64FBFE870DA1A752F1EBBA5F20@phx.gbl>
It was only a reference to it. I'll try to go through my History and find
them and send you the URLs. There is an article your wrote on Roosevelt and
the defense of the Jews in WW2. I think it was on the same site.
>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 23:43:44 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>
>From: Morgan Jett
> >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.
>
>I think that website is probably no longer operational. It's an old one
>that
>i had forgotten about. There were a number of my early papers on that one
>but i don't think I have a copy. They are probably obsolete anyway because
>my thoughts have evolved considerably over time. Where did you find that
>article on compassion?
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 03:38:30 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 8 04:41:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] checking
In-Reply-To: <20061106195621.5445.qmail@web52901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2179FF71E4A98C2398F489A5F20@phx.gbl>
Well - for whomever might be interested - this afternoon I posted the info
that Zoe is not in California. She's on the East Coast in our time zone.
Lots of people go to the West Coast for lots of reasons - for crying out
loud! k
>From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] checking
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:56:20 -0800 (PST)
>
>At the risk of showing apathy or offending someone, I really don't care
>about this, but it is fine for others to expend energy attending to it.
>Just voicing a "peripheral" perspective.
>
>Cheers!
>kari
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com>
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Sent: Monday, November 6, 2006 11:10:36 AM
>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? (don)
>
>MIT branch in california? Did "Zoe" move? Extended visit
>with parents in CA?
>
>Why would one of Kirsten's e-mails
>come from Zoe's e-mail address? Just one. Why would Kirsten and
>Zoe conspire to use MIT technology to send one of Kirsten's e-mails
>from Zoe's address? Why would they conspire to do something virtually
>unnoticable and something that, if noticed, would reveal either their
>mutual identity or ...
>
>Or what?
>
>[In cop work - look for motive - they say]
>
>pat
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 06:27:54 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 8 07:31:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue
In-Reply-To: <F3E349AD-59AC-42E3-AD5C-1FF53B097BCE@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F161AB7DB3584DEE1EC05ABA5F20@phx.gbl>
But how can we pre-judge subscribers?
One way is to ask them the same question we want Zoe to answer - why do you
want to be on this list, what do you hope to get from it, what do you hope
to contribute? Let them post the answer, and when you subscribe them,
include their answer. That's what my other group does. k
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:36:21 +0000
>
>But how can we pre-judge subscribers? At present when someone subscribes
>all we do is send them a greeting that describes what the basic idea of
>this list is and asks them to agree to this. If they do then they are
>automatically subscribed. Of course we don\t really know if they do.
>Because we just assume their agreement and I, usually its me, just click
>on accepted. But is there another way? I don't know. I tried once. with a
>new subscription request that came from someone with what sounded like a
>strange e-mail address. At least, it sounced that way to me. It was as I
>recall, shortblackskirt@hotmal.com. So rather than reject it I wrote and
>asked what their interest in Bohm dialogue was. And I gut back a scathing
>reply saying that he/she wanted nothing to do with a list that asked such
>questions. All i can say is that it must have been a good call. But we
>can't just count on that.
>
>don
>
>On 6 Nov 2006, at 17:52, Karilen Mays wrote:
>
>>I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>>obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of this
>>listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we want to stay
>>true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David Bohm or something I
>>believe it is) of the list, then we should have no problem ousting those
>>who aren't on board with that. It is nothing personal; it's just terms of
>>use. If we believe in creating a container and a core possibly, then
>>maybe we should work on that before challenging ourselves by letting the
>>more chaotic ones in. Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows
>>the value of having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't open tend
>>to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is that the
>>case here as well?
>>
>>Great post Lynne!
>>
>>kari
>>
>>----- Original Message ----
>>From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Sent: Monday, November 6, 2006 8:19:49 AM
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Nov 7 07:14:01 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Nov 8 08:48:58 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
Message-ID: <20061106.224033.328.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
Don L writes: 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.
You might be interested in how this "gender genie" works. It analyzes
writing by the use of certain words that are most common in the way men
and women talk.
http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.html
Franis
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Nov 7 07:29:56 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Nov 8 08:48:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue
Message-ID: <20061106.224033.328.3.franis_franis@juno.com>
In my small town of Bolinas, we had this guy named Gary, who would - at
some moment he deemed "appropriate," he would walk on his hands across
the stage at every performance in the Bolinas community center -
certainly it was a completely unaskedfor addition to these performances.
There was also this guy called Pine, who had a very loud singing voice
but no ability to carry a tune, so he became known for toning. In fact,
the two of these guys would sometimes get together and, while Gary was
walking on his hands across the state, Pine would break out in his very
loud Gyuoto monk voice chanting something to accompany Gary's act.
At first they got only shocked disapproval. As time went on and Gary or
Pine persisted together or separately, all performers would just know
that this vinyette of walking-on-hands or chanting was going to happen,
whether they wanted it or not. Some performers began to plan on it, such
as, "when Gary walks on his hands you be ready to play this tune, etc."
Generally, Gary's act with Pine began to get no acknowledgment as if it
never happened, or sometimes there would be spontaneously appreciative or
polite applause - we could never tell which.
What was most interesting was when someone from out of town would perform
and these two would horn in on their act - and the MC would get up and
say, "Let's hear it for Gary!" And the performer would scowl. We all got
much enjoyment from Pine & Gary's shock value.
Franis
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:37:28 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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 w at david-bohm.net Tue Nov 7 08:13:43 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Wed Nov 8 09:17:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores
References: <BAY22-F64FBFE870DA1A752F1EBBA5F20@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <45503227.000001.04204@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Morgan Jett
>It was only a reference to it. I'll try to go through my History and
>find them and send you the URLs. There is an article your wrote
>on Roosevelt and the defense of the Jews in WW2. I think it was
>on the same site.
No, that's not me. I never wrote such an article.
William
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061107/901c8f27/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 7 11:25:09 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Wed Nov 8 12:33:16 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <C174C23B.7D19%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <C1760F85.37EA%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Lynne,
I agree ... Its a real dance between our history and how we form our
perceptions and what experiences we draw to us ...
At the moment I find this group quite hesitant in attempting to make the
process conscious ... Or the way the process is made conscious is not
through personal vulnerability and learning.
I don?t mean to rubbish this group ... I have been inspired by some of the
postings. I guess most of the time I thought the intention wasn?t to make
the process of this group conscious rather what David Bohm meant about
dialogue.
I?m certainly up for this group focusing more of its process.
Gill
on 6/11/06 16:43, Lynne Tolk at lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com wrote:
> Hi Gill,
>
> I would like to add from my own experience, that how I perceive myself as to
> ?core? or ?periphery? also has much to do with how I expect to be perceived.
> This expectation is influenced by how people here respond to me, but it is
> also influenced by my own history and my own self-image. One of the very cool
> things about this sort of group is that the process gets to be more conscious.
> I learn as much or more from my own responses (and or ability to respond).
>
> Lynne
> On 11/6/06 10:21 AM, "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061107/f3fbbb2a/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Nov 7 11:33:06 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 8 12:36:39 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
In-Reply-To: <20061108110004.0AB7224743@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFA90376D0.9ABD67B7-ON8525721F.00391493-8525721F.0039F6A5@dialogos.com>
Rodger __What the questions have in common is an attempt to measure
importance -- in this way they give evidence to a search for a meaning.
Not ideas of meaning, as with the fancies alotted to social position, or
ideas of being and enlightenment etc -- but meaning in respect to a sense
of actual fulfilment regarding ones unique purpose in life. _R
.
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:59:36 -0500
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
.
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/20061107/b61c8d17/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Nov 7 11:55:23 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 8 12:58:58 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: seeming artistic
In-Reply-To: <20061108110004.0AB7224743@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF768791C8.FEABF314-ON8525721F.003AA136-8525721F.003C00E1@dialogos.com>
Rodger __my obvious assumptions are countless.
Behind -aspire to seeming artistic- is the assumption that most people seek
to fit into a clique, group, community, or collective with which they
identify in some way.
Behind the statement about people who -passionately- explore, in this case,
audio-visual dialogue, is they tend to have no time for issues about how
other people are doing, rather they tend to be wholly focused on the one
thing about which they are inspired._R
.
.
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: seeming artistic
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
What are the assumptions behind these words, I wonder? k
.
>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com:
aspire to seeming
.
that they have little to no time for issues about how all the other people
dialogue
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061107/85739fbe/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Nov 7 12:14:35 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 8 13:18:12 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <20061108110004.0AB7224743@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF0146B3AF.2319DD73-ON8525721F.003CB945-8525721F.003DC29F@dialogos.com>
Rodger __After decades of working with organizations / global projects, I
came to a conclussion that usually people who believe they are the core of
something, re: believe themselves in position to include or exclude others
in that core, are identifying with a belief which is more than likely
actually making them periphery to the deeper process unfolding. _R
.
From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
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.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061107/9a8ba956/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Nov 7 12:58:37 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 8 14:02:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: oppressed & oppressor
In-Reply-To: <20061108110004.0AB7224743@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF43A64798.08AE1675-ON8525721F.003DE218-8525721F.0041CA9F@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Back in the pioneering days of Western Canada, my Japanese
grandparents worked hard. During WWII all Japanese Canadians had everything
they owned seized, and their families were put into camps.
In the USA when the Japanese Americans were released from those camps,
after WWII, their assets were returned to them. More or less.
But in Canada when the Japanese Canadians were released from camps -
nothing of what they owned was returned. This was formally acknowledged by
the Canadian Government in the Redress in 1988.
So even though the Japanese Canadians had fought in the Canadian army in
WWII, those soldiers returned to their homeland to their families being
released from camps; homeless, penniless and no longer welcome in towns or
cities they helped pioneer.
My grandparents moved eastward and got on with creating another livelihood
for their family.
The Redress in 1988 was actually a close call because half of the Japanese
Canadians who endured that experience of fighting for a government which
then took everything away from them -- were afraid of that government, that
society, and their own emotions -- so would not speak.
The point is, long after the historic incident, the oppression & oppressor
lived on in the oppressed. It is in this way that the oppressed is mostly
needing to free THEMSELVES from THEMSELVES._R
.
.
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:24:24 +0000
From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
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
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061107/57706156/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Nov 7 13:15:11 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 8 14:18:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: doing good deeds
In-Reply-To: <20061108110004.0AB7224743@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF12CC9B57.D67C9216-ON8525721F.00421F65-8525721F.00434EE3@dialogos.com>
Rodger __hi Dorothy, as you know, good deeds are like beauty, re: in the
eye of the beholder.
Being human is being human. Caring is caring. loving is loving. They prove
to be what they are by what comes in response to them.
It might be said that those are essential expressions from the heart, and
are given freely. But if they are given with hidden agenda then they become
something else.
I think doing good deeds is more about easing conscience, earning
recognition, and/or maintaining a place within a group or community of some
kind._R
.
.
From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Do you know what I am saying Rodger?
Why is being human and caring and loving doing good deeds? D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061107/549ca927/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Nov 7 13:17:11 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 8 14:20:45 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <20061108110004.0AB7224743@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF0E71FD8C.DAA571BF-ON8525721F.004366D2-8525721F.00437E0E@dialogos.com>
Rodger __yes, me too._R
From: Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
I learn as much or more from my own responses (and or ability to
respond). Lynne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061107/9be7ac8c/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Nov 7 13:29:53 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 8 14:33:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: no return
In-Reply-To: <20061108110004.0AB7224743@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFF92C7FE2.390355C0-ON8525721F.004474DD-8525721F.0044A7A1@dialogos.com>
Rodger __not to demean your words pat, but it strikes me that we are only
ever at a point of no return. Where else is there?_R
.
.
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] checking
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
Bohm, 25 years ago gave it an optimistic 50 years (to the point of
no return). pat
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061107/45d345d3/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Nov 7 13:42:28 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 8 14:46:01 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion
In-Reply-To: <20061108110004.0AB7224743@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF454E0BE4.00ACAA42-ON8525721F.00451F8C-8525721F.0045CE93@dialogos.com>
Rodger__ Yay! good to see your words again Susan -- missed you. _R
.
From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061107/62c2231e/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Nov 7 13:46:07 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 8 14:49:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Japan & New England
In-Reply-To: <20061108110004.0AB7224743@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF6EDEBFB8.608C05B3-ON8525721F.0045F95D-8525721F.00462437@dialogos.com>
Rodger __my excessive number of comments in todays dialogue will be it for
a month or so as I am off to Japan, then New England._R
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061107/3d9ac202/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 7 14:17:49 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Wed Nov 8 15:23:46 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <OF0146B3AF.2319DD73-ON8525721F.003CB945-8525721F.003DC29F@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C17637FD.37FA%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
I certainly agree with this Rodger ... And enjoy your travels.
Gill
on 7/11/06 11:14, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
wrote:
> Rodger __After decades of working with organizations / global projects, I came
> to a conclussion that usually people who believe they are the core of
> something, re: believe themselves in position to include or exclude others in
> that core, are identifying with a belief which is more than likely actually
> making them periphery to the deeper process unfolding. _R
> .
> From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> 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.
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061107/04ce2168/attachment.html
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 14:45:54 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Wed Nov 8 15:49:23 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <C1760F85.37EA%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F653C05C1AE1037D0577EFB7F20@phx.gbl>
I thought the intention wasn’t to make the process of this group conscious
rather what David Bohm meant about dialogue. (Gill)
Hi Gill,
For me, attempting to make the process conscious and sharing interpretations
of what David Bohm meant about dialogue are not separate.
Regina
>From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
>Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:25:09 +0000
>
>Hi Lynne,
>
>I agree ... Its a real dance between our history and how we form our
>perceptions and what experiences we draw to us ...
>
>At the moment I find this group quite hesitant in attempting to make the
>process conscious ... Or the way the process is made conscious is not
>through personal vulnerability and learning.
>
>I don¹t mean to rubbish this group ... I have been inspired by some of the
>postings. I guess most of the time I thought the intention wasn¹t to make
>the process of this group conscious rather what David Bohm meant about
>dialogue.
>
>I¹m certainly up for this group focusing more of its process.
>
>Gill
>
>
>on 6/11/06 16:43, Lynne Tolk at lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com wrote:
>
> > Hi Gill,
> >
> > I would like to add from my own experience, that how I perceive myself
>as to
> > ³core² or ³periphery² also has much to do with how I expect to be
>perceived.
> > This expectation is influenced by how people here respond to me, but it
>is
> > also influenced by my own history and my own self-image. One of the
>very cool
> > things about this sort of group is that the process gets to be more
>conscious.
> > I learn as much or more from my own responses (and or ability to
>respond).
> >
> > Lynne
> > On 11/6/06 10:21 AM, "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 doesn¹t 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
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Nov 7 15:34:21 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Nov 8 16:40:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion
Message-ID: <20061107.093422.2360.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Susan! Great to hear from you!
I am reminded that "suffering" is often "in the eyes of the beholder."
pat
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:58:43 -0700 "Susan Clemons"
<Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Hi everyone. I?ve been taking a vacation from the list for a while but I
have been logging on to the archives occasionally to keep up with what?s
going on. When I saw the subject of passion had come up again I decided
it was time to jump back in.
As some of you know, I agree with many of Williams? ideas about passion
(I think, although I didn?t know that he had written something specific
about it. If anyone has a link to what he has written I would love to
read it.) I love the direction this particular conversation about passion
has taken. I found the words associated with the etymology of passion
very interesting, particularly the ideas that passion is linked with
suffering and is passive. So I did a little research.
Here?s what I found from the online Etymology Dictionary:
Passive: 1388, in grammatical sense (opposed to active), from L. passivus
"capable of feeling or suffering," from pass-, pp. stem of pati "to
suffer" (see passion). Meaning "not active" is first recorded 1477.
Passive resistance first attested 1819 in Scott's "Ivanhoe"; re-coined by
Gandhi c.1906 in S.Africa.
Suffer: c.1225, "to undergo, endure" (pain, death, punishment, judgment,
grief), from Anglo-Fr. suffrir, from O.Fr. sufrir, from V.L. *sufferire,
variant of L. sufferre "to bear, undergo, endure, carry or put under,"
from sub "up, under" + ferre "to carry" (see infer). Replaced O.E.
?olian, ?rowian. Meaning "to tolerate, allow" is recorded from c.1290.
I think it?s very interesting that the idea of being passive is linked to
feelings and emotions. In this sense, passive is linked to our internal
states. And that makes a lot of sense when I think of passion. In that
sense, passion is an internal state and passion itself is not an outer
form of action. However, it is an internal motivation and also an
internal source of energy for taking action in the outer world. And even
when we talk about "being" passive, the word being refers to an internal
experience.
So in this definition of passive, it seems to be talking about a highly
emotional state and it?s linked to Gandhi. I would say that Gandhi was
very passionate about his cause and took very effective outer action as a
result of that passion. So, Passion is passive in the sense it is more of
a motivation and source of energy for taking action rather than the
action itself.
When it comes to the suffering aspect of things, I think most people
assign the idea of suffering to someone who is passionate enough about
their cause to endure almost anything to be effective in furthering their
cause. However, it?s been my experience that when I am passionate about
something the kind of inner energy and motivation I have takes me beyond
my fears and beyond any pain I might have previously associated with a
particular action so that I no longer suffered from taking the action.
But the people looking on at my actions might very easily have thought I
was suffering because if they were taking that action (without passion)
they would be suffering.
And I can give you an example of this. As some of you know, when I was in
my 20?s I was agoraphobic. It reached a point where I was terrified of
walking half a block to the store on the corner of my street. At the same
time I had a desire for freedom. And it was developing a passion for
freedom that finally got me beyond my agoraphobia (I think you asked me
about this once Don, and I finally know the answer). When I first began
to use my passion as a way to go beyond my fears and move out into the
world again, people who knew me imagined that I was suffering from some
of the positions I was putting myself into. However, what was really
happening was that the passion gave me the strength and energy to endure
the first pangs of fear and move beyond my fears and pain into the
accomplishment of my goal of freedom. The passion I felt was actually the
ability to surpass the pain and go beyond suffering.
On the other hand, being dispassionate is considered to be a popular
theme these days and is associated with an absences of emotions and a
strong use of reason and logic as a motivation for actions. And I think
we can all begin to see that it really doesn?t work very well. Logic and
reasoning without passion are ineffective. And I think our current
political situation is a graphic representation of that idea.
Look at Bush and Kerry. Bush is passionate about his cause. Kerry
believed in a dispassionate form of logic and reasoning. Body language
alone tells us which form of motivation is effective and which isn?t. And
of course, if that isn?t enough then simply look at the effects.
So, passion is not an action in and of itself, so it?s passive in that
sense, but it takes desire as an underlying energy to take action. Desire
fuels action. The stronger the desire, the more effective the action.
Passion is a type of fuel that sustains us and gives us the endurance
which can even take us beyond our fear, pain, and suffering. And that was
also the passion of the Christ. The ability to not only endure pain but
to actually rise above it and go beyond it to freedom.
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061107/4b32f480/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Nov 7 15:55:10 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 8 16:59:25 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
References: <20061106.224033.328.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <006d01c7027c$c57248b0$866c153f@DL01>
Very interesting! However, both paragraphs, below, were scored as male.
Thanks,
Don
> Don L writes: 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.
>
> You might be interested in how this "gender genie" works. It analyzes
> writing by the use of certain words that are most common in the way men
> and women talk.
> http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.html
>
>
> Franis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Tue Nov 7 15:57:34 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 8 17:01:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fw: [jcs-online] Re: Stapp/Atmanspacher and To what
is conscious presented?
Message-ID: <007201c7027d$115243c0$866c153f@DL01>
Frank,
I really like the way Stapp deals with the "persona" problem. Seems to me
this relates to what we were talking about yesterday.
Don
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry P. Stapp" <hpstapp@lbl.gov>
To: <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:20 PM
Subject: RE: [jcs-online] Re: Stapp/Atmanspacher and To what is conscious
presented?
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Philip Benjamin wrote:
> From Philip Benjamin, medinuclear@hotmail.com Re: [jcs-online] the
> Stapp/Atmsanspacher dialogue Nov 1, 06
>
> [Henry Stapp] Tuesday, October 31, 2006 Reply to Ray Mondor
>
> ** I repeatedly use the words "orthodox", "Copenhagen", or "Conventional"
> to
> emphasize the fact that I am describing the quantum theory that is used in
> actual scientific practice, and validated empirically** .
>
> [Philip Benjamin]
> How can any equation, including the Schrodinger, be a definition of
> anything?
HPS: The Schroedinger equation is a equation of motion: it defines
how the mathematically specified quantum state evolves over the course
of time. It gives the way this state is changing over an infinitesimal
interval of time in terms of properties of the state that can be
defined at the *instant* of time that preceeds the infititesimal interval
that follows it. Combined with some rules about how to connect this
mathematically defined evolving state to our conscious experiences the
Schroedinger equation defines the empirically validated predictions of
quantum theory.
> [Henry Stapp] continues
>
> ....trying to understand why the experienced world is so tremendously
> different from the world governed by the currently known laws that make no
> reference to consciousness.... The huge disparity between the structure of
> human experience and the structures generated by the purely physically
> described quantum laws.....
>
> [Philip Benjamin]
>
> This is where the quantum mystics put the cart before the horse. [not
> Henry
> Stapp, a solid brilliant realist]. The normally experienced world is the
> REAL objective physical world, the Gibraltar Rock. It is the Quantum
> Mathematical Probability World which is the MAYA world of Abstraction that
> can NEVER exist outside the quantum mathematical descriptive world of
> finite
> human minds. Alice can see this Wonderland only through quantum goggles.
>
> [Jonathan Edwards] jo.edwards@ucl.ac.uk Saturday, October 28, 2006
>
> All we need is wave function progression punctuated by
> creation/annihilation
> of bosons - what physicists deal with day to day, as I understand it....
> all
> you need is a dual aspect ontology, fermions (matter) and (sentient)
> bosons.
> ....
>
> [Jonathan Edwards] 10-13-06
>
> So Henry Stapp's comments are just about observing. It is the choosing
> process which seems to me supernatural because it seems to obey laws that
> have nothing to do with known physics and as far as I can see is
> unverifiable..... not conscious realities, but non physical chooser that
> for me is the ghost!
HPS: Orthodox QM requires (experimental) choices, and these choices are
not specified in terms of the physically described variables by any known
laws. Since all seem to agree that experiences themselves are realities,
how can one rationally dismiss the possibility that the choices depend
causally/functionally upon these realities. I follow Wm. James's dictum:
"The thought itself is the thinker" I introduce no ghosts, but recognize
that science is based on things we can describe, and our descriptions of
our conscious experiences CAN, and in orthodox quantum theory DO, enter
into the calculations of our predictions about the phenomenal realities.
In the claasical approximation all causation is reduced to physical
causation (causation that is completely expressed in terms of purely
physically described variables), but there is no reason to insist that,
or believe that, this restiction must hold within the more general
quantum theory.
5B> [Joseph Polanik ] Mon, 16 Oct 2006,
>
> What is Quantum Interactive Dualism? Is it Chalmers, one 'stuff'
> matter/energy; with two sets of properties -- the physical & experiential
> properties or Descartes two fundamental substances, matter/energy and mind
> stuff? Some argue that he had three sets of properties:. physical
> properties, mental properties and experiential properties of sensory
> awareness from the union of body and mind/soul.
>
> [Henry Stapp] 10-19-20
>
> It uses two kinds of descriptions: One is psychological description (Bohr,
> 1962, p.3). The other is the quantum description in terms of
> mathematical properties assigned to space-time points..which represent
> "potentialities" for psycho-physical events to occur. These events are the
> most "real" things ... The one underlying "stuff" is an evolving state of
> "information", which is characterized as a structure, different aspects of
> which can act upon each other to influence the development of the whole.
> Certain parts "interpret" other parts, and the whole changes as a
> result of that interaction.
>
> Each of these two properties has a certain persisting "essence", though
> neither is a "substance" in the normal/usual everyday sense of the word
> The
> physically described and psychologically described properties constitute
> QM
> Interactive Dualism.
>
> [Philip Benjamin]
>
> So there are in fact four Things to consider: 1. Physical properties 2.
> Psychological properties 3. Information 4. A persisting essence. Henry
> Stapp
> states: **None of these is a substance in the normal/usual everyday sense
> of
> the term **. What could be this extra ordinary substance? Could it have
> mass, charge, spin? How is this essence PERSISTING , since there is
> constant
> and complete recycling of matter in the cells (electrons, protons,
> neutrons), some within minutes, especially in the brain? Should not these
> same four stuff do the same *tricks* in rocks or plants or animals as in
> humans, particularly since genetically they are all very close (except the
> rocks)?
>
HPS: If one thinks in process terms terms then there is one process,
which has aspects that we can speak about. And we can construct useful
theories that relate those aspects that we can speak about.
> [Henry Stapp]
>
> The point is that in conventional quantum theory the quantum mathematical
> description becomes a description merely of possibilities or
> potentialities,
> not, in general, of an evolving experientable (experiential) reality
> itself.
> Yet this quantum state is precisely the quantum theoretical generalization
> of the classical-physics description of physical reality itself. So where
> did the "physical reality" itself go?
>
> What is the rational basis of the claim that the physical description is
> causally closed when the classical physics description, from which the
> notion of the causal closure of the physical arose, dissolves into mere
> potentialities, and the only realities---as opposed to
> potentialities---that
> are to be found in the phenomenally validated conventional quantum theory
> are described in psychological rather than physical terms?
>
> [Philip Benjamin]
>
> Let me paraphrase this, to see if I understood it correctly. Classical
> physics can describe physical reality.
HPS: This is not a para phrasing! Classical physics described what
classical physics postulated to be physical reality. But
conventional quantum physics claims that the classical
conceptualization was profoundly incorrect at the basic level, even
though it is useful as a way of speaking about the structure of our
perceptions. According to conventional quantum theory the classical
description gets replaced by a quantum mathematical description
that, ontologically speaking, is a description of *potentialities* for the
occurrence of percetpual events that are described "in everydasy
language supplemented by the terminology of classical physical theory."
> Classical physics comes under quantum
> theoretical generalization. So physical reality cannot disappear from the
> quantum state of possibilities or potentialities. It must be one of those
> potentialities. This position is accepted as a quantum mystery.
>
The deterministic classical laws result from an approximation: the
approximation of setting the physically non-zero value of Planck's
artificially to zero. The old "physically reality" turns into a
"potentiality" for "an experiencible event" to occur. I do not think
that the fact that classical physics fails, and needs to be improved,
fundamentally, is a bona fide mystery: there never was a solid reason
for it to be right in the first place. Once one grants that the prime
realities of a scientific theory are our conscious experiences.
I do not think that the proposition the conscious realities are real can
be denied. And if they are real it would be a mystery if they had no
effects.
> Equating events with essence is a category mistake.
HPS: Yes, I think the whole line of approach that is based on substances
rather than process is unhelpful, and I avoid using that terminology.
The useful focus is on relationships between the psychologically
describable aspects of the world process and a mathematical model.
>
> Is there a gratuitous intrusion into quantum physics of personal
> mysticism,
> fortified by Eastern peer-camaraderie? [Once in the early 50's, I stood as
> a
> tourist in the same place where Carl Jung, was on record as an apprentice
> and practitioner of sorcery for 18 months. Jung was a much senior and very
> influential contemporary of many young Quantum theorists of his day,
> especially Heisenberg].
HPS: Jung's connection to Pauli, later on, is well documented. But Bohr
went out of his way to disassociate quantum theory with mysticism of any
kind by emphasizing its deep and secure root in empirical/experimental
practice. Quantum theory is the simplest, and only known, way to make
verifiable predictions about a certain large class of phenomena. Human
person's enter the theory in the way that they do in actual scientific
practice, as agents that set up conditions and observe/perceive
outcomes. These person's are not ghosts, or mystical figments.
And their conscious choices are highly efficacious. The fact that in the
classical approximation every physically efficacious cause is physically
describable does not entail that the causal basis must be restricted
in this way when the uncertainties mandated by the uncertainty principle
become important. Properties that hold in an approximation often do not
hold in general.
> Best regards
>
> Philip Benjamin
> medinuclear@hotmail.com
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> From: "Henry P. Stapp" <hpstapp@lbl.gov>
>> Reply-To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
>> To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [jcs-online] Re: Stapp/Atmanspacher and To what is conscious
>> presented?
>> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:51:13 -0800 (PST)
>>> Polanik: "enduring insight: the distinction between a property and that
>> which has or exhibits that property."
>>
>> HPS: Conscious experiences belong to stream's of conscious
>> experiences, and these streams are part of nature's proceess.
>> This process has aspects that are described in psychological language,
>> in terms of thoughts, ideas, or feelings which have various qualities
>> that have been given names by persons. Each person constitutes an aspect
>> of nature's process that possesses a stream of consciousness. One can
>> properly say, therefore, that a stream of conscious thoughts has
>> psychologically described properties. What "has" a psychologically
>> described property is primarily a conscious experience; secondarily
>> the stream of conscious experiences to which the experience belongs; and
>> tertially the person (an aspect of nature's process) the "has" this
>> stream
>> of consciousness.
>>
>> Polanik: "The next question is: If there is experience occuring; then
>> to what is that experience occuring?"
>>
>> HPS: "To what?" I guess the correct question is "In what?", and the
>> answer
>> is "In a stream of consciousness!"
>>
>> Polanik: "...it follows that there is something real to which experiences
>> occur."
>>
>> HPS: This may be harking back to "I assume that the presentee
>> is whatever entity in the brain experiences consciousness." (See
>> Hameroff, Oct 29) The idea the something in the brain "experiences
>> conscious" goes far beyond what science says. Nor does science tell us
>> that some immaterial entity "experiences consciousness". Experiences
>> occur
>> in streams of conscious, which are aspects of nature's psycho-physical
>> process, and "to" a "person" by appearing in that person's stream of
>> consciousness. Each human person is an aspect of nature's process with
>> both physically described and psychologically described aspects. The
>> physically described aspects specify *potentialities* (objective
>> tndencies, in Heisenberg's words) for certain psychophysical events to
>> occur. Von Neumann has spelled out the currently known rules for the
>> known
>> (to science) connection between the physically and psychologically
>> described aspects of nature's process.
>>
>> Mondor: "But in 1952 David Bohm published an interpretation of QM that...
>> was completely deterministic."
>>
>> HPS: But, in spite of massive intense effort, this result has not
>> been able to be carried over to the domain of special relativity,
>> where particle creation becomes important. [cf. Pearle, quant-ph/0205069]
>> And when, trying to generalize his ideas, Bohm was led to an infinite
>> tower of guiding fields each being guided by a higher one.
>> [Bohm 1990: A new theory of the relationship between mind and matter,
>> Philosophical Psychology 3, 371-286] Logical closure was lost.
>>
>> Edwards: "When I say von Neumann believed in fairies I do not do so
>> lightly. Fairies are supernatural beings the existence of which we can
>> neither observe nor infer,... Abstract Egos seem to be that."
>>
>> HPS: The account I have given above about the place of consciousness
>> in nature and in physics is essentially my understanding of von
>> Neumann. I find no fairies there. The term "abstract ego" highlights
>> the fact that reality contains psychologically described aspects that
>> are tighly tied to the physically described aspects of brains, but are
>> not fixed by specifying the prior physically described (quantum) state
>> of the universe. The quantum state of the universe fixes only the
>> potentialities for (collapse/reduction) events that---and this is the
>> key to the pragmatic success of quantum theory---are closely connected
>> to increments in human knowledge. The events have psychologically
>> described aspects, which are what we observe/experience, or, more
>> precisely, *are* the empirical data They are not superhatural or
>> unobservable, but are rather a core part of the quantum mechanical
>> description, and the only part of nature unequivocally known to be real.
>> But nature's overall process needs a (sub)process that partitions
>> the continuum of potentialities into some set experiencable parts.
>> At least that is how conventional (Copenhagen/vN) QM works in real
>> scientific practice. In that theory there is a psychologically described
>> aspect that is an intgral part of the whole dynamical structure, and that
>> continues to be essential (in connection with process 1) when the brain
>> is
>> made part of the aspect of nature that is described on quantum physical
>> terms.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:jcs-online-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:jcs-online-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
jcs-online-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Tue Nov 7 16:24:05 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Nov 8 18:27:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: Japan & New England
In-Reply-To: <OF6EDEBFB8.608C05B3-ON8525721F.0045F95D-8525721F.00462437@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C1760135.7D63%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Will miss your insights, Rodger. Have a good trip,
Lynne
On 11/7/06 6:46 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
> Rodger __my excessive number of comments in todays dialogue will be it for a
> month or so as I am off to Japan, then New England._R
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- 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/20061107/56181d2f/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 17:24:12 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 8 18:27:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2080F4B46CA41D9246CC76A5F20@phx.gbl>
If this is a duplicate for you, please forgive. I posted it last night, but
it's not in my inbox. k
These comments are made with all due respect.
A great deal of debate has gone into the Zoe-Kris-Peter situation. It is no
secret that I am trying to work out terms for Zoe – not Kris or Peter – to
be reinstated. There is no real evidence that Zoe is Kris or Peter. I am
convinced she is not, because I have enough interaction on which to base my
opinion. Also, Don F. today posted that he tends to agree with me.
Zoe was unsubscribed without warning, without notice, and “on suspicion” of
being Peter and/or Kris. List members didn’t even know she had been bounced.
I guessed, emailed her for confirmation, and because she expressed her
hurt, disappointment and desire to be with us, approached Don privately in
hopes of mediating the situation. Yes, she refused to try to come up with an
“acceptable” answer. But could she possibly have understandable reasons for
refusing such a request, without their signifying she doesn’t want to be
here? What is the meaning of “acceptable”? Look at what’s happening.
She’s bounced without warning or notification “on suspicion”, has no
expectation of recourse or appeal, and now we are talking about her behind
her back, and she can’t defend herself. That’s not what I believe America
is about, much less a Bohm group.
There is much more here than fighting for a friend. There are principles
involved which I risk stating that I am passionate about.
It is kind of fascinating to watch this very sophisticated dance that goes
on here with Peter Krauss and his potential recruits.
K: I do not see this as a sophisticated dance performance, as a “recruiting
center” or a competition for loyalties between groups and group leaders.
Such ideas have more in common with the gang mentality of the streets of New
York. I don’t even want to take it to a historical and international level.
I don’t affiliate with anyone or anything that would limit or try to
punish me for making my own decisions, or insinuate that I’m incapable of
it. If that’s what Bohm is about, I’m really in the wrong place!
It's not fascinating, it's sad & disturbing, alarming to watch intelligent,
sane people stuck on ferreting out whether or not Peter is Peter, Zoe, Kris,
or a maniac, instead of acting on the knowledge that koinonia, passion &
compassion need more than debate about meaning to have meaning.
Exactly why is the group focused on Peter, anyway? What is the fascination?
Hard questions to think about:
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.
K: not just in the past, but now as well. Why is it that I got along with
Kris and Zoe? It certainly wasn’t that I am gullible or senile, as one
member of our list implies. Maybe my age and experience gave me some
insight and expertise that deserves respect.
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.
K: there is a lot I object to here, such as the imbedded threat of
excommunication, and the implication that I don’t have any proprioreception,
indeed any sense at all. Also note the passion in the words. What’s that
all about? Even though I sent only one picture, I will let that go, and
head for the group issue. Don F. specified that images are allowed, subject
to a particular size in a very dignified non-threatening way. Yes, some of
Kris’s images were frighteningly inappropriate. But - Let’s not say “all
Kris’s images were objectionable, therefore all images are objectionable,
especially all Kris’s images. And Zoe is Chris, therefore Zoe is
objectionable.”
Usually, a new order arises out of chaos (which seems to have been the
experience with the earlier incarnation of this list). How can we set up a
more human face to face interaction?
We are pioneering, stretching the original conditions of Dialog by putting
it on the internet. It takes time, effort, patience, and group insight to
work out the kinks.
I propose that all of us reread our Bohm, look at the present situation,
reformulate and restate what we expect of Dialog AND what we can bring to
it. And post it and discuss it. This should not be just a “Zoe-thing”. We
need to be mindful of this always. I shall begin on my statement tonight,
and post it as soon as I have it in an acceptable form. I invite you to do
the same. A consensus could be made, voted on, and posted. I volunteer to
do the compiling, posting for feedback, and editing. Someone else would
need to take care of the website.
"...where everything is allowed and there are no rules."
K: What real good have “rules” and jails done? Do people really need rules
to keep them from killing each other? Have the rules worked?
I propose parameters & principles not rules, to be developed and approved by
the group. Including Zoe. Whether or not the majority agrees with her,
listen to what she is saying. Some of it might make sense.
Further, authors of inappropriate postings should be issued a warning as to
the specific nature of the unacceptable action. Basic courtesy is a must.
Three warnings by the moderator, and the offender is out. Flame wars, i.e.
personal heated arguments, are to be taken off the list. Appropriate
guidelines to be issued before these remedies are put in place. Moderator to
let list members know when a member is on probation for unsubscription.
List rules and aims are customarily set out before a person joins, but we
can also say “back to the drawing board”.
oh darn, where is Kris when we need her – s/he’s right here. So are Zoe and
apparently Peter, too. They never left. And as long as we talk about them
instead of inviting them back, the more of a phantom life their presence
will become.
People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question
might be is that the case here as well? Hmmmmm.
“Peripherals Unite” – I’m with you.
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 17:32:54 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 8 18:36:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: oppressed & oppressor
In-Reply-To: <OF43A64798.08AE1675-ON8525721F.003DE218-8525721F.0041CA9F@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1713B89F4ACC571633BA20A5F20@phx.gbl>
The point is, long after the historic incident, the oppression & oppressor
lived on in the oppressed. It is in this way that the oppressed is mostly
needing to free THEMSELVES from THEMSELVES
Thank you for your personal experience. I absolutely agree with your
conclusion. k
>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: oppressed & oppressor
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 06:58:37 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger __Back in the pioneering days of Western Canada, my Japanese
>grandparents worked hard. During WWII all Japanese Canadians had everything
>they owned seized, and their families were put into camps.
>
>In the USA when the Japanese Americans were released from those camps,
>after WWII, their assets were returned to them. More or less.
>
>But in Canada when the Japanese Canadians were released from camps -
>nothing of what they owned was returned. This was formally acknowledged by
>the Canadian Government in the Redress in 1988.
>
>So even though the Japanese Canadians had fought in the Canadian army in
>WWII, those soldiers returned to their homeland to their families being
>released from camps; homeless, penniless and no longer welcome in towns or
>cities they helped pioneer.
>
>My grandparents moved eastward and got on with creating another livelihood
>for their family.
>
>The Redress in 1988 was actually a close call because half of the Japanese
>Canadians who endured that experience of fighting for a government which
>then took everything away from them -- were afraid of that government, that
>society, and their own emotions -- so would not speak.
>
>The point is, long after the historic incident, the oppression & oppressor
>lived on in the oppressed. It is in this way that the oppressed is mostly
>needing to free THEMSELVES from THEMSELVES._R
>.
>.
>Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:24:24 +0000
>From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>.
>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
>.
>.
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 17:37:33 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 8 18:41:04 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: seeming artistic
In-Reply-To: <OF768791C8.FEABF314-ON8525721F.003AA136-8525721F.003C00E1@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F8493A10F29A30A7AB464AA5F20@phx.gbl>
Thanks for the clarification, Rodger. I mistook your meaning of "seemingly"
as saying that the artistic who seek to fit into an artistic community
aren't really artistic. Sort of like Bourgeois Gentilhomme. Yes, total
agreement that people both want and need to belong to a community that they
have a great deal in common with. The trick to growth is to also connect
with those you have differences with. k
>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: seeming artistic
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 05:55:23 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger __my obvious assumptions are countless.
>
>Behind -aspire to seeming artistic- is the assumption that most people seek
>to fit into a clique, group, community, or collective with which they
>identify in some way.
>
>Behind the statement about people who -passionately- explore, in this case,
>audio-visual dialogue, is they tend to have no time for issues about how
>other people are doing, rather they tend to be wholly focused on the one
>thing about which they are inspired._R
>.
>.
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: seeming artistic
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>.
>What are the assumptions behind these words, I wonder? k
>.
> >From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com:
>aspire to seeming
>.
>that they have little to no time for issues about how all the other people
>dialogue
>.
>.
>_______________________________________________
>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 earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 7 17:43:00 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Wed Nov 8 18:50:59 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-F653C05C1AE1037D0577EFB7F20@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C1766814.3814%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Regina, I would be very happy with both.
Gill
on 7/11/06 13:45, Regina Bensch-Coe at benschcoe@hotmail.com wrote:
> I thought the intention wasn?t to make the process of this group conscious
> rather what David Bohm meant about dialogue. (Gill)
>
>
>
> Hi Gill,
>
> For me, attempting to make the process conscious and sharing interpretations
> of what David Bohm meant about dialogue are not separate.
>
> Regina
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Core/Periphery
>> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:25:09 +0000
>>
>> Hi Lynne,
>>
>> I agree ... Its a real dance between our history and how we form our
>> perceptions and what experiences we draw to us ...
>>
>> At the moment I find this group quite hesitant in attempting to make the
>> process conscious ... Or the way the process is made conscious is not
>> through personal vulnerability and learning.
>>
>> I don?t mean to rubbish this group ... I have been inspired by some of the
>> postings. I guess most of the time I thought the intention wasn?t to make
>> the process of this group conscious rather what David Bohm meant about
>> dialogue.
>>
>> I?m certainly up for this group focusing more of its process.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> on 6/11/06 16:43, Lynne Tolk at lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gill,
>>>
>>> I would like to add from my own experience, that how I perceive myself
>> as to
>>> ?core? or ?periphery? also has much to do with how I expect to be
>> perceived.
>>> This expectation is influenced by how people here respond to me, but it
>> is
>>> also influenced by my own history and my own self-image. One of the
>> very cool
>>> things about this sort of group is that the process gets to be more
>> conscious.
>>> I learn as much or more from my own responses (and or ability to
>> respond).
>>>
>>> Lynne
>>> On 11/6/06 10:21 AM, "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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://space
> s.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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 17:58:44 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 8 19:02:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores
In-Reply-To: <45503227.000001.04204@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F99AC8503F9B8F38EFAF9AA5F20@phx.gbl>
Should the Allies Have Bombed Auschwitz: William J. vanden Heuvel vs. Rafael
Medoff
http://hnn.us/articles/4268.html
history news network
Have I got you mixed up with someone else?
>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: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:13:43 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>
>
>From: Morgan Jett
> >It was only a reference to it. I'll try to go through my History and
> >find them and send you the URLs. There is an article your wrote
> >on Roosevelt and the defense of the Jews in WW2. I think it was
> >on the same site.
>
>No, that's not me. I never wrote such an article.
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From donlay at gte.net Tue Nov 7 18:01:09 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 8 19:08:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
References: <BAY22-F2080F4B46CA41D9246CC76A5F20@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <001e01c7028e$5559ab60$df03153f@DL01>
Exactly why is the group focused on Peter, anyway? What is the
fascination? -- ??
It may be that all some can do is talk about their self or another self. It
seems that both self and other self deliver endorphin pleasure regarding the
imaginary persona. Talking about the 'other self' seems to do "in the mind"
what talking about one's own personal identity does. -- Don L
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:24 AM
> If this is a duplicate for you, please forgive. I posted it last night,
> but it's not in my inbox. k
>
> These comments are made with all due respect.
>
> A great deal of debate has gone into the Zoe-Kris-Peter situation. It is
> no secret that I am trying to work out terms for Zoe - not Kris or Peter -
> to be reinstated. There is no real evidence that Zoe is Kris or Peter. I
> am convinced she is not, because I have enough interaction on which to
> base my opinion. Also, Don F. today posted that he tends to agree with me.
>
> Zoe was unsubscribed without warning, without notice, and "on suspicion"
> of being Peter and/or Kris. List members didn't even know she had been
> bounced. I guessed, emailed her for confirmation, and because she
> expressed her hurt, disappointment and desire to be with us, approached
> Don privately in hopes of mediating the situation. Yes, she refused to try
> to come up with an "acceptable" answer. But could she possibly have
> understandable reasons for refusing such a request, without their
> signifying she doesn't want to be here? What is the meaning of
> "acceptable"? Look at what's happening. She's bounced without warning or
> notification "on suspicion", has no expectation of recourse or appeal, and
> now we are talking about her behind her back, and she can't defend
> herself. That's not what I believe America is about, much less a Bohm
> group.
>
> There is much more here than fighting for a friend. There are principles
> involved which I risk stating that I am passionate about.
>
> It is kind of fascinating to watch this very sophisticated dance that goes
> on here with Peter Krauss and his potential recruits.
> K: I do not see this as a sophisticated dance performance, as a
> "recruiting center" or a competition for loyalties between groups and
> group leaders. Such ideas have more in common with the gang mentality of
> the streets of New York. I don't even want to take it to a historical and
> international level. I don't affiliate with anyone or anything that would
> limit or try to punish me for making my own decisions, or insinuate that
> I'm incapable of it. If that's what Bohm is about, I'm really in the
> wrong place!
> It's not fascinating, it's sad & disturbing, alarming to watch
> intelligent, sane people stuck on ferreting out whether or not Peter is
> Peter, Zoe, Kris, or a maniac, instead of acting on the knowledge that
> koinonia, passion & compassion need more than debate about meaning to have
> meaning.
>
> Exactly why is the group focused on Peter, anyway? What is the
> fascination?
>
> Hard questions to think about:
> 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.
> K: not just in the past, but now as well. Why is it that I got along
> with Kris and Zoe? It certainly wasn't that I am gullible or senile, as
> one member of our list implies. Maybe my age and experience gave me some
> insight and expertise that deserves respect.
> 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.
>
> K: there is a lot I object to here, such as the imbedded threat of
> excommunication, and the implication that I don't have any
> proprioreception, indeed any sense at all. Also note the passion in the
> words. What's that all about? Even though I sent only one picture, I
> will let that go, and head for the group issue. Don F. specified that
> images are allowed, subject to a particular size in a very dignified
> non-threatening way. Yes, some of Kris's images were frighteningly
> inappropriate. But - Let's not say "all Kris's images were objectionable,
> therefore all images are objectionable, especially all Kris's images. And
> Zoe is Chris, therefore Zoe is objectionable."
>
> Usually, a new order arises out of chaos (which seems to have been the
> experience with the earlier incarnation of this list). How can we set up a
> more human face to face interaction?
> We are pioneering, stretching the original conditions of Dialog by putting
> it on the internet. It takes time, effort, patience, and group insight to
> work out the kinks.
> I propose that all of us reread our Bohm, look at the present situation,
> reformulate and restate what we expect of Dialog AND what we can bring to
> it. And post it and discuss it. This should not be just a "Zoe-thing".
> We need to be mindful of this always. I shall begin on my statement
> tonight, and post it as soon as I have it in an acceptable form. I invite
> you to do the same. A consensus could be made, voted on, and posted. I
> volunteer to do the compiling, posting for feedback, and editing. Someone
> else would need to take care of the website.
>
> "...where everything is allowed and there are no rules."
> K: What real good have "rules" and jails done? Do people really need
> rules to keep them from killing each other? Have the rules worked?
> I propose parameters & principles not rules, to be developed and approved
> by the group. Including Zoe. Whether or not the majority agrees with her,
> listen to what she is saying. Some of it might make sense.
> Further, authors of inappropriate postings should be issued a warning as
> to the specific nature of the unacceptable action. Basic courtesy is a
> must. Three warnings by the moderator, and the offender is out. Flame
> wars, i.e. personal heated arguments, are to be taken off the list.
> Appropriate guidelines to be issued before these remedies are put in
> place. Moderator to let list members know when a member is on probation
> for unsubscription. List rules and aims are customarily set out before a
> person joins, but we can also say "back to the drawing board".
>
> oh darn, where is Kris when we need her - s/he's right here. So are Zoe
> and apparently Peter, too. They never left. And as long as we talk
> about them instead of inviting them back, the more of a phantom life their
> presence will become.
>
> People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Another
> question might be is that the case here as well? Hmmmmm.
>
>
> "Peripherals Unite" - I'm with you.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
> Microsoft Office Live
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Tue Nov 7 18:23:25 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 8 19:26:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue
In-Reply-To: <20061106.224033.328.3.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F4D566CADB60E88444A3BAA5F20@phx.gbl>
interesting, Franis.
Here in NYC, I have eaten in a restuarant where a young man wearing a tin
bucket over his head, the handle under his chin, sat down to have lunch. He
was served without so much as a lifted eyebrow.
I have ridden the bus with a lady wearing a horned metal helmet right out of
Wagner. Even that didn't earn her a seat. I taught a small child who
brought his 7 imaginary friends to school every day. His classmates and I
accepted them as part of the group. I did not run for the social worker. I
checked with members of his culture who told me it was a gift. His parents
agreed.
It takes a lot - something like 9-11, to faze us.
>From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:29:56 -0800
>
>In my small town of Bolinas, we had this guy named Gary, who would - at
>some moment he deemed "appropriate," he would walk on his hands across
>the stage at every performance in the Bolinas community center -
>certainly it was a completely unaskedfor addition to these performances.
>There was also this guy called Pine, who had a very loud singing voice
>but no ability to carry a tune, so he became known for toning. In fact,
>the two of these guys would sometimes get together and, while Gary was
>walking on his hands across the state, Pine would break out in his very
>loud Gyuoto monk voice chanting something to accompany Gary's act.
>At first they got only shocked disapproval. As time went on and Gary or
>Pine persisted together or separately, all performers would just know
>that this vinyette of walking-on-hands or chanting was going to happen,
>whether they wanted it or not. Some performers began to plan on it, such
>as, "when Gary walks on his hands you be ready to play this tune, etc."
>Generally, Gary's act with Pine began to get no acknowledgment as if it
>never happened, or sometimes there would be spontaneously appreciative or
>polite applause - we could never tell which.
>What was most interesting was when someone from out of town would perform
>and these two would horn in on their act - and the MC would get up and
>say, "Let's hear it for Gary!" And the performer would scowl. We all got
>much enjoyment from Pine & Gary's shock value.
>Franis
>
>On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:37:28 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 18:31:29 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 8 19:34:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
In-Reply-To: <001e01c7028e$5559ab60$df03153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F22DA55DABDDFF185C338A2A5F20@phx.gbl>
I'm confused. Do you mean they see Peter as another "other self", and get
narcissitic pleasure from talking about Peter? That's hard for me to
understand. Do they recognize and acknowledge themselves in Peter? Is this
Freudian displacement? Maybe you can help me understand your meaning
better? thanks, k
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:01:09 -0500
>
>Exactly why is the group focused on Peter, anyway? What is the
>fascination? -- ??
>
>It may be that all some can do is talk about their self or another self.
>It seems that both self and other self deliver endorphin pleasure regarding
>the imaginary persona. Talking about the 'other self' seems to do "in the
>mind" what talking about one's own personal identity does. -- Don L
>
>
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:24 AM
>
>>If this is a duplicate for you, please forgive. I posted it last night,
>>but it's not in my inbox. k
>>
>>These comments are made with all due respect.
>>
>>A great deal of debate has gone into the Zoe-Kris-Peter situation. It is
>>no secret that I am trying to work out terms for Zoe - not Kris or Peter -
>>to be reinstated. There is no real evidence that Zoe is Kris or Peter. I
>>am convinced she is not, because I have enough interaction on which to
>>base my opinion. Also, Don F. today posted that he tends to agree with me.
>>
>>Zoe was unsubscribed without warning, without notice, and "on suspicion"
>>of being Peter and/or Kris. List members didn't even know she had been
>>bounced. I guessed, emailed her for confirmation, and because she
>>expressed her hurt, disappointment and desire to be with us, approached
>>Don privately in hopes of mediating the situation. Yes, she refused to try
>>to come up with an "acceptable" answer. But could she possibly have
>>understandable reasons for refusing such a request, without their
>>signifying she doesn't want to be here? What is the meaning of
>>"acceptable"? Look at what's happening. She's bounced without warning or
>>notification "on suspicion", has no expectation of recourse or appeal, and
>>now we are talking about her behind her back, and she can't defend
>>herself. That's not what I believe America is about, much less a Bohm
>>group.
>>
>>There is much more here than fighting for a friend. There are principles
>>involved which I risk stating that I am passionate about.
>>
>>It is kind of fascinating to watch this very sophisticated dance that goes
>>on here with Peter Krauss and his potential recruits.
>>K: I do not see this as a sophisticated dance performance, as a
>>"recruiting center" or a competition for loyalties between groups and
>>group leaders. Such ideas have more in common with the gang mentality of
>>the streets of New York. I don't even want to take it to a historical and
>>international level. I don't affiliate with anyone or anything that would
>>limit or try to punish me for making my own decisions, or insinuate that
>>I'm incapable of it. If that's what Bohm is about, I'm really in the
>>wrong place!
>>It's not fascinating, it's sad & disturbing, alarming to watch
>>intelligent, sane people stuck on ferreting out whether or not Peter is
>>Peter, Zoe, Kris, or a maniac, instead of acting on the knowledge that
>>koinonia, passion & compassion need more than debate about meaning to have
>>meaning.
>>
>>Exactly why is the group focused on Peter, anyway? What is the
>>fascination?
>>
>>Hard questions to think about:
>>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.
>>K: not just in the past, but now as well. Why is it that I got along
>>with Kris and Zoe? It certainly wasn't that I am gullible or senile, as
>>one member of our list implies. Maybe my age and experience gave me some
>>insight and expertise that deserves respect.
>>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.
>>
>>K: there is a lot I object to here, such as the imbedded threat of
>>excommunication, and the implication that I don't have any
>>proprioreception, indeed any sense at all. Also note the passion in the
>>words. What's that all about? Even though I sent only one picture, I
>>will let that go, and head for the group issue. Don F. specified that
>>images are allowed, subject to a particular size in a very dignified
>>non-threatening way. Yes, some of Kris's images were frighteningly
>>inappropriate. But - Let's not say "all Kris's images were objectionable,
>>therefore all images are objectionable, especially all Kris's images. And
>>Zoe is Chris, therefore Zoe is objectionable."
>>
>>Usually, a new order arises out of chaos (which seems to have been the
>>experience with the earlier incarnation of this list). How can we set up a
>>more human face to face interaction?
>>We are pioneering, stretching the original conditions of Dialog by putting
>>it on the internet. It takes time, effort, patience, and group insight to
>>work out the kinks.
>>I propose that all of us reread our Bohm, look at the present situation,
>>reformulate and restate what we expect of Dialog AND what we can bring to
>>it. And post it and discuss it. This should not be just a "Zoe-thing". We
>>need to be mindful of this always. I shall begin on my statement tonight,
>>and post it as soon as I have it in an acceptable form. I invite you to
>>do the same. A consensus could be made, voted on, and posted. I
>>volunteer to do the compiling, posting for feedback, and editing. Someone
>>else would need to take care of the website.
>>
>>"...where everything is allowed and there are no rules."
>>K: What real good have "rules" and jails done? Do people really need
>>rules to keep them from killing each other? Have the rules worked?
>>I propose parameters & principles not rules, to be developed and approved
>>by the group. Including Zoe. Whether or not the majority agrees with her,
>>listen to what she is saying. Some of it might make sense.
>>Further, authors of inappropriate postings should be issued a warning as
>>to the specific nature of the unacceptable action. Basic courtesy is a
>>must. Three warnings by the moderator, and the offender is out. Flame
>>wars, i.e. personal heated arguments, are to be taken off the list.
>>Appropriate guidelines to be issued before these remedies are put in
>>place. Moderator to let list members know when a member is on probation
>>for unsubscription. List rules and aims are customarily set out before a
>>person joins, but we can also say "back to the drawing board".
>>
>>oh darn, where is Kris when we need her - s/he's right here. So are Zoe
>>and apparently Peter, too. They never left. And as long as we talk
>>about them instead of inviting them back, the more of a phantom life their
>>presence will become.
>>
>>People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Another
>>question might be is that the case here as well? Hmmmmm.
>>
>>
>>"Peripherals Unite" - I'm with you.
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
>>Microsoft Office Live
>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>>
>>___________________________