From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 00:18:54 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:23:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <015d01c83ab6$0653e740$e376480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <262289.72302.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Can we read it? Let's hear.
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hahahahaha!! Good question Alan. I have a whole essay I wrote on the subject of pain and the perception of pain.
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Would you like to share it? I'm sure there are some of us who would be interested.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
I have a whole essay I wrote
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Sorry, I'm afraid that response makes no sense to me. Is there another way you could phrase this?
Susan
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/20071209/ec6ed280/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 10 00:25:44 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:30:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <0BE9E74D-1AB1-4111-8302-E5EE8518F474@dc.rr.com>
References: <20071209.140135.2428.201.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<3BBF7E81-96EA-4A9D-900C-EF1172ECF45D@dc.rr.com>
<00c401c83aa4$fd36e560$e376480c@HOME>
<0BE9E74D-1AB1-4111-8302-E5EE8518F474@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W28F2E71DD4D54DFDBA6A54DC6A0@phx.gbl>
I think anger has its place - as an energy source and a protection from abuse. Probably any emotion has its negative and positive aspects though. If your anger leads to you beating people up, that's not so good usually.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the dayDate: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 12:56:15 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgObviously this needs a deeper look. Maybe along with all the other so-called negative emotions. I could be that by giving them a negative meaning actually causes them to be destructive or harmful.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
But having said all that, I wonder why there is a tendency among many here to think that anger is all bad?
don
In my experience it isn't just the people on this list who speak of anger in that way. It seems to be a very popular trend among a lot of people. I know quite a few people who seem to think that anger is an emotion that should be completely done away with and who will come right out and tell you that it is the source of all evil in their opinion.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:45 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
[like 100% maybe]
Not sure who you are quoting here, but this doesn't seem the case to me. Certainly anger involves painful feelings but it imerges out of the meanings implied by the whole circumstance. so it is as much an effect, as if a stone hit you in the back of your head. You could say that the pain is the result of the meaning of your feeling disturbed by the thump, but it is the thump along with, presumably, the one who threw it that is the actual cause. This may be an example of "systems thinking" which I value becauise it gets away from the either-or way of understanding the world of which I am an inseparable part.
But having said all that, I wonder why there is a tendency among many here to think that anger is all bad?
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live.
http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/3d9d3612/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 10 00:27:30 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:31:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
References: <262289.72302.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <017f01c83abb$127dd170$e376480c@HOME>
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.............you were talking about me. Hahahahaha! Sorry, I thought saying that it would mostly just bore the others got me off the hook on that one. Here's a link:
http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/hurt.htm
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Can we read it? Let's hear.
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hahahahaha!! Good question Alan. I have a whole essay I wrote on the subject of pain and the perception of pain.
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Would you like to share it? I'm sure there are some of us who would be interested.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
I have a whole essay I wrote
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, I'm afraid that response makes no sense to me. Is there another way you could phrase this?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/20071209/be78fc52/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 00:27:43 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:32:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Listserv
In-Reply-To: <D3E878AC-2C34-4879-9CF6-54BDCB67CC1D@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <795402.81079.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
This listserv is bugged, too?
;-)) Alan
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 12:48:03 -0800 (PST)
From: "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
From Wiki:
What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%.
If thought is our OS, and yet, it has major bugs - where is the fix to come from, other than outside itself, the OS, meaning: some programmer? God?
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Welcome, but I am curious as to what in the Wiki made you want to sign up. A crash course on Bohm's thought is probably difficult because his work covered so much, especially at levels of subtlety that are hard to condense. You might want to take a look at The Essential Bohm edited by Lee Nichol, for a start. But if you let us know what about Bohm looks most interesting, we might be able to zero in on that aspect for you.
don
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I think dialogue meant more than that to him, but it grew out of his concern with the state of the world - the human world - which he saw as a place of increasing fragmentation. Getting to the bottom of this, was a powerful motivating force for him. And his proposals regarding dialogue were a part of his quest for a deeper understanding - "of the whole thing".
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
According to Wiki dialogue was just a side-kick of Bohm. Are you folks boiling Bohm mostly down to that?
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
My suggestion would be to simply read the proposal for dialogue and then jump in.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
I see that Pat has zeroed in on dialogue but there is much more that gives it a context. I would love to hear what some of the others might suggest.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:26 PM, donald factor wrote:
Welcome, but I am curious as to what in the Wiki made you want to sign up. A crash course on Bohm's thought is probably difficult because his work covered so much, especially at levels of subtlety that are hard to condense. You might want to take a look at The Essential Bohm edited by Lee Nichol, for a start. But if you let us know what about Bohm looks most interesting, we might be able to zero in on that aspect for you.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Hi -
I just joined. Don't know much about Bohm except what I read at Wiki. I see he wrote a few books. Which one is recommended for a crash-course? Thank you all.
Alan E. DeBakey
---------------------------------
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/20071209/9b02f67b/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 10 00:32:28 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:36:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
References: <20071209.140135.2428.201.ae.dropper@juno.com><3BBF7E81-96EA-4A9D-900C-EF1172ECF45D@dc.rr.com><00c401c83aa4$fd36e560$e376480c@HOME>
<0BE9E74D-1AB1-4111-8302-E5EE8518F474@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W28F2E71DD4D54DFDBA6A54DC6A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <018e01c83abb$c37fb100$e376480c@HOME>
I don't think anger in and of itself can ever lead anyone to beat someone else up. I think it's a belief that beating someone up will solve some kind of problem that leads people to beat someone up.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:25 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
I think anger has its place - as an energy source and a protection from abuse. Probably any emotion has its negative and positive aspects though. If your anger leads to you beating people up, that's not so good usually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 12:56:15 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Obviously this needs a deeper look. Maybe along with all the other so-called negative emotions. I could be that by giving them a negative meaning actually causes them to be destructive or harmful.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
But having said all that, I wonder why there is a tendency among many here to think that anger is all bad?
don
In my experience it isn't just the people on this list who speak of anger in that way. It seems to be a very popular trend among a lot of people. I know quite a few people who seem to think that anger is an emotion that should be completely done away with and who will come right out and tell you that it is the source of all evil in their opinion.
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/237a224a/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 10 00:39:00 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:43:25 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <018e01c83abb$c37fb100$e376480c@HOME>
References: <20071209.140135.2428.201.ae.dropper@juno.com><3BBF7E81-96EA-4A9D-900C-EF1172ECF45D@dc.rr.com><00c401c83aa4$fd36e560$e376480c@HOME>
<0BE9E74D-1AB1-4111-8302-E5EE8518F474@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W28F2E71DD4D54DFDBA6A54DC6A0@phx.gbl>
<018e01c83abb$c37fb100$e376480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W210882DB83186990CD7993DC6A0@phx.gbl>
you could be right. sometimes though the problem looks like, 'how can I get rid of my anger?' it's like the guns don't kill people thing. anger doesn't either.
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the dayDate: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:32:28 -0700
I don't think anger in and of itself can ever lead anyone to beat someone else up. I think it's a belief that beating someone up will solve some kind of problem that leads people to beat someone up.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:25 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
I think anger has its place - as an energy source and a protection from abuse. Probably any emotion has its negative and positive aspects though. If your anger leads to you beating people up, that's not so good usually.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the dayDate: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 12:56:15 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgObviously this needs a deeper look. Maybe along with all the other so-called negative emotions. I could be that by giving them a negative meaning actually causes them to be destructive or harmful.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
But having said all that, I wonder why there is a tendency among many here to think that anger is all bad?
don
In my experience it isn't just the people on this list who speak of anger in that way. It seems to be a very popular trend among a lot of people. I know quite a few people who seem to think that anger is an emotion that should be completely done away with and who will come right out and tell you that it is the source of all evil in their opinion.
Susan
_________________________________________________________________
Celeb spotting ? Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/2c4a659c/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 00:13:07 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:44:13 2007
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing
list
Message-ID: <650370.79650.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Resending:
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 12:48:03 -0800 (PST)
From: "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
From Wiki:
What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%.
If thought is our OS, and yet, it has major bugs - where is the fix to come from, other than outside itself, the OS, meaning: some programmer? God?
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Welcome, but I am curious as to what in the Wiki made you want to sign up. A crash course on Bohm's thought is probably difficult because his work covered so much, especially at levels of subtlety that are hard to condense. You might want to take a look at The Essential Bohm edited by Lee Nichol, for a start. But if you let us know what about Bohm looks most interesting, we might be able to zero in on that aspect for you.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Hi -
I just joined. Don't know much about Bohm except what I read at Wiki. I see he wrote a few books. Which one is recommended for a crash-course? Thank you all.
Alan E. DeBakey
bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
Welcome to the Bohm_Dialogue@david-bohm.org mailing list! Just to fill
you in and make certain that you agree with the approach we are
taking, let me mention what this group is for and what it isn't for:
It is intended as a place where we can inquire together into David
Bohm's proposals regarding dialogue, the process of thought, wholeness
and other aspects of his philosophical work. Our intention is to
explore his theories, set them alongside other approaches and attempt
to find out how we might proceed from where he left off.
It is not intended as an online dialogue but rather an online group
exploration to be conducted in the spirit of dialogue.
Unlike face-to-face dialogue groups it will be moderated. That is the
moderator will be available to do whatever he or she feels is
necessary to keep the process on course. The moderator will be able to
delete messages that are felt to be inappropriate and to 'unplug' any
participant who persists in disrupting what we hope will be an
exercise in the creative exploration of a complex body of work that we
feel may have potential importance for the future of all of us.
Unfortunately we have found it necessary to handle the list in this
way based on more than ten years of experience struggling with
unmoderated groups.
If you feel unhappy to participate with us under these terms please
unsubscribe now.
To post to this list, send your email to:
bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
General information about the mailing list is at:
http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to
or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your
subscription page at:
http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/options/bohm_dialogue/a.debakey%40yahoo.com
You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to:
Bohm_Dialogue-request@david-bohm.org
with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the
quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions.
You must know your password to change your options (including changing
the password, itself) or to unsubscribe. It is:
Bohm
Normally, Mailman will remind you of your david-bohm.org mailing list
passwords once every month, although you can disable this if you
prefer. This reminder will also include instructions on how to
unsubscribe or change your account options. There is also a button on
your options page that will email your current password to you.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/fbb9344a/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 10 00:40:50 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:45:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <017f01c83abb$127dd170$e376480c@HOME>
References: <262289.72302.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<017f01c83abb$127dd170$e376480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W17FA186C7EA75776DE80B1DC6A0@phx.gbl>
same person?
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the dayDate: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:27:30 -0700
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.............you were talking about me. Hahahahaha! Sorry, I thought saying that it would mostly just bore the others got me off the hook on that one. Here's a link:
http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/hurt.htm
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Can we read it? Let's hear.
AlanSusan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hahahahaha!! Good question Alan. I have a whole essay I wrote on the subject of pain and the perception of pain.
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Would you like to share it? I'm sure there are some of us who would be interested.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
I have a whole essay I wrote Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, I'm afraid that response makes no sense to me. Is there another way you could phrase this?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Celeb spotting ? Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/1712476d/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 00:42:25 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:46:50 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <017f01c83abb$127dd170$e376480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <166961.96170.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Haaaaa!! Hey Susan, looks like thought does need to be brought in for an inspection, haha. Maybe ol' Bohm was not so much off! Thanks for the link.
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.............you were talking about me. Hahahahaha! Sorry, I thought saying that it would mostly just bore the others got me off the hook on that one. Here's a link:
http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/hurt.htm
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Can we read it? Let's hear.
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hahahahaha!! Good question Alan. I have a whole essay I wrote on the subject of pain and the perception of pain.
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Would you like to share it? I'm sure there are some of us who would be interested.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
I have a whole essay I wrote
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Sorry, I'm afraid that response makes no sense to me. Is there another way you could phrase this?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
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/20071209/229c43d0/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 00:44:54 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:49:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W17FA186C7EA75776DE80B1DC6A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <271151.2149.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
HaHaHaHa! Funny Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } same person?
---------------------------------
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:27:30 -0700
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.............you were talking about me. Hahahahaha! Sorry, I thought saying that it would mostly just bore the others got me off the hook on that one. Here's a link:
http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/hurt.htm
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Can we read it? Let's hear.
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hahahahaha!! Good question Alan. I have a whole essay I wrote on the subject of pain and the perception of pain.
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Would you like to share it? I'm sure there are some of us who would be interested.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
I have a whole essay I wrote
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Sorry, I'm afraid that response makes no sense to me. Is there another way you could phrase this?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Get closer to the jungle
I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!
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/20071209/6dc8aa94/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 00:51:14 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:55:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with a single thought.
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W397A377A819AD45107665ADC6A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <215935.99943.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Pussycat?
Alan
;-(,) This listserv is better than teddy-bears! A true pet. Love it.
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } what was that teddy bear's name?
---------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:53:51 -0800
From: landmana@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with a single thought.
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Hi Irene Darcy
Who wrote it?
1 cup butter
250 gr brown sugar
3 oz God
1/2 Implicate Order
759.2 books
1 pinch lovers
75 gr Cha-Cha-Cha
2 pounds sus pension
1/3 teddy-bear
5 medium sleep-less nights
some lemon rind
; for a start.
AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: 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
--
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.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/fa453577/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 10 00:53:58 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 10 00:58:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
References: <166961.96170.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01db01c83abe$c4dfaed0$e376480c@HOME>
Yes, it certainly does. I'm responding to 2 or 3 different conversations on 2 different lists and trying to do a few chores at the same time and I'm afraid I'm not doing a very good job of keeping up with any of them.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Haaaaa!! Hey Susan, looks like thought does need to be brought in for an inspection, haha. Maybe ol' Bohm was not so much off! Thanks for the link.
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.............you were talking about me. Hahahahaha! Sorry, I thought saying that it would mostly just bore the others got me off the hook on that one. Here's a link:
http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/hurt.htm
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/fd793d8c/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 00:56:58 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:01:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W133B6B46115511B8E7E640DC6A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <580016.22865.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
This one comes across here as too deep. Can anyone on the list try to get me down there?
;-))
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } yes. we just need to look for them there.
---------------------------------
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 11:19:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_BODY.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} It seems that the messages we send to ourselves get placed in the "out" box.
-- funny
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 02:07:39 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
this is dead simple really. just read what you address to the other and apply it to yourself
---------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:55:03 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
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
---------------------------------
Get closer to the jungle. I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!
---------------------------------
Get closer to the jungle. I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/94d6e4bb/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 01:03:42 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:08:07 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <01db01c83abe$c4dfaed0$e376480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <772409.44009.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Susan, you are my hero!
What chores?
Alan, listening to some composer who just crossed the finish-line this week.
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Yes, it certainly does. I'm responding to 2 or 3 different conversations on 2 different lists and trying to do a few chores at the same time and I'm afraid I'm not doing a very good job of keeping up with any of them.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Haaaaa!! Hey Susan, looks like thought does need to be brought in for an inspection, haha. Maybe ol' Bohm was not so much off! Thanks for the link.
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.............you were talking about me. Hahahahaha! Sorry, I thought saying that it would mostly just bore the others got me off the hook on that one. Here's a link:
http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/hurt.htm
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/11e26dda/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 10 01:04:48 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:09:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
References: <580016.22865.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01f601c83ac0$47f7e7a0$e376480c@HOME>
I can give it a try. The conversation seemed to be about paying attention to your own messages to other people as a way to answer your own questions that you are asking other people. Also what ever you are saying about someone else can just as easily be a statement about yourself (and quite often is). So, when you send a message and it goes to your out box you might just as well click on your own message and read that for your answers.
At least that seems to be the gist of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
This one comes across here as too deep. Can anyone on the list try to get me down there?
;-))
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
yes. we just need to look for them there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 11:19:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
It seems that the messages we send to ourselves get placed in the "out" box.
-- funny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/5c4a9f48/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 10 01:09:54 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:14:20 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
References: <772409.44009.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <020f01c83ac0$fe9ea200$e376480c@HOME>
laundry and washing dishes. And it's almost dinner time so I'll be adding eating some clam chowder to that in a moment.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
What chores?
Alan, listening to some composer who just crossed the finish-line this week.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/b5f3eac3/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 01:09:55 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:14:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
In-Reply-To: <01f601c83ac0$47f7e7a0$e376480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <568855.92106.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Thanks for taking a crack, Susan. Appreciated. But why out-box? Wouldn't _draft_ make a better home?
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I can give it a try. The conversation seemed to be about paying attention to your own messages to other people as a way to answer your own questions that you are asking other people. Also what ever you are saying about someone else can just as easily be a statement about yourself (and quite often is). So, when you send a message and it goes to your out box you might just as well click on your own message and read that for your answers.
At least that seems to be the gist of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
This one comes across here as too deep. Can anyone on the list try to get me down there?
;-))
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px } BODY.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma } yes. we just need to look for them there.
---------------------------------
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 11:19:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_BODY.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} It seems that the messages we send to ourselves get placed in the "out" box.
-- funny
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/20071209/cae71dc9/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 01:19:46 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:24:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <020f01c83ac0$fe9ea200$e376480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <820426.26450.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Homemade food and homemade thinking, with some dirty laundry and piece of confusion thrown in here and there - good life, Susan. Life does not suck so bad. No matter what dialogue might say .
;--oh
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
laundry and washing dishes. And it's almost dinner time so I'll be adding eating some clam chowder to that in a moment.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
What chores?
Alan, listening to some composer who just crossed the finish-line this week.
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/20071209/6d431843/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 10 01:20:29 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:24:56 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
References: <568855.92106.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <022c01c83ac2$790b28a0$e376480c@HOME>
Hahaha! yes I think so. Only for me I don't use my drafts box much and my outbox doesn't keep anything for more than a second. Everything gets kept in my Sent Items box on my computer so that's where I would have to look. But the idea of out box does have it's charm and seems to fit the metaphor they were working with.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
Thanks for taking a crack, Susan. Appreciated. But why out-box? Wouldn't _draft_ make a better home?
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I can give it a try. The conversation seemed to be about paying attention to your own messages to other people as a way to answer your own questions that you are asking other people. Also what ever you are saying about someone else can just as easily be a statement about yourself (and quite often is). So, when you send a message and it goes to your out box you might just as well click on your own message and read that for your answers.
At least that seems to be the gist of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
This one comes across here as too deep. Can anyone on the list try to get me down there?
;-))
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
yes. we just need to look for them there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 11:19:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
It seems that the messages we send to ourselves get placed in the "out" box.
-- funny
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/07300c90/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 10 01:25:50 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:30:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
References: <820426.26450.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <023b01c83ac3$388604c0$e376480c@HOME>
Yes, it is a good life even if the food comes out of a sealed container from the grocery store. At least it came from the Deli and it's quite good. (It's warming in the micro wave as we speak)
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Homemade food and homemade thinking, with some dirty laundry and piece of confusion thrown in here and there - good life, Susan. Life does not suck so bad. No matter what dialogue might say .
;--oh
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
laundry and washing dishes. And it's almost dinner time so I'll be adding eating some clam chowder to that in a moment.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
What chores?
Alan, listening to some composer who just crossed the finish-line this week.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/58969e27/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 01:40:33 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:45:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
In-Reply-To: <969661.47665.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <00fd01c83aa6$4c78dab0$e376480c@HOME>
<969661.47665.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712091640y6b27c43ao7b17640aa50aac38@mail.gmail.com>
I: Welcome.
I'm not. Bohm, his physics, his philosophy, and his concern for all are
one.
Pat's suggestions are excellent. So is Don F's.
I see Bohm's greatest legacy as his work on creative, collaborative, and
critical thinking. See "Science, Order and Creativity", then go to "On
Creativity". And don't leave out "Knowledge As Endarkenment".
And in "Thought As a System", he charges us to think of his work as a map
that should be tested, and kept up to date.
As for "assumptions", there's more to that than meets the eye. The
definition in Bohmland is deeper than the 'ordinary' one.
I'm answering the easier posts now. A couple require more thought before I
write.
On Dec 9, 2007 4:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> According to Wiki dialogue was just a side-kick of Bohm. Are you folks
> boiling Bohm mostly down to that?
>
> Alan
>
>
> *Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>* wrote:
>
> My suggestion would be to simply read the proposal for dialogue and then
> jump in.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing
> list
>
> I see that Pat has zeroed in on dialogue but there is much more that gives
> it a context. I would love to hear what some of the others might suggest.
> don
>
> On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:26 PM, donald factor wrote:
>
> Welcome, but I am curious as to what in the Wiki made you want to sign up.
> A crash course on Bohm's thought is probably difficult because his work
> covered so much, especially at levels of subtlety that are hard to condense.
> You might want to take a look at The Essential Bohm edited by Lee Nichol,
> for a start. But if you let us know what about Bohm looks most interesting,
> we might be able to zero in on that aspect for you.
> don
>
> On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> I just joined. Don't know much about Bohm except what I read at Wiki. I
> see he wrote a few books. Which one is recommended for a crash-course? Thank
> you all.
>
> Alan E. DeBakey
>
>
>
>
> <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/20071209/73b286f7/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 01:44:58 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:49:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with a single thought.
In-Reply-To: <20071209.140135.2428.202.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071209.140135.2428.202.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712091644w2a4742d1u2ecfce7e720b2098@mail.gmail.com>
If this "purpose of true inquiry" mentioned below, is meant 'in the Bohm
Dialogue format',
I: If there is no purpose for something, why do it?
What is "true" inquiry?
Can "true inquiry" have a purpose in contexts other than Bohm Dialogue
format? If so, what is the difference?
On Dec 9, 2007 1:52 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> If this "purpose of true inquiry" mentioned below, is meant 'in the Bohm
> Dialogue format',
> it cannot be "set" (as this renders the assumptions underlying the set
> purpose, unsuspendable, and interestingly, unavailable to true inquiry).
> Purposes of course (for engaging in the dialogue) are
> all fine though. A wide variety of them will be found, even in the single
> individual.
> Incidentally, assumptions underlying these purposes are a rich field for
> exploration.
> Regarding purpose, "As being changes, meaning changes" (which includes
> change
> of purpose).
>
> A really interesting practice (which happens quite frequently and pretty
> much spontaneously)
> is going around the circle and each speaking hiser purpose[s] for being
> there. The reason why
> I say it is interesting is because the individual can see how 'their'
> purposes change over time.
>
> And if the person is really 'old' at all this, [I hear :-D] it can get
> impossible to find anything
> at all that looks like a purpose. Except perhaps that "the purpose of
> dialogue is dialogue."
> And actually, this was the case when I was very 'young' at it too (with
> some major
> distractions in the "middle").
>
> -- funny
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:00:01 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> 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>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/830e6be5/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 01:45:13 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:49:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <023b01c83ac3$388604c0$e376480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <873824.12096.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Susan, you are Funny.
So much for assumptions.
Hoping your thinking does not come out of sealed containers and does need no or little micro-waving. Bohm might say: some folks put food in washer-driers.
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Yes, it is a good life even if the food comes out of a sealed container from the grocery store. At least it came from the Deli and it's quite good. (It's warming in the micro wave as we speak)
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Homemade food and homemade thinking, with some dirty laundry and piece of confusion thrown in here and there - good life, Susan. Life does not suck so bad. No matter what dialogue might say .
;--oh
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
laundry and washing dishes. And it's almost dinner time so I'll be adding eating some clam chowder to that in a moment.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
What chores?
Alan, listening to some composer who just crossed the finish-line this week.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/5cfb94a3/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 01:47:32 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 10 01:51:58 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
In-Reply-To: <568855.92106.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <01f601c83ac0$47f7e7a0$e376480c@HOME>
<568855.92106.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712091647v1be66765iaaf5aaef01403aea@mail.gmail.com>
I: or trash bin; circular file???? Lots of synonyms.
On Dec 9, 2007 7:09 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for taking a crack, Susan. Appreciated. But why out-box? Wouldn't
> _draft_ make a better home?
>
> Alan
>
>
> *Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>* wrote:
>
> I can give it a try. The conversation seemed to be about paying attention
> to your own messages to other people as a way to answer your own questions
> that you are asking other people. Also what ever you are saying about
> someone else can just as easily be a statement about yourself (and quite
> often is). So, when you send a message and it goes to your out box you
> might just as well click on your own message and read that for your answers.
>
> At least that seems to be the gist of it.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:56 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
>
> This one comes across here as too deep. Can anyone on the list try to get
> me down there?
> ;-))
>
> Alan
>
>
> *rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>* wrote:
>
> yes. we just need to look for them there.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 11:19:21 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>
> It seems that the messages we send to ourselves get placed in the "out"
> box.
>
> -- funny
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/cb6d3b45/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 01:48:55 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 02:00:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712091640y6b27c43ao7b17640aa50aac38@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206039.43157.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Thanks for the welcome, Irene. Not sure what creative means to you, tho.
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Welcome.
I'm not. Bohm, his physics, his philosophy, and his concern for all are one.
Pat's suggestions are excellent. So is Don F's.
I see Bohm's greatest legacy as his work on creative, collaborative, and critical thinking. See "Science, Order and Creativity", then go to "On Creativity". And don't leave out "Knowledge As Endarkenment".
And in "Thought As a System", he charges us to think of his work as a map that should be tested, and kept up to date.
As for "assumptions", there's more to that than meets the eye. The definition in Bohmland is deeper than the 'ordinary' one.
I'm answering the easier posts now. A couple require more thought before I write.
On Dec 9, 2007 4:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to Wiki dialogue was just a side-kick of Bohm. Are you folks boiling Bohm mostly down to that?
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
My suggestion would be to simply read the proposal for dialogue and then jump in.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
I see that Pat has zeroed in on dialogue but there is much more that gives it a context. I would love to hear what some of the others might suggest.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:26 PM, donald factor wrote:
Welcome, but I am curious as to what in the Wiki made you want to sign up. A crash course on Bohm's thought is probably difficult because his work covered so much, especially at levels of subtlety that are hard to condense. You might want to take a look at The Essential Bohm edited by Lee Nichol, for a start. But if you let us know what about Bohm looks most interesting, we might be able to zero in on that aspect for you.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Hi -
I just joined. Don't know much about Bohm except what I read at Wiki. I see he wrote a few books. Which one is recommended for a crash-course? Thank you all.
Alan E. DeBakey
--
Irene
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/20071209/0ffb3f79/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 10 02:07:01 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 10 02:11:28 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
References: <873824.12096.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <026701c83ac8$f9407380$e376480c@HOME>
Yes, here's to hoping we stay away from the canned conversation and keep it real.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Susan, you are Funny.
So much for assumptions.
Hoping your thinking does not come out of sealed containers and does need no or little micro-waving. Bohm might say: some folks put food in washer-driers.
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Yes, it is a good life even if the food comes out of a sealed container from the grocery store. At least it came from the Deli and it's quite good. (It's warming in the micro wave as we speak)
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Homemade food and homemade thinking, with some dirty laundry and piece of confusion thrown in here and there - good life, Susan. Life does not suck so bad. No matter what dialogue might say .
;--oh
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
laundry and washing dishes. And it's almost dinner time so I'll be adding eating some clam chowder to that in a moment.
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/c8cc711e/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 02:10:49 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 10 02:15:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
In-Reply-To: <206039.43157.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712091640y6b27c43ao7b17640aa50aac38@mail.gmail.com>
<206039.43157.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712091710o47b1adb5nab769c60329cff40@mail.gmail.com>
I: You're welcome. Let's discuss that after I go work some more on my
improv. What is your field of endeavor? Areas of interest? I'm a retired
teacher, very interested in cognitive neurobiology, thinking as process -
teaching - learning, physics, critical thinking, musical improvisation,
Bohm dialogue, literature, Dalcroze eurhythmics, Native American culture,
history, and society, travel, psychology, history, am bilingual
English-Spanish, among other things. What about yourself?
On Dec 9, 2007 7:48 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the welcome, Irene. Not sure what creative means to you, tho.
>
> Alan
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> I: Welcome.
>
> I'm not. Bohm, his physics, his philosophy, and his concern for all are
> one.
>
> Pat's suggestions are excellent. So is Don F's.
>
> I see Bohm's greatest legacy as his work on creative, collaborative, and
> critical thinking. See "Science, Order and Creativity", then go to "On
> Creativity". And don't leave out "Knowledge As Endarkenment".
>
> And in "Thought As a System", he charges us to think of his work as a map
> that should be tested, and kept up to date.
>
> As for "assumptions", there's more to that than meets the eye. The
> definition in Bohmland is deeper than the 'ordinary' one.
>
> I'm answering the easier posts now. A couple require more thought before
> I write.
>
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2007 4:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > According to Wiki dialogue was just a side-kick of Bohm. Are you folks
> > boiling Bohm mostly down to that?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > *Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>* wrote:
> >
> > My suggestion would be to simply read the proposal for dialogue and
> > then jump in.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:53 PM
> > *Subject: *Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue"
> > mailing list
> >
> > I see that Pat has zeroed in on dialogue but there is much more that
> > gives it a context. I would love to hear what some of the others might
> > suggest.
> > don
> >
> > On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:26 PM, donald factor wrote:
> >
> > Welcome, but I am curious as to what in the Wiki made you want to sign
> > up. A crash course on Bohm's thought is probably difficult because his work
> > covered so much, especially at levels of subtlety that are hard to condense.
> > You might want to take a look at The Essential Bohm edited by Lee Nichol,
> > for a start. But if you let us know what about Bohm looks most interesting,
> > we might be able to zero in on that aspect for you.
> > don
> >
> > On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> >
> > Hi -
> >
> > I just joined. Don't know much about Bohm except what I read at Wiki. I
> > see he wrote a few books. Which one is recommended for a crash-course? Thank
> > you all.
> >
> > Alan E. DeBakey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/a12132e5/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 02:13:29 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 10 02:17:56 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <026701c83ac8$f9407380$e376480c@HOME>
References: <873824.12096.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<026701c83ac8$f9407380$e376480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890712091713i329a9892udb0ff5318fa59b74@mail.gmail.com>
Susan, you are Funny.
So much for assumptions.
I: That's funny.
On Dec 9, 2007 8:07 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Yes, here's to hoping we stay away from the canned conversation and keep
> it real.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:45 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
>
> Susan, you are Funny.
>
> So much for assumptions.
>
> Hoping your thinking does not come out of sealed containers and does need
> no or little micro-waving. Bohm might say: some folks put food in
> washer-driers.
>
> Alan
>
> *Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>* wrote:
>
> Yes, it is a good life even if the food comes out of a sealed container
> from the grocery store. At least it came from the Deli and it's quite
> good. (It's warming in the micro wave as we speak)
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:19 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
>
> Homemade food and homemade thinking, with some dirty laundry and piece of
> confusion thrown in here and there - good life, Susan. Life does not suck so
> bad. No matter what dialogue might say .
> ;--oh
> Alan
>
> *Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>* wrote:
>
> laundry and washing dishes. And it's almost dinner time so I'll be adding
> eating some clam chowder to that in a moment.
>
> Susan
>
>
>
> 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/20071209/2fce8107/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 02:23:39 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 10 02:28:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with a single thought.
In-Reply-To: <523910.63756.qm@web57401.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712080735j752e4e5ka099804865826a3e@mail.gmail.com>
<523910.63756.qm@web57401.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712091723o708204d8t171e4979d42be2a0@mail.gmail.com>
I: Ah, Alfred. It was you. You are a poet.
On Dec 9, 2007 11:53 AM, Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Irene Darcy
> Who wrote it?
> *1 cup butter
> 250 gr brown sugar
> 3 oz God
> 1/2 Implicate Order
> 759.2 books
> 1 pinch lovers
> 75 gr Cha-Cha-Cha
> 2 pounds sus pension
> 1/3 teddy-bear
> 5 medium sleep-less nights
> some lemon rind
> ; for a start.*
>
> AL
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> 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>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/6cfb3d37/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 02:27:58 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Mon Dec 10 02:32:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712091710o47b1adb5nab769c60329cff40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <747622.58638.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Good God, Irene, all that stuff you are into would keep me busy for a few life-times! I am a simple guy. I like sports, music, money, food, women ;-) alright, maybe not necessarily in this particular order of priorities.
Sure, tell us more about that creative-thing when you are done with -?- improv.
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: You're welcome. Let's discuss that after I go work some more on my improv. What is your field of endeavor? Areas of interest? I'm a retired teacher, very interested in cognitive neurobiology, thinking as process - teaching - learning, physics, critical thinking, musical improvisation, Bohm dialogue, literature, Dalcroze eurhythmics, Native American culture, history, and society, travel, psychology, history, am bilingual English-Spanish, among other things. What about yourself?
On Dec 9, 2007 7:48 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for the welcome, Irene. Not sure what creative means to you, tho.
Alan
Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Welcome.
I'm not. Bohm, his physics, his philosophy, and his concern for all are one.
Pat's suggestions are excellent. So is Don F's.
I see Bohm's greatest legacy as his work on creative, collaborative, and critical thinking. See "Science, Order and Creativity", then go to "On Creativity". And don't leave out "Knowledge As Endarkenment".
And in "Thought As a System", he charges us to think of his work as a map that should be tested, and kept up to date.
As for "assumptions", there's more to that than meets the eye. The definition in Bohmland is deeper than the 'ordinary' one.
I'm answering the easier posts now. A couple require more thought before I write.
On Dec 9, 2007 4:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to Wiki dialogue was just a side-kick of Bohm. Are you folks boiling Bohm mostly down to that?
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
My suggestion would be to simply read the proposal for dialogue and then jump in.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
I see that Pat has zeroed in on dialogue but there is much more that gives it a context. I would love to hear what some of the others might suggest.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:26 PM, donald factor wrote:
Welcome, but I am curious as to what in the Wiki made you want to sign up. A crash course on Bohm's thought is probably difficult because his work covered so much, especially at levels of subtlety that are hard to condense. You might want to take a look at The Essential Bohm edited by Lee Nichol, for a start. But if you let us know what about Bohm looks most interesting, we might be able to zero in on that aspect for you.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Hi -
I just joined. Don't know much about Bohm except what I read at Wiki. I see he wrote a few books. Which one is recommended for a crash-course? Thank you all.
Alan E. DeBakey
--
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/f83270d1/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 02:38:31 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 10 02:42:58 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <20071209.140135.2428.201.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071209.140135.2428.201.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712091738u46633b11lb264060798f1258d@mail.gmail.com>
I: Therefore we sever - deny - the connection between the doer and the
action? Actions don't happen by themselves. There are cause and effect
events in the world.
Not for a minute am I going to let someone hurt me without fighting back.
If Martin Luther King thought that way, we'd still have "Strange Fruit
Hanging on the Trees". In case you don't know the song, it's a powerful
Billy Holiday one.
That would be quite effective if one couldn't afford to be angry with the
person who hurt herim. An example of 'acting and pretending' as far as I'm
concerned. Today, it's called 'being in denial'.
Sorry, Pat.
On Dec 9, 2007 1:45 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> "Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
> and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
>
> [like 100% maybe]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <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/20071209/d90d7d34/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Dec 10 03:10:16 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Dec 10 03:10:27 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Message-ID: <20071209.211022.2428.208.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Not sure who you are quoting here... (df)
check the original
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 12:42:27 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:45 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
[like 100% maybe]
Not sure who you are quoting here, but this doesn't seem the case to me.
Certainly anger involves painful feelings but it imerges out of the
meanings implied by the whole circumstance. so it is as much an effect,
as if a stone hit you in the back of your head. You could say that the
pain is the result of the meaning of your feeling disturbed by the thump,
but it is the thump along with, presumably, the one who threw it that is
the actual cause. This may be an example of "systems thinking" which I
value becauise it gets away from the either-or way of understanding the
world of which I am an inseparable part.
But having said all that, I wonder why there is a tendency among many
here to think that anger is all bad?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/72a80a9a/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Mon Dec 10 05:16:20 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec 10 05:20:50 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on persons
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W4159FD16AD7BCCA5083247DC6A0@phx.gbl>
References: <009f01c837b1$e44efce0$b5c16018@DL01>
<4757E198.000005.05940@VAIO-584793128F>
<002201c8387a$e9ed55b0$b5c16018@DL01>
<4535E026-392E-4CC4-AEED-860B89B16505@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W4159FD16AD7BCCA5083247DC6A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4E1EA7EA-D5D3-4358-A1D0-0B2525301CA7@dc.rr.com>
Doesn't this come back to this?
On Dec 8, 2007, at 6:07 PM, rob mooney wrote:
> this is dead simple really. just read what you address to the other
> and apply it to yourself
Actually, it would probably be better to say that it takes one to
know one. because that means that we know from whence it comes and
sometimes even understand it because we too have been there, done
that and now wear a Bohm dialogue tee shirt that gives us permission
to wave a few flags..
don
>
>
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Setting the Record Straight on
> persons
> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:55:03 -0800
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
>
> 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
>
>
> Get closer to the jungle. I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!
>
> 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/20071209/ca3a79bb/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Mon Dec 10 05:31:48 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec 10 05:36:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <20071209.211022.2428.208.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071209.211022.2428.208.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <3C6EFD3A-6B00-4552-8124-814AA079B64C@dc.rr.com>
On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:10 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Not sure who you are quoting here... (df)
>
> check the original
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071209/79a4eda5/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 11:29:56 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Mon Dec 10 11:34:27 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <01db01c83abe$c4dfaed0$e376480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <84438.10017.qm@web57402.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Susan Clemons. In the paintings of certain Flemish masters a theme of strikingly general application recurs insistently: the building of the Tower of Babel. Vast landscapes, rocks climbing up to heaven, steep slopes teeming with work-men, animals, ladders, strange machines, cords, pulleys. Man, moreover, is there only to give scale to the inhuman scope of construction. AL
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Yes, it certainly does. I'm responding to 2 or 3 different conversations on 2 different lists and trying to do a few chores at the same time and I'm afraid I'm not doing a very good job of keeping up with any of them.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Haaaaa!! Hey Susan, looks like thought does need to be brought in for an inspection, haha. Maybe ol' Bohm was not so much off! Thanks for the link.
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.............you were talking about me. Hahahahaha! Sorry, I thought saying that it would mostly just bore the others got me off the hook on that one. Here's a link:
http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/hurt.htm
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/a11fcbc0/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 11:33:30 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Mon Dec 10 11:38:02 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
In-Reply-To: <747622.58638.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <873727.10827.qm@web57402.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Alan E Debakey. Code. AL
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: Good God, Irene, all that stuff you are into would keep me busy for a few life-times! I am a simple guy. I like sports, music, money, food, women ;-) alright, maybe not necessarily in this particular order of priorities.
Sure, tell us more about that creative-thing when you are done with -?- improv.
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: You're welcome. Let's discuss that after I go work some more on my improv. What is your field of endeavor? Areas of interest? I'm a retired teacher, very interested in cognitive neurobiology, thinking as process - teaching - learning, physics, critical thinking, musical improvisation, Bohm dialogue, literature, Dalcroze eurhythmics, Native American culture, history, and society, travel, psychology, history, am bilingual English-Spanish, among other things. What about yourself?
On Dec 9, 2007 7:48 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for the welcome, Irene. Not sure what creative means to you, tho.
Alan
Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Welcome.
I'm not. Bohm, his physics, his philosophy, and his concern for all are one.
Pat's suggestions are excellent. So is Don F's.
I see Bohm's greatest legacy as his work on creative, collaborative, and critical thinking. See "Science, Order and Creativity", then go to "On Creativity". And don't leave out "Knowledge As Endarkenment".
And in "Thought As a System", he charges us to think of his work as a map that should be tested, and kept up to date.
As for "assumptions", there's more to that than meets the eye. The definition in Bohmland is deeper than the 'ordinary' one.
I'm answering the easier posts now. A couple require more thought before I write.
On Dec 9, 2007 4:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to Wiki dialogue was just a side-kick of Bohm. Are you folks boiling Bohm mostly down to that?
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
My suggestion would be to simply read the proposal for dialogue and then jump in.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
I see that Pat has zeroed in on dialogue but there is much more that gives it a context. I would love to hear what some of the others might suggest.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:26 PM, donald factor wrote:
Welcome, but I am curious as to what in the Wiki made you want to sign up. A crash course on Bohm's thought is probably difficult because his work covered so much, especially at levels of subtlety that are hard to condense. You might want to take a look at The Essential Bohm edited by Lee Nichol, for a start. But if you let us know what about Bohm looks most interesting, we might be able to zero in on that aspect for you.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Hi -
I just joined. Don't know much about Bohm except what I read at Wiki. I see he wrote a few books. Which one is recommended for a crash-course? Thank you all.
Alan E. DeBakey
--
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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/20071210/77b1e54c/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Dec 10 16:00:32 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Dec 10 16:06:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Message-ID: <20071210.100634.2428.219.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
"Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
Marcus Aurelius
Such a bohm - like quote [not that such is uncommon in perennial wisdom
literature]
that I ran the author down the page a bit for effect.
-- funny
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:48 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:10 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Not sure who you are quoting here... (df)
check the original
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/93c57458/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Dec 10 15:59:51 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Dec 10 16:06:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending
Message-ID: <20071210.100634.2428.218.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I hope this makes some sense... (wm)
I'm so intrigued by all this; so bereft of understanding the paradigm in
application.
I've got that there are two channels. Channel A is one way and Channel B
is two way
or potentially so. But Channel B in terms of Paradigm A, translates
viscerally,
as a sewer pipe. Can't override the reflex to close my mouth and get out
of the way! Maybe this process could include at some point, an example
from this list of how Channel B works or has worked as a two way channel.
Also "worked" presumes the purpose of Paradigm B, which seems so far
to be "communication." Do I have this right? And this would perhaps be
a "communication" of having been "touched?" Or would you say that it is
a "communication" of having been successfully "hurt?"
Lots of loose pieces floating around about this.
Do you use this "method" on this list?
Did you "use it" with me? Don't want to get to far afield
with these questions but is "I am sorry "funny" but to me it
sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented." an example
of the method? Except that wouldn't work as an example because
what you were responding to couldn't possible have made you
feel "hurt." It certainly wasn't directed at "hurting" you. It
wasn't directed at you at all.
So, you can see, how far off I am in understanding. No need to
feel like I am asking you to address specifics. Whatever more you
have to say will go into the mix. I'm especially interested in
experiencing
the first example of practical application.
"When we define the terms of one journey in terms of a totally different
journey the results can only be invalid and confusing. We cannot lift
terms out of their original experiential context and redefine them
according to a totally different paradigm and set of experiences."
Roberts
-- funny
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:33:10 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
So far, we seem to be talking about quite different things. But I almost
don't want to say this
because it might inhibit the complimentary development in each of our
directions, which development
is totally fascinating to me. But I feel a need to say just this much.
The parallel development though, of these two renderings of recent and
current
experience will hopefully continue along their parallel paths. I truly
want to see this development
continue; yours reads like a real page turner novel - but I have to wait
for the next chapter.
Mine, to me, reads like poetry (because it captures better than I could
have imagined
possible, the actual breakthrough experience. And because of the feedback
there is
confidence that the pointy nose of the clarifying process will continue
its
"breaking through").
And I'll just add that the mutual and back and forth praxis of experience
and
development of the language of the experience has been really in the
forefront
of awareness during the breakthrough process. "Which comes first?"
[Language. Experience]. Can't say at all.
-- funny
>Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation -
>not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had
>written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
I am a bit busy at the moment, Pat, but I'll pick it up again later. For
the time being, let me just say that this is leading up to passion. But
not exactly the same kind of passion that we have talked about a few
years ago. This "new" passion is a further development of the earlier
version. It's more like a second order of passion corresponding with the
equally "new" second order of suspension. But more later...
>
>Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the
words that I say.
>The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are music. But that's
another story.
>So it is these "words that I say" that interest me. I am really very
tired of saying words
>that are hurtful to me.
But it's the hearing that works, not the saying. Whether words are spoken
by yourself or by someone else doesn't really matter. In both cases you
hear the words, and that is what is causing the reactions. You can
misunderstand what somebody is saying and hear something else. In such a
case, the reaction is to what you mistakenly think the person is saying.
Thus, suspension is suspending the reaction to what you hear. What you
hear is of your own making.
The "second order suspension" is suspending suspension. This is like
taking yourself out of suspension mode and allow the reaction to unfold
with all its consequences. This is almost the same as if there never was
suspension, like ging back to square one, but with a subtle difference.
This also gives rise to a new kind of passion because suspension and
passion are very closely related. Ordinary passion (first order passion)
means allowing the hurt, let it happen without resistence, but also
without reaction. However, this means the attempted hurt is not working
as intended. The reaction is missing. The passion has the effect of
making you kind of "transparent" and this can be frustrating to anyone
who wanted to hurt you: it's not working. This is where the second order
passion comes in; you move into second order suspension and let the
reaction react, and the hurt hurt. This second order passion is almost
the same as a mechanical reaction (at least that's what it looks like on
the surface). The reason for doing this is to avoid the frustration of
the other person. A mechanical reaction can quickly escalate the
situation, but frustration with a "transparent" person doesn't help much
either; chances are that the frustration finds someone else. I hope this
makes some sense... (wm)
Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not
a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written:
"How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For
those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity
came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about
clarity - "getting to" clarity.
The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self)
which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each
level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness
is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations
of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a
static sensation and a non satisfaction.
Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the
words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are
music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that I say" that
interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to
me.
It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely
[seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain
confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too.
One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I
said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure"
turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There
is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no
defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom
the response is being written.
Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily a
response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is
its own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if
I understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
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/20071210/bccd45f9/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Dec 10 16:06:28 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Dec 10 16:06:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
Message-ID: <20071210.100634.2428.220.ae.dropper@juno.com>
"We can seldom go erect. Almost every man we meet requires some civility,
requires to be humored; -- he has some fame, some talent, some whim of
religion or philanthropy in his head that is not to be questioned, and so
spoils all conversation with him." -- Emerson
"Almost"
It's always the "almost" that promises faithfully the
alternative that delivers the tiniest exception that changes
e v e r y t h i n g.
-- funny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/5cc73719/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Dec 10 16:23:46 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Dec 10 16:24:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Welcome to the "Bohm_Dialogue" mailing list
Message-ID: <20071210.102348.2428.222.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I can never remember what acronyms mean. OS? And what is "bus?" But
anyway, the 'gist'
comes through.
It's a paradox. The "fix" comes with "awareness" (of the movement of
thought as a system),
but the tricky paradox is [and never underestimate the significance of a
tricky paradox]:
"there is nothing to "fix."
It's a highwire walk. Just when we get perfect at it, two things occur
simultaneously:
The net is removed and we fall.
Fall
Freefall
Fly
Float
Freedom
-- funny
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 12:48:03 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
>From Wiki:
What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is
basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is
crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our
problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we
use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like
going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of
medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of
thought, it's far over 20%.
If thought is our OS, and yet, it has major bus - where is the fix to
come from, other than outside itself, the OS, meaning: some programmer?
God?
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Welcome, but I am curious as to what in the Wiki made you want to sign
up. A crash course on Bohm's thought is probably difficult because his
work covered so much, especially at levels of subtlety that are hard to
condense. You might want to take a look at The Essential Bohm edited by
Lee Nichol, for a start. But if you let us know what about Bohm looks
most interesting, we might be able to zero in on that aspect for you.
don
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Hi -
I just joined. Don't know much about Bohm except what I read at Wiki. I
see he wrote a few books. Which one is recommended for a crash-course?
Thank you all.
Alan E. DeBakey
bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
Welcome to the Bohm_Dialogue@david-bohm.org mailing list! Just to fill
you in and make certain that you agree with the approach we are
taking, let me mention what this group is for and what it isn't for:
It is intended as a place where we can inquire together into David
Bohm's proposals regarding dialogue, the process of thought, wholeness
and other aspects of his philosophical work. Our intention is to
explore his theories, set them alongside other approaches and attempt
to find out how we might proceed from where he left off.
It is not intended as an online dialogue but rather an online group
exploration to be conducted in the spirit of dialogue.
Unlike face-to-face dialogue groups it will be moderated. That is the
moderator will be available to do whatever he or she feels is
necessary to keep the process on course. The moderator will be able to
delete messages that are felt to be inappropriate and to 'unplug' any
participant who persists in disrupting what we hope will be an
exercise in the creative exploration of a complex body of work that we
feel may have potential importance for the future of all of us.
Unfortunately we have found it necessary to handle the list in this
way based on more than ten years of experience struggling with
unmoderated groups.
If you feel unhappy to participate with us under these terms please
unsubscribe now.
To post to this list, send your email to:
bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
General information about the mailing list is at:
http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to
or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your
subscription page at:
http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/options/bohm_dialogue/a.debakey%40yahoo
.com
You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to:
Bohm_Dialogue-request@david-bohm.org
with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the
quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions.
You must know your password to change your options (including changing
the password, itself) or to unsubscribe. It is:
Bohm
Normally, Mailman will remind you of your david-bohm.org mailing list
passwords once every month, although you can disable this if you
prefer. This reminder will also include instructions on how to
unsubscribe or change your account options. There is also a button on
your options page that will email your current password to you.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/a2e32cb4/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 17:51:09 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 10 17:55:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <20071209.103058.2428.187.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071209.103058.2428.187.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712100851k19f83e3ap64c0cbb30575cf8b@mail.gmail.com>
I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to do
something about it, I share the following with you.
I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain:
Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD and
Sharon Begley. I normally don't like psychiatrists et al, but I read their
ideas so I won't be ignorant on the topics. This one has a couple of things
I think are valuable. About him personally, he says that at 15, he was
convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only mystery worth
pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And amazingly, some of
his writing reads like the 'excitation - inhibition' work we do in
Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear chapter on The Quantum Brain, and has
managed to explain 'observer & observed' so it makes sense to me. Actually,
it's something I've always been aware of, and used. But the fancy words in
books made it seem like something esoteric and unfamiliar.
Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used variations of
it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to incorporate and add something
to the TAS process.
Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our
'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they arise
and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's presence, then
saying your own specific version of "that is a false message due to a jammed
transmission in the brain". The author makes me laugh. He says "The
brain's gonna do what the brain's gonna do, but you don't have to let it
push you around." I agree.
In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with "Every day in
every way, I'm getting better and better." Affirmations are the core of the
Beautyway Ceremony from which the lines "Now I walk in Beauty" have been
passed down as 'poetry'.
Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.
(The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four corners.)
On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not
> a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written:
> "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
>
> There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For
> those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity
> came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about
> clarity - "getting to" clarity.
>
> The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
> evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self) which
> correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each level though
> - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness is in the bodily
> sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations of static. The
> initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a static sensation
> and a non satisfaction.
>
> Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the
> words that *I* say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are
> music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that *I* say" that
> interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
>
> It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely
> [seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain
> confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
>
> Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too.
> One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I
> said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure" turns
> to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
>
> But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There is
> no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no defensive
> wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom the response is
> being written.
>
> Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily a
> response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is its
> own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if I
> understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
>
> -- funny
>
>
>
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
>
> 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 "