From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 02:19:31 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 8 02:23:32 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <20071207.150429.2428.164.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071207.150429.2428.164.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712071719xf1dfba4x78df2f36dc70d779@mail.gmail.com>
And there is a preference these days to not say something to ease the
discomfort but to just observe what is going on beneath the discomfort.
I: And for you, does that result in anything?
We are applying dialogue to two totally different areas, but maybe we can
see similarities.
In working on teaching myself improvisation, you might say I 'detach myself'
from whatever an 'ordinary state' is, because I am concentrating on
something specific. I am looking for patterns and relationships from which
I can extract principles to work with. Maybe the puzzle I'm trying to solve
is something like your discomfort-detachment. Mine is neither comfort, nor
discomfort; it's simply a puzzlement. I can see, hear, and feel myself
listening for clues as I read through the masterworks, asking each composer
to teach me what they know; my body is the real musical instrument, but I
haven't the words - yet - nor can I create it on the piano, but I know it's
forming. When it's ready, it bursts out, and I realize that I've been
blocked all this time by an untrue assumption I didn't even know i held.
My experience is that a discovered, untrue assumption, when unblocked, leads
to insight, and that insight leads to the falling in place of the principles
of how to create something new - at least new for me. A two voice musical
canon at the keyboard, for instance; moving from concept through fingers to
keyboard - not written first. And pieces of that branch off into designing
an ensemble session that focuses on how each participant in the ensemble
compliments each other in the instant composition i.e. improvisation of the
composition. And so we get together and play, and change, if necessary. We
listen to each other, work with each other, accommodate, respond to each
other, support each other, share ideas and work them out together.
I'm not trying to be another Bach. I'm just trying to create the kind of
Canon I'm capable of at this moment. Later, that will evolve, just as the
Bach of Ana Magdalena's Notebook is not the Bach of The Art of the Fugue or
the B Minor Mass - and it doesn't matter that I'm not as great as Bach.
Maybe what the ensemble shared is as valuable in the long run as The Art of
the Fugue.
How does it work for you? Can we compare?
On Dec 7, 2007 3:03 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
>
> There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment"
> or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many
> childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when I
> was in school.
>
> This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
> comfortable; the other is not.
> The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not
> feeling like a participant.
> How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying
> something. Anything.
> But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for its
> rarity. And there is a
> preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to
> just observe
> what is going on beneath the discomfort.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
>
> To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
> 'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but
> indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a
> "something" that actually *does* the "detaching." This is possible - this
> imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral
> experience.
>
> I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
>
> -- funny
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william" <
> w@david-bohm.net> writes:
>
> Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i
> think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I
> need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the
> world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead of
> playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are you
> coping with this?
>
>
>
>
> *-------Original Message-------*
>
> *From:* ae.dropper@juno.com
> *Date:* 06.12.2007 17:34:58
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
> Language,Map, and Email Identities
>
>
> "The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when he
> advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be ready to
> sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which may point
> to an *entirely fresh approach* to their material."
>
> from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
>
> This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
> again and again.
>
> The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of
> what the group
>
> is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
> "sacrifices"
>
> [of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises.
> Or, one
>
> could say that one is "*spending*" the satisfaction of the response on
> what further
>
> "*suspending*" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
>
>
>
> Simple suspension alone though has yielded
>
> surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
>
> [the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really interested
> in "suspension."
>
> Not recommending; just reporting.
>
> -- funny
>
>
> >"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
> "suspension" are
> >appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal. The
> fruits of
> >suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is read
> or heard] are
> >that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
> to respond
> >with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be
> able to do this
> >because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
> story short, with
> >each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
> >Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
> investment'. This is the
> >logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
> "suspension'.
> >Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
> yourself responding with
> >things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun.
> And there is no
> >rush for the "completion."
> >-- funny
>
> Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
> "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
> could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
> some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
> there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
> nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
> please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071207/229ab55e/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Sat Dec 8 11:19:15 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Sat Dec 8 11:23:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with a single thought.
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712071100h5b302fb7x51622a70593d0184@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96115.77156.qm@web57404.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Irene Darcy.
It was given to me by the Gods
When I was a little Girl
They give us Presents most ; you know
When we are new ; and small
I kept it in my Hand
I never put it down
I did not dare to eat ; or sleep
For fear it would be gone
I heard such words as "Rich"
When hurrying to school
>From lips at Corners of the Streets
And wrestled with a smile
Rich! 'Twas Myself - was rich
To take the name of Gold
And Gold to own ; in solid Bars
The Difference ; made me bold
AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
the nature of true inquiry.
I: Can we not add to this 'the purpose of true inquiry'?
How about finding out what all those different parts of self have to tell us, then getting them to work together in the interest of physical and mental health. If we are the microcosm of the macrocosm, would that not be essential? And for me, thet requires the balance and ensemble, which implies good, working - not imaginary - relationships, of all who are and all that is.
On Dec 7, 2007 1:38 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
The most difficult thing to do is to stay with a single thought.
What the thought is, although it matters a lot, is less important
by light years, then the fact of staying with it. This "fact of staying
with a thought," and following it to its progenitors, and continuing 'down
the line' with it through its strata of "generations." is of the nature of true inquiry.
Every true inquiry into thought will lead in the end to an inquiry into self image.
Bohm always left this for last in his seminars and says why he does so too. It is because
there is zero chance that cold inquiry into self image will lead anywhere but into
defensiveness that knows no equal and that the workings of thought as a system
in general must be understood somewhat first - before tackling the BIG ONE.
-- funny
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071208/cf22a5ab/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Sat Dec 8 11:25:50 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Sat Dec 8 11:30:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
In-Reply-To: <9A9EB8D0-1FE1-43DA-8CAE-FD3EF810BC17@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <998131.28901.qm@web57413.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Don Factor. Culicidae. 2:15 God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and watch it. 2:16 God gave the man a commandment, saying, 'You may definitely eat from every tree of the garden. 2:17 But from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, do not eat, for on the day you eat from it, you will definitely die.' 2:18 God said, 'It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a compatible helper for him.' 2:19 God had formed every wild beast and every bird of heaven out of the ground. He [now] brought [them] to the man to see what he would name each one. Whatever the man called each living thing [would] remain its name. 2:20 The man named every livestock animal and bird of the sky, as well as all the wild beasts. But the man did not find a helper who was compatible for him. 2:21 God then made the man fall into a deep state of unconsciousness, and he slept. He took one of his ribs and closed the flesh in its place. AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Don. Evening came, and morning followed--the fifth day. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened: God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was. AL
Hi, AL
I would say that this is true with one exception. Mosquitos. I have heard on good authority that he realized that mosquitos were a mistake, but it was too late to do anything about it,
don
On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:43 PM, Don Lay wrote:
dl: Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not the one doing the whining.
Bore us some more about the "last time you saw Dave". Did you see Dave sitting on df's sofa, or df sitting on Dave's soffa?
If you are so bothered by what I'm working at, why not hit delete?
Is this too complicated for you? -- dl
This sort of reply has nothing to do with dialogue or the spirit of dialogue. It is a defensive counter to what you must value as your precious truths or assumptions or business. But this is a dialogue list, not an arena for us to watch you struggling with a lot of ideas the significance of which are beyond question any question. HItting delete has nothing to do with dialogue. In fact it would be destructive of the dialogue, unless it is a last resort. Dialogue, in case you have forgotten, is about vulnerability, not defense. If you feel it is valuable to spend years asking and answering the same questions over and over while ignoring responses that just might enrich your inquiry, why not just just do it in your own time. Instead of writing what sound like childish complaints to those who would really like to go deeper with you.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071208/99b5a4e2/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Sat Dec 8 11:49:45 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Sat Dec 8 11:54:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
References: <20071207.150429.2428.164.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <475A76C8.000001.03776@VAIO-584793128F>
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope with
the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" suspension
(resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You see,
at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always
suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore. Usually
the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a response
This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt
you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and they
want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always in
suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no
reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing
because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there
is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be
regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. If
you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are
effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to
communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. The
point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is
invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually your
intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode, which
however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you
reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of
compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would you
like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is
leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment" or
something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many
childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when I
was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not feeling
like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying
something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for its
rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to
just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be 'detachment'
from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but indiscernible.
Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a "something" that
actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this imagining. But it is
clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i think
you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I need to
counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the world, like
preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead of playing it.
Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are you coping with
this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language
Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when he
advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be ready to
sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which may point
to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of what
the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises. Or
one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what
further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really interested
in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of "suspension"
are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal. The
fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is read
or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying to
respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be able
to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete investment'
This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself
responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun. And
there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry "funny"
but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or could you
possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or some
brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is there
anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer nonsense? Or
if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you please come down
and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071208/85429291/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sat Dec 8 15:40:03 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Sat Dec 8 15:44:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
References: <20071207.150429.2428.164.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<475A76C8.000001.03776@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <002b01c839a8$398e1180$3777480c@HOME>
Well said William.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a response. This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. The point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually your intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment" or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be 'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a "something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan " again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the "sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises. Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of "suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal. The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of "suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun. And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071208/fbcaf9d0/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 16:35:06 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 8 16:39:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with a single thought.
In-Reply-To: <96115.77156.qm@web57404.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712071100h5b302fb7x51622a70593d0184@mail.gmail.com>
<96115.77156.qm@web57404.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712080735j752e4e5ka099804865826a3e@mail.gmail.com>
Alfred, beautiful. Thank you. Who wrote it, for that person was also given
the gift of gold.
On Dec 8, 2007 5:19 AM, Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Irene Darcy.
> *It was given to me by the Gods
> When I was a little Girl
> They give us Presents most ; you know
> When we are new ; and small
> I kept it in my Hand
> I never put it down
> I did not dare to eat ; or sleep
> For fear it would be gone
> I heard such words as "Rich"
> When hurrying to school
> From lips at Corners of the Streets
> And wrestled with a smile
> Rich! 'Twas Myself - was rich
> To take the name of Gold
> And Gold to own ; in solid Bars
> The Difference ; made me bold *
> AL
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> the nature of true inquiry.
>
> I: Can we not add to this 'the purpose of true inquiry'?
>
> How about finding out what all those different parts of self have to tell
> us, then getting them to work together in the interest of physical and
> mental health. If we are the microcosm of the macrocosm, would that not be
> essential? And for me, thet requires the balance and ensemble, which
> implies good, working - not imaginary - relationships, of all who are and
> all that is.
>
> On Dec 7, 2007 1:38 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > The most difficult thing to do is to stay with a single thought.
> > What the thought *is, *although it matters a lot, is less important
> > by light years, then the fact of staying with it. This "fact of staying
> > with a thought," and following it to its progenitors, and continuing
> > 'down
> > the line' with it through its strata of "generations." is of the nature
> > of true inquiry.
> >
> > Every true inquiry into thought will lead in the end to an inquiry into
> > self image.
> > Bohm always left this for last in his seminars and says why he does so
> > too. It is because
> > there is zero chance that cold inquiry into self image will lead
> > anywhere but into
> > defensiveness that knows no equal and that the workings of thought as a
> > system
> > in general must be understood somewhat first - before tackling the BIG
> > ONE.
> >
> > -- funny
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071208/c2f75a13/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 8 16:51:46 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 8 16:53:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
Message-ID: <20071208.105233.2428.178.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course,
where this is leading up to. (wm)
Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative for
all of it though.
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope
with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered"
suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better
word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When
you are always suspending, people are not getting their expected
responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to say something or do
something is to get a response. This is also the case when someone utters
an insult, or attempt to hurt you: they usually do this because they are
disappointed or angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have
touched you. Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted
hurt doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first
glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the
situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this,
which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a form of
communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't respond,
don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are effectively refusing
to communicate on this level. You may be willing to communicate on a
different level but that channel is not open both ways. The point is, you
are denying communication on the channel on which it is invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually
your intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion
mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch
you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending
suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having
touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize,
of course, where this is leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment"
or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many
childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when
I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not
feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying
something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for
its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to
just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but
indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a
"something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this
imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral
experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i
think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I
need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the
world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead
of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are
you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when
he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be
ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances
which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of
what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
"sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises.
Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what
further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
"suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal.
The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is
read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be
able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
"suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun.
And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
"funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071208/d3e9ef0f/attachment.html