From DStulberg at msw-law.com Fri Nov 10 00:00:24 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Sat Nov 11 01:01:27 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D05FC@msw2k.msw.local>
Mark-isn't that a wonderful feeling to be finished? But odd as it
seems, in a little while it will fit right into the horizon and you
might not even remember the title? Did you ever tell us the title?
Will it be on the web? D
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
MarkHarmer@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 5:54 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
Fab - it's a great book!
PS I'm back, having finished my dissertation.
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/ad444d0b/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Fri Nov 10 00:06:08 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sat Nov 11 01:10:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
In-Reply-To: <3fc.5b3f941.32850b8e@aol.com>
References: <3fc.5b3f941.32850b8e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4ACA8C4B-307C-441B-BA03-DB49E616D519@dc.rr.com>
Welcome back. That was quick - for a dissertation.
don
On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:54 PM, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:
> Fab - it's a great book!
>
> PS I'm back, having finished my dissertation.
>
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/2bb6bb19/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com Fri Nov 10 00:20:28 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Sat Nov 11 01:24:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
Message-ID: <3cb.909ac06.328511bc@aol.com>
Thank you!
I'm not sure if it's "good" or not having only just finished it. I think I
need some distance from it, and when my peers have read it and I've done my
viva, I'm sure I'll know more then!
The title is "The gig - exploring the musicality of organisation" - the gig
signifying my experience playing in our band's casual concerts, and the
musicality of organisations being about my own "assumptions" that music is
something we can all do as an expression of how we work together. By working
together to create music, the idea is that we learn a bit more about how we
communicate together, and by doing this, we can understand how power works in groups.
For the musicians, I've also drawn some parallels between the musical
"assumptions" we have to hold up in order to make music together, and how that
might be similar to Bohm's idea of holding up "assumptions".
Certainly my practical experiments have worked really well. I haven't yet
thought of making my dissertation available, but in the spirit of dialogue, that
suggestion makes a lot of sense.
I'm looking forward to being able to surface again and join in with this
dialogue group. It was too fascinating and distracting as I neared my deadline
for completion - so I'm pleased to be able to join in again.
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/2d847201/attachment.html
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Fri Nov 10 00:20:41 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Sat Nov 11 01:24:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D05CD@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F331B123F8AB7541F66A27CB7F00@phx.gbl>
Joseph Campbell did not believe in absolute truth. (d)
I agree.
Regina
>From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:12:29 -0500
>
>Joseph Campbell did not believe in absolute truth. (I think anyway).
>He enjoyed life and living and being aware and conscious of all the ways
>of living life. I never felt he judged-he experienced. His
>conversation with bill moyers is the one I listen to a lot. Its well
>worth it. d
>
>________________________________
>
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of william
>Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 7:55 AM
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Regina Bensch-Coe <mailto:benschcoe@hotmail.com>
> >William, is not true art the manifestation of compassion?
>
>I don't know. I don't know much about true art. What is it?
>
> >I keep thinking about what you call the passion point. This,
> >from my perspective, is the reconciliation point. It is the
> >point when something totally unexpected, yet expected -
> >something so complete and whole -emerges.
>
>Yes, it's certainly a breakthrough.
>
> >I remember when Joseph Campbell was asked, "Do you believe
> >in God?" and he said, "Yes." Then he was asked, "Do you have
> >faith?" Then he said, "No, I don't have to have faith, I have
> >experience." For the longest time I did not understand what he
> >was talking about - experience but not faith? It made no
> >sense. Then I read something Bohm wrote about faith being blind
> >trust, etc. (I don't remember the precise words ...).
>
>I think faith is defined as unconditional trust (without requiring
>proof). If Campbell takes his experience as proof then by definition it
>is not faith.
>
> >Now I understand. Joseph Campbell experienced the passion
> >point many times in his lifetime. It is that passion point that the
> >true artist experiences with each "complete and whole awakening"
> >he manifests.
>
>That may well be the case, but other interpretations are also possible.
>One such possibility is that he may have had a brain defect causing
>temporary mental malfunctionings. We have already talked about this in
>the past, if you remember. It can be a spontaneous malfunctioning or it
>may be brought about by drugs or by depriving the brain of oxygen or
>whatever. Some meditation techniques are designed to bring about such
>lack of oxygen in order to deliberately cause temporary brain damage.
>This can be done, for instance by sitting still too long, or by doing
>repetitious trance inducing things. What happens is that certain mental
>functions cease to work properly. One such function is maintaining a
>sense of separation, or the ability to evaluate, judge what is happening
>or to question, doubt what someone is saying. When such abilities are
>impaired then you get what some people describe as a state of
>enlightenment. If, for instance, the sense of separation is not working
>anymore then by default you experience wholeness. If the ability to
>doubt or question is impaired then by default you get a sense of
>absolute truth. Thus, this sense of wholeness, absoluteness,
>ultimateness is a form failure. The sense of separation or the ability
>to doubt is a highly sophisticated function that can easily be impaired.
>These are only some examples of what can go wrong when the brain is no
>longer able to implement these mental functions. There are many more
>things that can go wrong. I tend to generalize them as "special
>effects".
>Something like this may have happened to Joseph Campbell. He may have
>experienced absolute truth (resulting from disabled doubt). Generally
>speaking, people tend to take their experiences as a form of proof. If
>he has had such a breakdown and takes this experience as a form of proof
>then he would firmly believe it without a shadow of doubt. It is not all
>that uncommon. Even presidents can suffer from this sort of thing.
>
>william
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 10 01:34:08 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Nov 11 02:38:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
In-Reply-To: <005201c70426$582c8710$2479480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F998675FC53404BAC38920A5F70@phx.gbl>
So am I. It's a beautiful thing when it happens. k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:41:46 -0700
>
>Well, you know that you're one of my favorite people to connect with
>Dorothy. I'm always pleased when we find each other.
>
>Susan
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Dorothy Stulberg"
><DStulberg@msw-law.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:15 AM
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
>
>
>What a wonderful conversation. I could just feel the beauty of the
>connection between you. I felt connected too. D
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:19 AM
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
>
>Susan, You have no idea how delighted I am that we met! How I wish I
>had known you when Michael and I were in Cave Creek! He was finishing
>up his MA in creative wriing here at New School when the cancer struck,
>and we literally fled to Mayo in Scottsdale, hoping for a liver
>transplant. While there, we went to Tucson. Simon Ortiz wanted Michael
>to come there for his PhD. Unfortunately, Michael crossed over, but I
>have those memories.
>Michael grew up in Clifton where his father worked for Phelps Dodge; the
>first Indian to get a job above ground.
>
>I am so sorry about your car accident. You have a great hospital in
>Tucson, though. One of our transplant support group came to us from
>there. I hope you have a full recovery.
>
>You are not too far from Dine/Navajo Community College. The tuition is
>next to nothing, and you can stay in the dorms. Go there and study.
>There is a marvellous teacher of Navajo language named Martha Jackson.
>Another one name OJ whom you should stay away from. One named Ben -
>Littlehorse, I think. I can go to the website and pull it up. Ben is
>great! The study of the language is not complete without living the
>life with them. Avery Denny is a hatathli/medicine man whom I did an
>independent study under, oh - gosh
>- if you do that, maybe I'll come out and do it again, too. I really
>loved it. Denny used to tell me when and where certain ceremonies were
>being held so I could go. Harry Walters, the head of the museum, when I
>meet again I'll
>just put my arms around him and cry. I do so miss it!
>
>I'd love to read your posts on the language. All you say about nouns
>and verbs is true, but upon studying Bohm, I realized that there is a
>more basic connection - that is, how the language reflects the world
>view of connection and relationship as beauty - hozhoon - all my
>relations. One single lo-o-o-o-og word embodies what we call a noun,
>verb, and all its descriptive properties. And the selection of the
>properties is more complete and
>complex than anything we have in English. Actually, I find that our
>words
>for our grammar and syntax aren't really adequate to think about Navajo
>because they activate our experiences of English, and we erroneously
>expect Navajo to follow suit. But - we have no other words, so we try
>to translate. I find it a much more precise language than English.
>Vincent Craig, the Navajo comedian, once compared it to "mental
>television" because one word can describe physical features, movement,
>1st/2nd/3rd person, and singular, plural (2), plural (3 or more).
>That's also why I refuse to be told I can't use images. Also, we use
>verbal imagery all the time. With these new resources, a new language
>HAS to develop.
>
>"recently people have begun to realize more and more that it might be
>possible to have a "true" dialogue in this format."
>Yes, actually, it never occurred to me NOT to dialog. After all, we've
>"dialogued" through snail mail for a long time. Any time two people try
>to communicate, a broad definition of dialog happens - not Bohm - but
>why should it be any different?
>
>As for "intellectual discussion", I totally agree. Sometimes, some of
>the posts I see remind me of the poem Jabberwocky! Totally severed from
>action and the rest of the world. My wonderful teacher Frances used to
>say "you have all there is. It's what you do with it that counts." She
>was SO right.
>
>So, Susan - I think the true spirit of Bohm is the creative - mechanical
>interplay, finally to result in new perceptions, new connections. As
>our options expand for exchange with wonderful people around the globe,
>the closer I feel, we get to what Bohm really envisioned. Especially if
>it's not restricted to those who have money to buy and support
>computers. So - upward and onward. Let's not fear that we aren't
>"doing Bohm". He believed that everything is in flux, and a man of his
>brilliance would have flowed with the new opportunitites evolving.
>
>I still have my Navajo books downstairs in storage where I put them when
>I lost Michael. Maybe soon I'll go down there and get the titles of the
>ones I think you might be interested in. Also, the NCC bookstore has a
>lot of great stuff, and will order things for you. And the library
>there is rich with their cultural material.
>
>If I ever learn how to get pictures to an acceptable size, I'll send you
>photos of my life with the Navajo.
>
>Hozhoon, k
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
>>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:29:15 -0700
>>
>>Hi Kathy. Thanks for introducing yourself. I'll reciprocate with a
>>little information on me. I'm single, no children, just turned 55 and
>>live in Tucson, AZ. I currently work at home doing CAD drawings
>>(computer aided
>>drafting) for the construction industry and working with graphics.
>>I've been a member of this group for 3 or 4 years now (can't remember
>>exactly when I joined).
>>
>>Back at the end of June I was in a car accident and ended up with a
>>broken right arm. They tell me that because it was broken close to the
>
>>shoulder it caused a lot of problems that aren't associated with most
>breaks.
>>Because of this the healing process has been long and taken a lot of my
>
>>energy. I would say I'm about 70% back to normal now. I still have a
>>few problems that will take a couple more months (so they say) for me
>>to clear up.
>>
>>I'm very interested in your experience with the Navajo. I'm very
>>interested in language and particularly Native American Language. I
>>grew up in Oklahoma among a large population of Native Americans and
>>have had a number of Native American friends. I've posted quite a bit
>>of my ideas about the differences in NA language and English in the
>>past. The biggest difference having to do with verbs. I have come to
>>understand that in the Western world we have come to think of
>>processes as "things"/objects and this has created a lot of problems in
>
>>our thought process. Where as the NA's have what I think of as a more
>>verby language that is process oriented. In fact, many of the NA
>>languages as well as some Eastern languages don't even have nouns. I
>>have found a huge difference in learning to think in verby terms
>>(process oriented rather than object
>>oriented) in my own thought processes.
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 10 02:01:35 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Nov 11 03:05:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
In-Reply-To: <3fc.5b3f941.32850b8e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2357E644340A78AF0DF84AA5F70@phx.gbl>
Welcome back, Mark. It's good to hear from you. k
>From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:54:06 EST
>
>Fab - it's a great book!
>
>PS I'm back, having finished my dissertation.
>
>Mark
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Fri Nov 10 01:03:32 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sat Nov 11 03:07:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
In-Reply-To: <3cb.909ac06.328511bc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C1791DF4.7E34%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Hi Mark,
Congratulations on finishing your dissertation! Glad you?re back. I
wanted you to know some of your thoughts about music have revived my own
fascination with music not just as entertainment, but as having something
profound to do with the very structure of our lives. I have a book I got
years ago & never finished because it was pretty difficult. I?m now
rereading it & find it fascinating ? The World As Sound: Nada Brahma, by
Joachim-Ernst Berendt. (Nada Brahma means roughly, sound is everything.)
Mathematically, the structure of our music reflects the structure of the
material world. He sees harmony as the goal & I seem to remember reading
something to that effect by Bohm talking about creativity.
Lynne
On 11/9/06 5:20 PM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> I'm not sure if it's "good" or not having only just finished it. I think I
> need some distance from it, and when my peers have read it and I've done my
> viva, I'm sure I'll know more then!
>
> The title is "The gig - exploring the musicality of organisation" - the gig
> signifying my experience playing in our band's casual concerts, and the
> musicality of organisations being about my own "assumptions" that music is
> something we can all do as an expression of how we work together. By working
> together to create music, the idea is that we learn a bit more about how we
> communicate together, and by doing this, we can understand how power works in
> groups. For the musicians, I've also drawn some parallels between the musical
> "assumptions" we have to hold up in order to make music together, and how that
> might be similar to Bohm's idea of holding up "assumptions".
>
> Certainly my practical experiments have worked really well. I haven't yet
> thought of making my dissertation available, but in the spirit of dialogue,
> that suggestion makes a lot of sense.
>
> I'm looking forward to being able to surface again and join in with this
> dialogue group. It was too fascinating and distracting as I neared my deadline
> for completion - so I'm pleased to be able to join in again.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/ded306f6/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 10 02:07:12 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Nov 11 03:11:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
In-Reply-To: <C1791DF4.7E34%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F4A3D3C86B91A1B251DE66A5F70@phx.gbl>
Nada Brahma, by Joachim-Ernst Berendt -
A wonderful book. Enjoy. k
>From: Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
>Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:03:32 -0600
>
>Hi Mark,
>
>Congratulations on finishing your dissertation! Glad you¹re back. I
>wanted you to know some of your thoughts about music have revived my own
>fascination with music not just as entertainment, but as having something
>profound to do with the very structure of our lives. I have a book I got
>years ago & never finished because it was pretty difficult. I¹m now
>rereading it & find it fascinating The World As Sound: Nada Brahma, by
>Joachim-Ernst Berendt. (Nada Brahma means roughly, sound is everything.)
>Mathematically, the structure of our music reflects the structure of the
>material world. He sees harmony as the goal & I seem to remember reading
>something to that effect by Bohm talking about creativity.
>
>Lynne
>
>On 11/9/06 5:20 PM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you!
> >
> > I'm not sure if it's "good" or not having only just finished it. I think
>I
> > need some distance from it, and when my peers have read it and I've done
>my
> > viva, I'm sure I'll know more then!
> >
> > The title is "The gig - exploring the musicality of organisation" - the
>gig
> > signifying my experience playing in our band's casual concerts, and the
> > musicality of organisations being about my own "assumptions" that music
>is
> > something we can all do as an expression of how we work together. By
>working
> > together to create music, the idea is that we learn a bit more about how
>we
> > communicate together, and by doing this, we can understand how power
>works in
> > groups. For the musicians, I've also drawn some parallels between the
>musical
> > "assumptions" we have to hold up in order to make music together, and
>how that
> > might be similar to Bohm's idea of holding up "assumptions".
> >
> > Certainly my practical experiments have worked really well. I haven't
>yet
> > thought of making my dissertation available, but in the spirit of
>dialogue,
> > that suggestion makes a lot of sense.
> >
> > I'm looking forward to being able to surface again and join in with this
> > dialogue group. It was too fascinating and distracting as I neared my
>deadline
> > for completion - so I'm pleased to be able to join in again.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
> 208 376-1336
> www.lifedirectionscoach.com
> (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>
>
>"Love is never earned . . .
>It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From donlay at gte.net Fri Nov 10 02:08:50 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Nov 11 03:12:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fw: [jcs-online] Amness, Existence and Being
Message-ID: <005401c70464$cee6a050$3648153f@DL01>
Here's another bit from a JCS Mait Edey email.
I find especially interesting the notion of replacing the subject object
STRUCTURE (SOS) with the awareness appearance STRUCTURE (AAS). The SOS
seems to be shopworn with the idea of the personal identity as subject at
times, and at other times, as object. Edey says this is a problem,
indicating perhaps it is related to 'the problem hard problem.'
"It might help to use the words "awareness" and "appearance" in place of
"subject " and "object". The appearance of anything presupposes awareness,
but awareness itself does not appear. Your realization that you are aware is
not the appearance of anything in particular, even though subsequently
thoughts about it appear." -- lifted from Edey's email below.
This relates to the Greek notion of essence and existence, but not essence
as the imaginary Latin persona-subject.
Don L
From: "Mait Edey" <maitedey@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Amness, Existence and Being
On 10/28/06 2:32 PM, "Joseph Polanik" <jPolanik@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Mait Edey wrote:
>
>> Thanks to Joseph Polonik for distinguishing "I am" and "I exist".
>> It's a crucial distinction no matter what words we choose to express
>> it. I mentioned it in the closing paragraphs of my essay "Subject and
>> Object" in JCS Vol. 4, No. 5/6, 1997, which I hope may contribute to
>> this discussion:
>
> Mait,
>
> I've waited before replying to your post so that I could get ahold of
> a copy of that issue of JCS so that I could read the entire essay. It
> was very impressive.
>
> It seems that we've both dwelt on the phenomenological fact that I may
> know that I am without knowing what I am. May I ask how this insight
> became thematic for you? My account is on my website.
Thanks, Joseph. I checked your website, though I haven't yet digested it
all. I'm encouraged, by the resemblances in our thinking, even to the use of
the same phrases. I agree that one of the first moves is to distinguish
different senses or uses of the pronoun "I", which was the intent of the
list of identifications beginning my essay.
As in your case, the observations in "Subject and Object" derive from
meditation practice. I haven't read LeShan's book, but the inquiry "who (or
what) am I?" is familiar in Buddhism, Vedanta, and yoga. My understanding of
the inquiry, though, is not that the "rules require the meditator to reject
every answer that comes up", in the sense of instructions to be followed.
The "rule" is rather the inevitable observation that the meditator, once he
has grasped the subject/object distinction, will finally conclude that no
available conceptual answer actually answers the question. Your meditation
practice, as described on your website, began with conceptual analysis and
reached a wonderful impasse which can precipitate a breakthrough. A further
meditation discipline examines, not theory or the contents of thought, but
thoughts as appearances. By focusing attention on the appearance and
disappearance of thoughts, you learn about awareness/attention in practice.
You know what you are paying attention to, and you can rephrase the who-am-I
question as: Where am I paying attention from?
>
> I'm sure you're aware that others have encountered this insight too.
>
> Early in the Second Meditation, after confronting the possibility that
> he was being deceived by a malicious demon, Descartes concludes that
> no such demon however cunning could convince him that he was nothing
> when he thought that he was something. But, in the very next sentence,
> Descartes admits not knowing what this 'I' is that necessarily exists.
He goes on the conclude that he is a "thinking thing". As I understand it,
his sense of "think" was very broad, encompassing all awareness and not just
conceptual thought. But he got into trouble with "thing".
>
> Kant didn't start here but he clearly arrived at this point with the
> added claim that one could not know anything about the 'real' self
> beyond that it is.
>
> Unfortunately, while all these paths may have passed through a certain
> point in the forest, no one paused to torch the deadwood nearby before
> heading off in their own direction. No clearing was made; and, thus,
> there is no theoretical perspective that will accomplish the paradigm
> shift to which you allude.
The deadwood is the consequence of objectification: the identification of
the subject as some kind of object.
>
> In comparing our positions, i2 would say that there are two minor
> differences and only one major difference between them.
>
> You've (correctly) defined 'object' so broadly that it is difficult
> for me to say that the subject is not an object. If an object is
> 'anything anyone might be aware of or pay attention to' then clearly
> the subject is an object. The field of consciousness research wouldn't
> exist, this mailing list would have no topic of conversation, if we
> were not paying attention to the subject.
I disagree. This point is what generates the "hard problem". Scientific and
academic consciousness research today is mostly about "objects", broadly
defined as objects of attention: brains, mental events, neural corrolates,
emotions, sensations, perceptions, representations, etc. Of course, we can
say "subject" and talk about it as we would talk about an object. But
actually we can't focus attention on it as we can on an object.
It might help to use the words "awareness" and "appearance" in place of
"subject " and "object". The appearance of anything presupposes awareness,
but awareness itself does not appear. Your realization that you are aware is
not the appearance of anything in particular, even though subsequently
thoughts about it appear.
Ray Mondor wrote:
> Mait, this is very well expressed and very compelling.
>I wonder what you think of modeling the relationship between the being of
>mind/conscionsess and the existence of entities as a relationship between
>context and contents.
>For example, consciousness is the medium in which everything else appears.
>Thanks for your insights,
> Ray Mondor
Thanks, Ray. "Medium" is certainly suggestive, if not interpreted as
referring to some kind of physical substance. Light was once supposed to be
waves in a substance with space and spacetime as the medium. Space is a
common metaphor for
consciousness too. I hadn't thought of "context", and at first glance it
seems to me somewhat less helpful or suggestive.
Mait Edey
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:jcs-online-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:jcs-online-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
jcs-online-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
From tubakari at yahoo.com Fri Nov 10 04:02:18 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Sat Nov 11 05:06:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
Message-ID: <20061110030218.27295.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com>
dorothy, you make me smile a lot!
keep sharing. and i disagree -- you are an angel.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Dorothy Stulberg <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2006 10:27:43 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
you also sounded wise and energetic. D
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Karilen Mays
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:01 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
i didnt realize you two were 71 and 81. you sounded wise but energetic, like you could have been 40 or so. im 24.
i have been enjoying the exchanges in the last day or so. thanks william, susan, dorothy, and kathryn.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Dorothy Stulberg <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2006 12:03:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
Good to hear about you and your past and your present. Are you using
the conflict resolution skills today? I was just trained as a
faciliator. Not sure I have what it takes. Just finished a mediation
which upset me terribly. It cost me $800 to end up with no move on the
other side.
I've really decided that mediation works when a "person" is there, not a
corporation.
Your email made me think a little about the age of those of us who
message back and forth. Your 71 and my 81 made me wonder if we are
doing anything to introduce the younger folks to the beauty of dialogue.
D
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 2:51 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
Hi Susan - No we haven't met. I don't mind at all giving information
about myself. I'm Kathy, 71 year old retired bilingual Spanish and music
teacher and composer, originally from Florida, with 35 years of service,
10 years in Puerto Rico, and over 40 years living in NYC. I was also
one of the first teachers to be trained in conflict resolution. I have
2 sons by a Puerto Rican father, and raised them alone/working mother,
the whole bit, here in NYC. I taught in both the South Bronx and the
Upper West Side. I lost my last husband, a Navajo with whom I lived on
the ancestral land in the Navajo Nation, on Dec. 25, right after 9 - 11.
I also had the privilege and delight of studying Navajo language,
literature, traditions and culture at Dine College/Navajo Community
College. Navajo world view is SO compatible with Bohm. That's one
reason I'm so pro-Bohm and dialog. I am also a co-moderator on another
list, which is why, like you, I am somewhat familiar with internet
protocol and needs.
I appreciate your thoughtful, candid response. Now I would like to
reciprocate.
S: I do not envy Don F. his job of being moderator and I know from past
experience that he has struggled with this issue. I think most of us
have.
K: I absolutely agree. He is every inch a scholar and a gentleman. If
requested, with acceptable guidelines in place, I'd be happy to help him
co-moderate, or in any way I could. I can't think of a better way to
use my time, except to get my face-to-face group started. Zoe also
knows and has accepted that I have said I will be the first to call her
on any actions I find inappropriate, as everyone else has the right to
do.
S: But I also know that it isn't going to do much good to pursue this
conversation until Don gets to
>Calif. and gets back on line. He will be facing 100's of posts on his
>return and could miss the important parts of the discussion trying to
>weed through the posts.
K: That also sounds reasonable to me.
S: he (Peter) spams the list -
K: that should go in the guidelines and principles.I think, as should
any other experiences that have been disruptive in the past.
S: Peter has been given every chance -
K: here's where we diverge. I'm convinced he's not Peter, but if proven
wrong, I'll claim responsibility for my error, and help boot him with
proper procedure, if he violates guidelines.
S: I have come to learn that, as you have mentioned, principles and
guidelines do seem to be necessary
K: Yes, and I deliberately chose the terminology hoping it was more
compatible with the original aims of Dialog. The terms are also open to
suggestion and change.
S: I would be happy with any guidelines that say no trolling and no
spam. I would also agree with you that the guidelines should be posted
K: Thank you. We need to list specifics that we consider trolling. I
testified to how it happened, and I know Don F will not deny it. He has
a log of all our correspondence on the subject, as I do.
S: and anyone that we do not know for certain is Peter deserves a
warning before being unsubscribed.
K: I had a lot of experience and training in documenting children's
undesirable behavior. I'd be happy to put that knowledge to use here.
S: I don't know if Zoe (or Kris) were ever confronted with people's
suspicions that they were Peter or not and given the chance to respond.
But I do think they deserved to be openly told what people
>think.
K: I did not see that happen, and Zoe is very hurt that things were
handled this way. If anyone else has proof to the contrary about ZOE -
NOT Peter or Kris - both she and the rest of us should receive it, and
Zoe given a chance to respond.
S: As you will discover, open honest communication is important to me.
K: I do see that, and am very comfortable dialoging with you. I hope
we can work together with interested others to develop and implement
these principles and guidelines.
We are definitely forging a new path in Bohm, required by a new era in
the technological development of communication. It has been a pleasure
dialoging with you. If you are near or ever in NYC, please let me know.
I'd love to meet you.
Hozhoon, Kathryn Morgan Jett Arizmendi (just so you'll know the
identities I currently use!) (picture Kathy smiling happily)
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:10 -0700
>
>I'm feeling a little confused about who wrote this message. You are a
new
>member who was not here when I went on vacation so I'm not sure what
your
>name is since the letter K doesn't say and there seem to be more than
one
>person on the list today whose name starts with a K.
>
>When it comes to what is happening currently with Kris, Zoe and Peter,
I'm
>not really up to speed. However, I am very familiar with the Peter
>phenomena of the past. Those of us who have been on the list for any
>length of time know that Peter has incarnated multiple times under many
>different names.
>
>As Franis has mentioned, Peter is very intelligent and a very good
>journalist and some of his incarnations have been very articulate and
some
>of them have also been pseudo female. Whether he is in an articulate
mode
>or not, Peter has a definite style that many of us have come to
recognize
>fairly easily. Part of that style is when he is feeling that his posts
are
>being neglected or ignored by the rest of us he spams the list with
dozens
>of one or two line posts to get the attention he craves and to punish
us
>for not paying attention. Since this list requires you to receive
emails
>in order to respond to posts (rather than having a way to post from the
>online site like Yahoo) , getting dozens of emails per day that have
the
>sole purpose of irritating the members is simply not tolerable for
most of
>us. Most of us simply don't have the time.
>
>Peter has been given every chance in the world when it comes to talking
to
>him about what he is doing. Many of us have attempted communicating
with
>him both on and off list to try to come to a reasonable solution to
>including him on the list. Nothing has worked.
>
>When it comes to ideas of rules or no rules many here will tell you
that I
>am one who has been in favor of no rules in the past. In the beginning
I
>felt this was a foundation of dialogue. However, being on many
different
>internet lists I have come to learn that ,as you have mentioned,
principles
>and guidelines do seem to be necessary for a group pursuing a serious
topic
>of discussion such as this one. I have come to believe that any group
that
>wants to cohere, even as an ongoing stream, needs what I have come to
think
>of as a flexible structure. Something like the banks of a river that
hold
>together well enough to keep the stream defined as a stream but are
also
>flexible enough to broaden their banks and reformat themselves with the
>natural fluctuation of movement. Reading Bohm's proposal several times
>helped me to realize that Dialogue does have a purpose although it is a
>very general, and so flexible purpose.
>
>I would be happy with any guidelines that say no trolling and no spam.
And
>I would definitely categorize much of Peter's behavior as both trolling
and
>spam. He seems determined to either turn this group into a "Peter"
>Dialogue instead of a Bohm Dialogue or else destroy the list trying. I
>would also agree with you that the guidelines should be posted and
anyone
>that we do not know for certain is Peter deserves a warning before
being
>unsubscribed. I don't know if Zoe (or Kris) were ever confronted with
>people's suspicions that they were Peter or not and given the chance to
>respond. But I do think they deserved to be openly told what people
think.
> As you will discover, open honest communication is important to me.
>
>I do not envy Don F. his job of being moderator and I know from past
>experience that he has struggled with this issue. I think most of us
have.
>And perhaps the fact that Peter keeps reemerging is a reflection of our
>inner struggle. But I also know that it isn't going to do much good to
>pursue this conversation until Don gets to Calif. and gets back on
line.
>He will be facing 100's of posts on his return and could miss the
important
>parts of the discussion trying to weed through the posts. So I suggest
>that we continue the discussion when he returns.
>
>Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
<griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 9:24 AM
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>
>
>>If this is a duplicate for you, please forgive. I posted it last
night,
>>but it's not in my inbox. k
>>
>>These comments are made with all due respect.
>>
>>A great deal of debate has gone into the Zoe-Kris-Peter situation. It
is
>>no secret that I am trying to work out terms for Zoe - not Kris or
Peter -
>>to be reinstated. There is no real evidence that Zoe is Kris or
Peter. I
>>am convinced she is not, because I have enough interaction on which to
>>base my opinion. Also, Don F. today posted that he tends to agree with
me.
>>
>>Zoe was unsubscribed without warning, without notice, and "on
suspicion"
>>of being Peter and/or Kris. List members didn't even know she had been
>>bounced. I guessed, emailed her for confirmation, and because she
>>expressed her hurt, disappointment and desire to be with us,
approached
>>Don privately in hopes of mediating the situation. Yes, she refused to
try
>>to come up with an "acceptable" answer. But could she possibly have
>>understandable reasons for refusing such a request, without their
>>signifying she doesn't want to be here? What is the meaning of
>>"acceptable"? Look at what's happening. She's bounced without
warning or
>>notification "on suspicion", has no expectation of recourse or appeal,
and
>>now we are talking about her behind her back, and she can't defend
>>herself. That's not what I believe America is about, much less a Bohm
>>group.
>>
>>There is much more here than fighting for a friend. There are
principles
>>involved which I risk stating that I am passionate about.
>>
>>It is kind of fascinating to watch this very sophisticated dance that
goes
>>on here with Peter Krauss and his potential recruits.
>>K: I do not see this as a sophisticated dance performance, as a
>>"recruiting center" or a competition for loyalties between groups and
>>group leaders. Such ideas have more in common with the gang mentality
of
>>the streets of New York. I don't even want to take it to a historical
and
>>international level. I don't affiliate with anyone or anything that
would
>>limit or try to punish me for making my own decisions, or insinuate
that
>>I'm incapable of it. If that's what Bohm is about, I'm really in the
>>wrong place!
>>It's not fascinating, it's sad & disturbing, alarming to watch
>>intelligent, sane people stuck on ferreting out whether or not Peter
is
>>Peter, Zoe, Kris, or a maniac, instead of acting on the knowledge that
>>koinonia, passion & compassion need more than debate about meaning to
have
>>meaning.
>>
>>Exactly why is the group focused on Peter, anyway? What is the
>>fascination?
>>
>>Hard questions to think about:
>>For me just responding doesn't mean you become part of the core. I
think
>>it is something to do with how you are received and whether you are
>>responded to and what the response is.
>>K: not just in the past, but now as well. Why is it that I got along
>>with Kris and Zoe? It certainly wasn't that I am gullible or senile,
as
>>one member of our list implies. Maybe my age and experience gave me
some
>>insight and expertise that deserves respect.
>>He gradually encourages them to say and do things that he knows will
>>cause them to get unsubscribed eventually, such as when he taught
Kathryn
>>to send huge pictures embedded inside the email.
>>
>>K: there is a lot I object to here, such as the imbedded threat of
>>excommunication, and the implication that I don't have any
>>proprioreception, indeed any sense at all. Also note the passion in
the
>>words. What's that all about? Even though I sent only one picture, I
>>will let that go, and head for the group issue. Don F. specified that
>>images are allowed, subject to a particular size in a very dignified
>>non-threatening way. Yes, some of Kris's images were frighteningly
>>inappropriate. But - Let's not say "all Kris's images were
objectionable,
>>therefore all images are objectionable, especially all Kris's images.
And
>>Zoe is Chris, therefore Zoe is objectionable."
>>
>>Usually, a new order arises out of chaos (which seems to have been
the
>>experience with the earlier incarnation of this list). How can we set
up a
>>more human face to face interaction?
>>We are pioneering, stretching the original conditions of Dialog by
putting
>>it on the internet. It takes time, effort, patience, and group
insight to
>>work out the kinks.
>>I propose that all of us reread our Bohm, look at the present
situation,
>>reformulate and restate what we expect of Dialog AND what we can bring
to
>>it. And post it and discuss it. This should not be just a
"Zoe-thing". We
>>need to be mindful of this always. I shall begin on my statement
tonight,
>>and post it as soon as I have it in an acceptable form. I invite you
to
>>do the same. A consensus could be made, voted on, and posted. I
>>volunteer to do the compiling, posting for feedback, and editing.
Someone
>>else would need to take care of the website.
>>
>>"...where everything is allowed and there are no rules."
>>K: What real good have "rules" and jails done? Do people really need
>>rules to keep them from killing each other? Have the rules worked?
>>I propose parameters & principles not rules, to be developed and
approved
>>by the group. Including Zoe. Whether or not the majority agrees with
her,
>>listen to what she is saying. Some of it might make sense.
>>Further, authors of inappropriate postings should be issued a warning
as
>>to the specific nature of the unacceptable action. Basic courtesy is a
>>must. Three warnings by the moderator, and the offender is out.
Flame
>>wars, i.e. personal heated arguments, are to be taken off the list.
>>Appropriate guidelines to be issued before these remedies are put in
>>place. Moderator to let list members know when a member is on
probation
>>for unsubscription. List rules and aims are customarily set out
before a
>>person joins, but we can also say "back to the drawing board".
>>
>>oh darn, where is Kris when we need her - s/he's right here. So are
Zoe
>>and apparently Peter, too. They never left. And as long as we talk
>>about them instead of inviting them back, the more of a phantom life
their
>>presence will become.
>>
>>People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Another
>>question might be is that the case here as well? Hmmmmm.
>>
>>
>>"Peripherals Unite" - I'm with you.
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
>>Microsoft Office Live
>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash
with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&loca
le=en-US&source=hmtagline
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/88a549e6/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Fri Nov 10 05:32:09 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Sat Nov 11 06:36:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <20061110043209.10442.qmail@web52908.mail.yahoo.com>
we are. me too!
kari
If what we are actually doing is holding a virtual dialogue that is really exciting to me.
don
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/289a25cc/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Fri Nov 10 06:30:57 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Sat Nov 11 07:40:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering/Consiousness
Message-ID: <20061109.213057.648.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
DonF: Do you believe that so-called altered states of consciousness are
really the result of damage?
William: Yes
Franis: ..hmmmm. Interesting thought.
I did have an interesting experience such as that when I had my eyes
dialated to check them after the surface of my eye had been damaged. As I
looked around after the dialation, I saw trails and other visual evidence
that could only be called psychedelic.
From davidmillions at gmail.com Fri Nov 10 12:25:23 2006
From: davidmillions at gmail.com (David da Costa)
Date: Sat Nov 11 13:29:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] For David Bohm
Message-ID: <ed6f2a2c0611100325q33c7f7cdqb61039c827614b68@mail.gmail.com>
God is perfect. All and Nothing infer. In Paradox there is no conflict. It
is Magic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061110/769775c7/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 10 13:29:51 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Sat Nov 11 14:36:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <388BB0E9-13A8-405C-8532-C7091EDF1C95@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C17A213F.38E9%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Its exciting to me too Don.
Gill
on 9/11/06 22:11, donald factor at dfactor@dc.rr.com wrote:
>
> On Nov 9, 2006, at 12:44 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Don, can you say absolutely, that your comments
>>
>>
>> make no contribution with regards to keeping
>>
>>
>> this issue alive on the list?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I would say that if this is an "on the list" issue,
>>
>>
>> ALL content about it would be [in theory] welcome.
>>
>>
>> GEES, we are really only getting started with the
>>
>>
>> issue of 'bumping someone without warning'.
>>
>
> I have certainly contributed to it, and that is getting as boring as anything
> because I feel that i am having to repeat myself over and over. I was
> commenting on Kathy's taking up the cases of, first, kirsten and then zoe. She
> has dropped kirsten and but not Zoe and it sounds like more of this, oh, poor
> Zoe, so mistreated, can't stick up for heself. If I was Zoe who tells us that
> she is a graduate student in a very sophisticated programme to do with systems
> manageement at one of the most prestigious universities in America is
> incapable of dealing with her treatment on this list I woud be very insulted
> indeed. But maybe that's just a guy thing.
>
> The question of how a moderated list might be moderated or managed in the
> spirit of Bohm dialogue is another matter all together and that is well worthy
> of a lot more inquiry. What, as someone wrote recently, we have moved, not
> intentionally, into a whole new sphere with this online dialogue, This is more
> than interestiing. If what we are actually doing is holding a virtual dialogue
> that is really exciting to me.
>
> don
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061110/3d7a9961/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 10 13:27:06 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Sat Nov 11 14:41:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <009801c70445$d373baa0$2479480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C17A209A.38E8%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Susan,
Ok I understand.
I think sometimes I look, perhaps unrealistically for more of an explicit
connection between what I have said and the person who responds to me. It
just feels so gorgeous when it happens.
By the way my name is Gill, short for Gillian ... Not the male American Gil.
And yes I do agree that good discussions get triggered by difficulties here
and in the wider world. Well sometimes in the wider world, if that is not be
being pessimistic.
Gill
on 9/11/06 21:27, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Hi Gil. Actually you were very clear about what you wanted. And my
> response was about what I was feeling and thinking. I put the link in to
> the past discussion we had on the purpose of dialogue to respond to you and
> the rest of the post was about me. I personally don't think the discussion
> about PKZ is necessarily about PKZ. I think it's about us.
>
> How do we deal with trolls, spamming, and the like in our daily lives? Do
> we ever respond to a legitimate interaction from someone as though they are
> a troll or spamming or in some other way simply because that is what's going
> on? I would say right now trolling and spamming and flaming are a pretty
> ordinary occurrence. The current political climate here in Arizona was
> pretty much of a flame war. Television, the mail, and most of the telephone
> calls I get are trolling and spamming.
>
> Doesn't our culture basically embrace this type of behavior as perfectly
> acceptable? Isn't this a part of the incoherence in our daily lives? And
> how has this affected the way we communicate with each other and our ability
> to be open and honest with each other?
>
> So you see, I wasn't really ignoring what you were addressing. For me, the
> best way to talk about it is within the story that is happening. Getting
> clear about the microcosm can help to see the macrocosm to my way of
> thinking.
>
> And I'll tell you something that I noticed when I was going through the
> archives today. The PKZ phenomenom seemed to stimulate a lot of thought at
> the time and there were some really rousing and interesting conversation
> that seemed to come out of it. The same thing happened here in Arizona with
> the political flame wars. Although I really got tired of hearing the
> politicians beating each other up, people seemed to wake up and get a little
> more interested in the issues and to be stimulated to vote. It was
> certainly much better than the mediocre lackluster campaigns of the past.
>
> Do we bring this kind of phenomena on when things are getting a little too
> stagnant perhaps?
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
> Hi Susan,
>
> Um ... Its interesting its only when I have a response that I realise that
> perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be to get what I am saying
> across.
>
> I'm very able to pick and choose which messages I read and am happy to
> delete. I mentioned in my email deleting 50-75 emails a day from this list.
> I find some of the one liner don't add anything to what I think of dialogue
> and sometimes I wonder why they are not sent to the one person they are
> addressed to. So I guess I feel differently from you, the number of emails
> per day does not indicate for me anything about the quality of the dialogue.
>
> The other point re 'PK and probably more accurate to say maybe Z' ... in a
> way what I intended to communicate was to take the focus away from PK(Z) and
> have it back on us ... What are we not paying attention to? ... What am I
> not paying attention to? Am I really understanding the message in the
> messages that I do read ... And do my responses make a connection with other
> people in a way that transcends the more usual cultural assumptions.
>
> That was more of what I was meaning to talk about ...
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 9/11/06 00:11, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire among
>> many
>> of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined the list the
>> same
>> discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager to explore it. And it
>> was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right now. Although
>> at
>> that time Peter was an active member of the group and he was included in
>> the
>> discussion. In the beginning I sounded much like you and some of the
>> others
>> right now.
>>
>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject
>> except
>> Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was mostly just to
>> ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into himself, all he
>> was interested in was goading the rest of us. Rather than use suspension
>> he
>> would flood us with brief posts about the world being made up of carrot
>> and
>> stick mentality and we should all recognize that the only solution was
>> total
>> chaos. When he became determined to spam the group with anywhere from 75
>> to
>> 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day regardless of how any
>> of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we felt) the
>> decision
>> (after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At that point I was ready for
>> him to be banned. He mostly just trolled for recruits for his OD site and
>> spammed us for not being interested. He also seems to have a fixation
>> with
>> male authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate authority.
>>
>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well as
>> exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems that
>> caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my post to
>> her.
>> In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least a loose and
>> flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts I have had
>> about
>> the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our previous
>> discussions:
>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>
>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened with
>> them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any warning and
>> without any group discussion. If that's true, then I would say that I
>> think
>> anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or who we suspect is
>> Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be given a chance
>> to
>> speak for themselves.
>>
>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how long
>> they
>> are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that the purpose of
>> dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without posting. A healthy
>> dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've learned to deal with it by
>> learning to know which people are definitely going to have something to
>> say
>> that I'm interested in responding to and not. On my busy days I skip
>> through the posts and read only a few people or if there's a good thread
>> going I will read only that thread. And, yes, sometimes I miss a lot
>> doing
>> that but it's better than the alternative of not being a part of all of
>> this.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>>
>> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>>
>> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
>> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is only
>> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a response and
>> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>>
>> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I too
>> have
>> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages in one
>> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like that
>> term)
>> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
>> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility here
>> matters to me.
>>
>> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need to learn
>> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about saying
>> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in us, in
>> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response from
>> PKZ.
>> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or need
>> and
>> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people. Is it
>> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that response from
>> others?
>>
>> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
>> appreciated reading your emails.
>>
>> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else struggle?
>> As
>> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have sent three
>> or so in one day ...
>>
>> Gill
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 10 13:50:57 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Nov 11 14:55:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <8E176F28-064B-431F-919B-526728AAAC57@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F19F445427F8DD137A51454A5F70@phx.gbl>
Good Morning Don and Fellow Group Members -
Here is what I have to say.
D: especially your playing protective mum. No offense intended here, this is
just the way I feel.
K: None taken, Don. I have tried to make clear that this is not just a
Zoe-thing, and neither is it a Peter or Kris thing. Nor is it a
gender-thing. The present situation reflects all the clashes through
history between nations, and the people that make them up. It illustrates
that without the proper procedures in place, the same thing can happen to
any of us, at any time, anywhere. It is happening in the world as we speak.
On a national level, Republicans have just lost complete control of Capitol
Hill to the Democrats for this very reason. It has happened throughout
history. This seems to be a universally "stuck/blocked" place.
In case you missed that particular post, I am a professional mediator,
deeply interested in Bohm as well as committed to social justice. I am a
member of the Committee for Social Justice at Riverside Church, and very
proud to claim the lineage and legacy of William Sloane Coffin, and the Rev.
James Forbes. For that reason, I have spoken out about what happened to
Zoe, and volunteered to mediate the situation.
No offense is meant in my next remarks, or any others. But I can’t help but
be curious - could one consider "playing protective mum" a putdown? Is it
a “bootable offense”? If Zoe had made a similar remark, would she have been
unsubscribed without warning?
D: If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something valuable to this list,
she should write directly to William, since he is the one who needs
convincing,
K: That's exactly my point. As it stands now, it’s all about what William,
and William alone, thinks.
The issue is not whether we have a moderator. The real issue is what powers
shall that moderator have, and from whence shall they derive. Actually, why
should there be only one? Why not co-moderators? And why shouldn’t the
co-moderators derive their powers from the group? Hmmmmmm. Do I hear the
framers of our Constitution speaking, as they visited the Iroquois
Confederacy, admired their form of government, and worked on our own?
"if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to "work together") they have
to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in
their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed
from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive
instruments of this authority." Bohm "On Dialog"
These are the words of a man who stood up for what he believed in, protected
his colleagues from McCarthy, was consequently “witch hunted”, and “booted”
from the USA. This is our legacy that we need to honor.
Bohm postulates that everything is unceasingly in flux. This is not a
Euro-Anglo cultural view. We are conditioned to fear change. The ultimate
change is birth to life, and life to death. Whereas our culture holds loss
of life as the ultimate punishment, other cultures embrace death as a
natural part of life. As a result, we face a “little death” each time we
become conscious of change.
The issues we are confronting are about change, and especially hard hitting
in a group springing from the ideas and experience of Bohm, and democracy.
Those in our culture who have been visionaries, asked the tough questions,
and acted on them, have turned (in some peoples’ thinkgs) into a kind of
“romance of the outlaw” idea - almost a Manson (cult leader) thing. Maybe
kin to the “Noble Savage” nonsense. I disagree with that view. For example
- Have you ever heard of an English scholar of the 14th Century named John
Wycliffe? We have his “romantic outlaw” proclivities to thank for putting
the Bible into English, putting our language on a legitimate footing, and
thereby taking away the power of the clergy. “Rooms in quiet Oxford colleges
were turned into revolutionary cells, production lines were established –
groups of people secretly translating it, copying it, passing it on...later
hundreds would die the most horrible deaths for their part in creating and
distributing to the people the first English Bible...” The Church seized
Wycliffe, subjected him to a mock trial and killed him, burned his body
publicly, thereby presumably depriving him of the possibility of eternal
life. (And thereby trying to threaten everybody else with eternal
damnation.) His ashes were thrown into a tributary of the Avon. Soon
afterwards a prophecy appeared:
The Avon to the Severn runs
The Severn to the Sea.
And Wycliff’s dust shall spread abroad
Wide as the waters be.
In English. “The Biography of a Language”, Melvyn Bragg,
p/ 87 – 88
Later, there would be Martin Luther. Before, we had Jesus’ disciples. Bohm,
himself, was one of those visionaries. Is it really accurate to conclude
that those of us who explore the principles of dialog, those nameless people
lost their lives for copying the Bible into English, and the unnamed who
walked beside Martin Luther King, were seduced by some cult leader under the
notion that this is romantic? I don’t think so. But one thing cults do have
in common – they are run by a leader who wields absolute power over his/her
members.
Don, I truly don’t want you to feel that you or William are “under attack”.
I am simply asking the hard questions that have to be asked, to move the
percussion into dialog. I have said on more than one occasion that I
respect you as a scholar, a thinker, and a gentleman. William needs to
respond to these hard questions, confront the blocks, and dialog with us in
its true sense, too. We need to be here for each other as we work through
these difficult, uncomfortable places. And, as difficult as these
questions are, if our group can’t work through them in a supportive manner,
keeping true to Bohm ideals and principles, what hope then, is there for the
rest of humankind? And of what value have been the lives of those like
Wycliff and Bohm, whose shoulders we stand upon?
In conclusion, I ask, what is the next step for Dialog? In one of our
conversations, Zoe wrote, “Dialogue shall open doors (windows), NOT close
them --- Zoe.” Do any of us disagree? Keeping foremost in mind that Zoe is
not Peter or Kris, I feel we should reinstate her without any more
discussion/percussion about what is “acceptable” on her part. She has never
spammed, never used confusing language, and I don’t believe she has ever
flamed.
If anyone has any evidence that she has exhibited “unacceptable” behavior in
the past, please post it now.
Until then, my position is that it was un/”acceptable” to boot her “on
suspicion”, without warning, without due process, and without proceeding
openly. It is un/”acceptable" to conduct any group that way. Let our group
– which used to include her, come together again. Bring her back in without
further ado, and let us prove naturally and fairly what it is that all of us
expect from, and have to offer, without expecting perfection, and by helping
each other to get better and better. Then, if she/we indeed be found
wanting, let the decision to remove her come from, and be enacted by us all
- The Bohm Dialog Group, walking in good conscience and right relationship
to each other, and all our relations. That is what I have to say. Hozhoon,
K
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:23:14 -0800
>
>I am really getting bored with this whole thing and especially your
>playing protective mum. No offense intended here, this is just the way I
>feel. If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something valuable to this
>list, she should write directly to William, since he is the one who needs
>convincing, In the meanwhile lets get on with some more interesting and
>general considerations,
>
>don
>
>On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>Hello again, Don. I'm going to be more specific in answering your
>>question this morning. Last night, I was too tired. You wrote:
>>
>>But I understood that following on from a conversation that I had
>>off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop us a line and explain
>>what her intentions and interests in the Bohm list were, in other words
>>to tell us why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect her.
>>
>>The understanding that I conveyed to Zoe was that she was to address an
>>email to the Administrator of the list, William, and explain why she
>>wanted to be a member of this group and what she hoped to get out of it.
>>If the administrator found her answer "acceptable", she would have to
>>resubscribe. There was no mention of "telling us why she thought it was
>>unfair of us to disconnect her". And none whatsoever of sharing any of
>>this with the list.
>>I let it rest for a little while, because when emotions are high, it's
>>hard to sort things out. Then, I asked her why she had answered that
>>way. She asked me to please put myself in her place, so I could see what
>>her feelings and thinkgs might have been, then we talked about it.
>>Here is that answer : William, the person who was and still is convinced
>>she is Peter, had shut her down "on suspicion" of being Peter, and
>>without warning. This same person alone was to decide whether or not her
>>response was "acceptable". The list not only has no guidelines and
>>procedures to protect itself, it has none to protect its members.
>>Furthermore, since the list members not only didn't even know she had
>>been bounced, they would not even know such a process was in progress.
>>From when I sit, this looks like microcosm in the macrocosm of world
>>history. I don't want to make anyone angry here, so I'm just going to
>>ask you to look into your own knowledge bank for similar situations. I
>>can, indeed, get specific is asked to do so.
>>My teachers' union instructed us that if we got into a dispute with the
>>administration (in our case, the administrator), we were to keep a log of
>>events, and above all, not to ever do anything without an observer
>>present. That observer could be our union rep, or anyone else we chose.
>>I offered to play that role, if she wanted me to. And so, here we are.
>>Zoe would like to come back, but neither she nor I feel the conditions
>>offered are acceptable. There is no procedure in place for such an
>>appeal, and no safeguards for the person appealing. If we can work out
>>appropriate conditions, it is my understanding that she would procede
>>that way.
>>
>>I have not run this by zoe, I am simply thinking aloud now. I know we
>>need precise wording as to precisely what it is Zoe needs to respond to,
>>and a way for the decision of whether to invite her back on the list to
>>be decided fairly. Just as I am running this by you now, I will run it
>>by Zoe today. Shall I post her reply online as part of my own post? May
>>she see your suggestions? Is there a way we can negotiate proper terms?
>>This is essential, because we are setting precedence for future cases.
>>(Although, I certainly hope it's never again necessary.) I would welcome
>>input from list members as well as you, Don. k
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:16:45 -0600
>>>
>>>this suggestion made Zoe very angry
>>>
>>>Hi Don -
>>>
>>>Zoe objected because of the word "acceptable". She doesn't object to
>>>the principle of being heard. But that was clarified after you and I
>>>spoke. Then someone posted something like "...would anyone stand up for
>>>her". And I responded "I would", and the ball was rolling. I can find
>>>that post, if you like, but it will take me a while. I have several
>>>hundred to go through.
>>>Actually, I believe that Zoe plans to make that statement. I told her
>>>you were going on vacation, and she wanted you as well as William to be
>>>part of this. i believe the procedure is for her to address it
>>>specifically to the administrator who is William? Correct me if I'm
>>>wrong.
>>>Do you want her to wait until after the wedding? best, k
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:33 -0800
>>>>
>>>>Hi Susan,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same thing. I
>>>>am referring here to your first three paragraphs.
>>>>But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as I can see
>>>>is the same person but this is just for the record. Gas was peter's
>>>>second go around. We had to close the list down after Peter's first
>>>>invasion, And that's when we took the radical step of moderating the
>>>>list. Or am I confused?
>>>>
>>>>Regarding Zoe, I still have my doubts as I do about Kirsten being the
>>>>same person as Peter. But I understood that following on from a
>>>>conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to
>>>>drop us a line and explain what her intentions and interests in the
>>>>Bohm list were, in other words to tell us why she thought it was
>>>>unfair of us to disconnect her. I thought that this would clarify any
>>>>unclarity. But apparently, this suggestion made Zoe very angry, and
>>>>she has not written such a letter or communicated with either me,
>>>>William or Franis, so far as I know.
>>>>
>>>>If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why Kathy is
>>>>pushing this. I would have thought that it should be up to Zoe to make
>>>>the next move.
>>>>
>>>>don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire
>>>>>among many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined
>>>>>the list the same discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager
>>>>>to explore it. And it was a very similar one to what you are all
>>>>>proposing right now. Although at that time Peter was an active
>>>>>member of the group and he was included in the discussion. In the
>>>>>beginning I sounded much like you and some of the others right now.
>>>>>
>>>>>But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject
>>>>>except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was
>>>>>mostly just to ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection
>>>>>into himself, all he was interested in was goading the rest of us.
>>>>>Rather than use suspension he would flood us with brief posts about
>>>>>the world being made up of carrot and stick mentality and we should
>>>>>all recognize that the only solution was total chaos. When he became
>>>>>determined to spam the group with anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense
>>>>>messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day regardless of how any of us
>>>>>felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we felt) the decision
>>>>>(after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At that point I was
>>>>>ready for him to be banned. He mostly just trolled for recruits for
>>>>>his OD site and spammed us for not being interested. He also seems
>>>>>to have a fixation with male authority figures and chose Don F. to
>>>>>flame as a surrogate authority.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well
>>>>>as exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems
>>>>>that caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my
>>>>>post to her. In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at
>>>>>least a loose and flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the
>>>>>thoughts I have had about the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue
>>>>>in one of our previous discussions:
>>>>>http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened
>>>>>with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any
>>>>>warning and without any group discussion. If that's true, then I
>>>>>would say that I think anyone we suspect of being a troll or of
>>>>>spamming or who we suspect is Peter, deserves to at least be told of
>>>>>our feelings and be given a chance to speak for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how
>>>>>long they are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that
>>>>>the purpose of dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without
>>>>>posting. A healthy dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've
>>>>>learned to deal with it by learning to know which people are
>>>>>definitely going to have something to say that I'm interested in
>>>>>responding to and not. On my busy days I skip through the posts and
>>>>>read only a few people or if there's a good thread going I will read
>>>>>only that thread. And, yes, sometimes I miss a lot doing that but
>>>>>it's better than the alternative of not being a part of all of this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Susan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt"
>>>>><earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>>>>>
>>>>>I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>>>>>
>>>>>What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
>>>>>challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is
>>>>>only
>>>>>within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a
>>>>>response and
>>>>>the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>>>>>
>>>>>I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I
>>>>>too have
>>>>>wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages in
>>>>>one
>>>>>day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like
>>>>>that term)
>>>>>dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
>>>>>currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility
>>>>>here
>>>>>matters to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need to
>>>>>learn
>>>>>from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about
>>>>>saying
>>>>>'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in
>>>>>us, in
>>>>>me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response
>>>>>from PKZ.
>>>>>I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or
>>>>>need and
>>>>>I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people.
>>>>>Is it
>>>>>that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that response
>>>>>from
>>>>>others?
>>>>>
>>>>>And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
>>>>>appreciated reading your emails.
>>>>>
>>>>>I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else
>>>>>struggle? As
>>>>>a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have sent
>>>>>three
>>>>>or so in one day ...
>>>>>
>>>>>Gill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
>>>>>>posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>>>>>>to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
>>>>>>both at the same time, and to find the
>>>>>>balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>>>>>>misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>>>>>>words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>>>>>>exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>>>>>>example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the
>>>>>>same issue: on the one hand, you want to
>>>>>>protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand,
>>>>>>you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>>>>>>sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>>>>>>periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>>>>>>balance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
>>>>>>balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>>>>>>how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when
>>>>>>at least
>>>>>>apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
>>>>>>truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of
>>>>>>his father,
>>>>>>the ostensible SS officer :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter"
>>>>>>and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>>>>>>Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without (or
>>>>>>before) letting them back in?
>>>>>>My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on
>>>>>>a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>>>>>>do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
>>>>>>Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>>>>>>propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>>>>>>that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>>>>>>"core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc., without
>>>>>>being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>>>>>>"People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is that
>>>>>>the case here?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Joachim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>>>>>>>obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of
>>>>>>>this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we
>>>>>>>want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David
>>>>>>>Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we should have
>>>>>>>no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>>>>>>nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in creating
>>>>>>>a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on that
>>>>>>>before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones in.
>>>>>>>Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>>>>>>>having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>>>>>>supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>>>>>>difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't open
>>>>>>>tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is
>>>>>>>that the case here as well?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Great post Lynne!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>kari
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Rodger,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
>>>>>>enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
>>>>>>discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to
>>>>>>what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>>>>>>compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
>>>>>>finding a response and action that is not embedded within the same
>>>>>>cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action taken to
>>>>>>a situation maintains the same culture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as
>>>>>>you suggest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For me just responding doesn¹t mean you become part of the core I
>>>>>>think it is something to do with how you are received and whether you
>>>>>>are responded to and what the response is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>>>>>>Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
>>>>>>missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
>>>>>>clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Joachim Faust
>>>>>>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>info:
>>>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>info:
>>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>info:
>>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/
>>>hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
>>http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-
>>us&source=hmtagline
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 10 14:14:44 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Sat Nov 11 15:23:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F19F445427F8DD137A51454A5F70@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C17A2BC4.38F6%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Don, Kathryn and all,
I need to be brief as work is calling ...
I feel fine about there being a Moderator for this list However in the
future I would like the moderator to discuss with the group thoughts and
proposals re kicking anybody off. There had been some discussion on the list
re PK ... but because I think an assumption was made that Zoe was PK there
was no or little discussion about kicking Zoe off.
I was surprised about this at the time ... Interestingly if Zoe is PK I'm OK
about Zoe being kicked off but I am not convinced she is!! And if Zoe isn't
then I think 'we' ie this list has treated her uncaringly and badly!
I would support Zoe being invited back as long as she accepts that this is a
moderated list and that in the future the moderator would act after dialogue
with the whole group re moderation decisions re kicking somebody off.
Gill
on 10/11/06 12:50, Morgan Jett at griffyn23@hotmail.com wrote:
> Good Morning Don and Fellow Group Members -
>
> Here is what I have to say.
>
> D: especially your playing protective mum. No offense intended here, this is
> just the way I feel.
> K: None taken, Don. I have tried to make clear that this is not just a
> Zoe-thing, and neither is it a Peter or Kris thing. Nor is it a
> gender-thing. The present situation reflects all the clashes through
> history between nations, and the people that make them up. It illustrates
> that without the proper procedures in place, the same thing can happen to
> any of us, at any time, anywhere. It is happening in the world as we speak.
> On a national level, Republicans have just lost complete control of Capitol
> Hill to the Democrats for this very reason. It has happened throughout
> history. This seems to be a universally "stuck/blocked" place.
>
> In case you missed that particular post, I am a professional mediator,
> deeply interested in Bohm as well as committed to social justice. I am a
> member of the Committee for Social Justice at Riverside Church, and very
> proud to claim the lineage and legacy of William Sloane Coffin, and the Rev.
> James Forbes. For that reason, I have spoken out about what happened to
> Zoe, and volunteered to mediate the situation.
> No offense is meant in my next remarks, or any others. But I can?t help but
> be curious - could one consider "playing protective mum" a putdown? Is it
> a ?bootable offense?? If Zoe had made a similar remark, would she have been
> unsubscribed without warning?
>
> D: If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something valuable to this list,
> she should write directly to William, since he is the one who needs
> convincing,
> K: That's exactly my point. As it stands now, it?s all about what William,
> and William alone, thinks.
> The issue is not whether we have a moderator. The real issue is what powers
> shall that moderator have, and from whence shall they derive. Actually, why
> should there be only one? Why not co-moderators? And why shouldn?t the
> co-moderators derive their powers from the group? Hmmmmmm. Do I hear the
> framers of our Constitution speaking, as they visited the Iroquois
> Confederacy, admired their form of government, and worked on our own?
>
> "if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to "work together") they have
> to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in
> their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed
> from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive
> instruments of this authority." Bohm "On Dialog"
>
> These are the words of a man who stood up for what he believed in, protected
> his colleagues from McCarthy, was consequently ?witch hunted?, and ?booted?
> from the USA. This is our legacy that we need to honor.
>
> Bohm postulates that everything is unceasingly in flux. This is not a
> Euro-Anglo cultural view. We are conditioned to fear change. The ultimate
> change is birth to life, and life to death. Whereas our culture holds loss
> of life as the ultimate punishment, other cultures embrace death as a
> natural part of life. As a result, we face a ?little death? each time we
> become conscious of change.
>
> The issues we are confronting are about change, and especially hard hitting
> in a group springing from the ideas and experience of Bohm, and democracy.
>
> Those in our culture who have been visionaries, asked the tough questions,
> and acted on them, have turned (in some peoples? thinkgs) into a kind of
> ?romance of the outlaw? idea - almost a Manson (cult leader) thing. Maybe
> kin to the ?Noble Savage? nonsense. I disagree with that view. For example
> - Have you ever heard of an English scholar of the 14th Century named John
> Wycliffe? We have his ?romantic outlaw? proclivities to thank for putting
> the Bible into English, putting our language on a legitimate footing, and
> thereby taking away the power of the clergy. ?Rooms in quiet Oxford colleges
> were turned into revolutionary cells, production lines were established ?
> groups of people secretly translating it, copying it, passing it on...later
> hundreds would die the most horrible deaths for their part in creating and
> distributing to the people the first English Bible...? The Church seized
> Wycliffe, subjected him to a mock trial and killed him, burned his body
> publicly, thereby presumably depriving him of the possibility of eternal
> life. (And thereby trying to threaten everybody else with eternal
> damnation.) His ashes were thrown into a tributary of the Avon. Soon
> afterwards a prophecy appeared:
> The Avon to the Severn runs
> The Severn to the Sea.
> And Wycliff?s dust shall spread abroad
> Wide as the waters be.
>
> In English. ?The Biography of a Language?, Melvyn Bragg,
> p/ 87 ? 88
>
> Later, there would be Martin Luther. Before, we had Jesus? disciples. Bohm,
> himself, was one of those visionaries. Is it really accurate to conclude
> that those of us who explore the principles of dialog, those nameless people
> lost their lives for copying the Bible into English, and the unnamed who
> walked beside Martin Luther King, were seduced by some cult leader under the
> notion that this is romantic? I don?t think so. But one thing cults do have
> in common ? they are run by a leader who wields absolute power over his/her
> members.
>
> Don, I truly don?t want you to feel that you or William are ?under attack?.
> I am simply asking the hard questions that have to be asked, to move the
> percussion into dialog. I have said on more than one occasion that I
> respect you as a scholar, a thinker, and a gentleman. William needs to
> respond to these hard questions, confront the blocks, and dialog with us in
> its true sense, too. We need to be here for each other as we work through
> these difficult, uncomfortable places. And, as difficult as these
> questions are, if our group can?t work through them in a supportive manner,
> keeping true to Bohm ideals and principles, what hope then, is there for the
> rest of humankind? And of what value have been the lives of those like
> Wycliff and Bohm, whose shoulders we stand upon?
>
> In conclusion, I ask, what is the next step for Dialog? In one of our
> conversations, Zoe wrote, ?Dialogue shall open doors (windows), NOT close
> them --- Zoe.? Do any of us disagree? Keeping foremost in mind that Zoe is
> not Peter or Kris, I feel we should reinstate her without any more
> discussion/percussion about what is ?acceptable? on her part. She has never
> spammed, never used confusing language, and I don?t believe she has ever
> flamed.
> If anyone has any evidence that she has exhibited ?unacceptable? behavior in
> the past, please post it now.
> Until then, my position is that it was un/?acceptable? to boot her ?on
> suspicion?, without warning, without due process, and without proceeding
> openly. It is un/?acceptable" to conduct any group that way. Let our group
> ? which used to include her, come together again. Bring her back in without
> further ado, and let us prove naturally and fairly what it is that all of us
> expect from, and have to offer, without expecting perfection, and by helping
> each other to get better and better. Then, if she/we indeed be found
> wanting, let the decision to remove her come from, and be enacted by us all
> - The Bohm Dialog Group, walking in good conscience and right relationship
> to each other, and all our relations. That is what I have to say. Hozhoon,
> K
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:23:14 -0800
>>
>> I am really getting bored with this whole thing and especially your
>> playing protective mum. No offense intended here, this is just the way I
>> feel. If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something valuable to this
>> list, she should write directly to William, since he is the one who needs
>> convincing, In the meanwhile lets get on with some more interesting and
>> general considerations,
>>
>> don
>>
>> On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>> Hello again, Don. I'm going to be more specific in answering your
>>> question this morning. Last night, I was too tired. You wrote:
>>>
>>> But I understood that following on from a conversation that I had
>>> off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop us a line and explain
>>> what her intentions and interests in the Bohm list were, in other words
>>> to tell us why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect her.
>>>
>>> The understanding that I conveyed to Zoe was that she was to address an
>>> email to the Administrator of the list, William, and explain why she
>>> wanted to be a member of this group and what she hoped to get out of it.
>>> If the administrator found her answer "acceptable", she would have to
>>> resubscribe. There was no mention of "telling us why she thought it was
>>> unfair of us to disconnect her". And none whatsoever of sharing any of
>>> this with the list.
>>> I let it rest for a little while, because when emotions are high, it's
>>> hard to sort things out. Then, I asked her why she had answered that
>>> way. She asked me to please put myself in her place, so I could see what
>>> her feelings and thinkgs might have been, then we talked about it.
>>> Here is that answer : William, the person who was and still is convinced
>>> she is Peter, had shut her down "on suspicion" of being Peter, and
>>> without warning. This same person alone was to decide whether or not her
>>> response was "acceptable". The list not only has no guidelines and
>>> procedures to protect itself, it has none to protect its members.
>>> Furthermore, since the list members not only didn't even know she had
>>> been bounced, they would not even know such a process was in progress.
>>> From when I sit, this looks like microcosm in the macrocosm of world
>>> history. I don't want to make anyone angry here, so I'm just going to
>>> ask you to look into your own knowledge bank for similar situations. I
>>> can, indeed, get specific is asked to do so.
>>> My teachers' union instructed us that if we got into a dispute with the
>>> administration (in our case, the administrator), we were to keep a log of
>>> events, and above all, not to ever do anything without an observer
>>> present. That observer could be our union rep, or anyone else we chose.
>>> I offered to play that role, if she wanted me to. And so, here we are.
>>> Zoe would like to come back, but neither she nor I feel the conditions
>>> offered are acceptable. There is no procedure in place for such an
>>> appeal, and no safeguards for the person appealing. If we can work out
>>> appropriate conditions, it is my understanding that she would procede
>>> that way.
>>>
>>> I have not run this by zoe, I am simply thinking aloud now. I know we
>>> need precise wording as to precisely what it is Zoe needs to respond to,
>>> and a way for the decision of whether to invite her back on the list to
>>> be decided fairly. Just as I am running this by you now, I will run it
>>> by Zoe today. Shall I post her reply online as part of my own post? May
>>> she see your suggestions? Is there a way we can negotiate proper terms?
>>> This is essential, because we are setting precedence for future cases.
>>> (Although, I certainly hope it's never again necessary.) I would welcome
>>> input from list members as well as you, Don. k
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:16:45 -0600
>>>>
>>>> this suggestion made Zoe very angry
>>>>
>>>> Hi Don -
>>>>
>>>> Zoe objected because of the word "acceptable". She doesn't object to
>>>> the principle of being heard. But that was clarified after you and I
>>>> spoke. Then someone posted something like "...would anyone stand up for
>>>> her". And I responded "I would", and the ball was rolling. I can find
>>>> that post, if you like, but it will take me a while. I have several
>>>> hundred to go through.
>>>> Actually, I believe that Zoe plans to make that statement. I told her
>>>> you were going on vacation, and she wanted you as well as William to be
>>>> part of this. i believe the procedure is for her to address it
>>>> specifically to the administrator who is William? Correct me if I'm
>>>> wrong.
>>>> Do you want her to wait until after the wedding? best, k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:33 -0800
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Susan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same thing. I
>>>>> am referring here to your first three paragraphs.
>>>>> But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as I can see
>>>>> is the same person but this is just for the record. Gas was peter's
>>>>> second go around. We had to close the list down after Peter's first
>>>>> invasion, And that's when we took the radical step of moderating the
>>>>> list. Or am I confused?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding Zoe, I still have my doubts as I do about Kirsten being the
>>>>> same person as Peter. But I understood that following on from a
>>>>> conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to
>>>>> drop us a line and explain what her intentions and interests in the
>>>>> Bohm list were, in other words to tell us why she thought it was
>>>>> unfair of us to disconnect her. I thought that this would clarify any
>>>>> unclarity. But apparently, this suggestion made Zoe very angry, and
>>>>> she has not written such a letter or communicated with either me,
>>>>> William or Franis, so far as I know.
>>>>>
>>>>> If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why Kathy is
>>>>> pushing this. I would have thought that it should be up to Zoe to make
>>>>> the next move.
>>>>>
>>>>> don
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire
>>>>>> among many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined
>>>>>> the list the same discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager
>>>>>> to explore it. And it was a very similar one to what you are all
>>>>>> proposing right now. Although at that time Peter was an active
>>>>>> member of the group and he was included in the discussion. In the
>>>>>> beginning I sounded much like you and some of the others right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject
>>>>>> except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was
>>>>>> mostly just to ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection
>>>>>> into himself, all he was interested in was goading the rest of us.
>>>>>> Rather than use suspension he would flood us with brief posts about
>>>>>> the world being made up of carrot and stick mentality and we should
>>>>>> all recognize that the only solution was total chaos. When he became
>>>>>> determined to spam the group with anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense
>>>>>> messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day regardless of how any of us
>>>>>> felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we felt) the decision
>>>>>> (after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At that point I was
>>>>>> ready for him to be banned. He mostly just trolled for recruits for
>>>>>> his OD site and spammed us for not being interested. He also seems
>>>>>> to have a fixation with male authority figures and chose Don F. to
>>>>>> flame as a surrogate authority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well
>>>>>> as exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems
>>>>>> that caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my
>>>>>> post to her. In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at
>>>>>> least a loose and flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the
>>>>>> thoughts I have had about the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue
>>>>>> in one of our previous discussions:
>>>>>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened
>>>>>> with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any
>>>>>> warning and without any group discussion. If that's true, then I
>>>>>> would say that I think anyone we suspect of being a troll or of
>>>>>> spamming or who we suspect is Peter, deserves to at least be told of
>>>>>> our feelings and be given a chance to speak for themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how
>>>>>> long they are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that
>>>>>> the purpose of dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without
>>>>>> posting. A healthy dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've
>>>>>> learned to deal with it by learning to know which people are
>>>>>> definitely going to have something to say that I'm interested in
>>>>>> responding to and not. On my busy days I skip through the posts and
>>>>>> read only a few people or if there's a good thread going I will read
>>>>>> only that thread. And, yes, sometimes I miss a lot doing that but
>>>>>> it's better than the alternative of not being a part of all of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From