From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Tue Dec 11 01:20:21 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Dec 11 01:25:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W23FF0FB8EFA3DFB6B6485DC6B0@phx.gbl>
References: <20071209.103058.2428.187.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<c47283890712100851k19f83e3ap64c0cbb30575cf8b@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W23FF0FB8EFA3DFB6B6485DC6B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <42D1DF68-684F-4F3D-AC5B-7DFBC50408AD@dc.rr.com>
Back in the days when I was seeking enlightenment I had a teacher who
was from South America. He called the chatter chicha (chich, for
short) which was an onomatopoeic word for the sound certain jungle
crickets made. We tended to call some of our cohort, 'chichareros",
but of course it took one to know one. Of course this was
acknowledged - sometimes.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 1:43 PM, rob mooney wrote:
> The author makes me laugh. He says "The brain's gonna do what the
> brain's gonna do, but you don't have to let it push you around."
>
> That made me think of the Buddhist thing about picturing your
> internal chatter as birds in a tree and just letting them get on
> with it
>
>
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending -
> was: Language, Map, and Email Identities
>
> I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
>
> I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to
> do something about it, I share the following with you.
>
> I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain:
> Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M.
> Schwartz, MD and Sharon Begley. I normally don't like
> psychiatrists et al, but I read their ideas so I won't be ignorant
> on the topics. This one has a couple of things I think are
> valuable. About him personally, he says that at 15, he was
> convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only mystery
> worth pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And
> amazingly, some of his writing reads like the 'excitation -
> inhibition' work we do in Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear
> chapter on The Quantum Brain, and has managed to explain 'observer
> & observed' so it makes sense to me. Actually, it's something I've
> always been aware of, and used. But the fancy words in books made
> it seem like something esoteric and unfamiliar.
>
> Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used
> variations of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to
> incorporate and add something to the TAS process.
>
> Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our
> 'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they
> arise and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's
> presence, then saying your own specific version of "that is a false
> message due to a jammed transmission in the brain". The author
> makes me laugh. He says "The brain's gonna do what the brain's
> gonna do, but you don't have to let it push you around." I agree.
>
> In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with
> "Every day in every way, I'm getting better and better."
> Affirmations are the core of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the
> lines "Now I walk in Beauty" have been passed down as 'poetry'.
>
> Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.
>
> (The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four
> corners.)
>
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation
> - not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene
> had written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
>
> There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing.
> For those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before
> the clarity came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5).
> And it's all about clarity - "getting to" clarity.
>
> The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
> evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about
> self) which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety
> at each level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The
> obviousness is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity
> - like sensations of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the
> response evolve into a static sensation and a non satisfaction.
>
> Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are
> the words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful.
> They are music. But that's another story. So it is these "words
> that I say" that interest me. I am really very tired of saying
> words that are hurtful to me.
>
> It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even
> remotely [seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world
> image] maintain confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
>
> Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered"
> too. One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND,
> initially (as I said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable.
> Then the "pleasure" turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing
> just FLOPS, upon suspension.
>
> But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity.
> There is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These
> is no defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or
> group to whom the response is being written.
>
> Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is
> primarily a response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind."
> And that it is its own reward and complete satisfaction. It is
> perhaps like a quanta (if I understand such - complete in itself, a
> little piece of wholeness).
>
> -- funny
>
>
>
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of
> course, where this is leading up to. (wm)
>
> Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative
> for all of it though.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
> "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
> I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to
> cope with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call
> "layered" suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack
> of a better word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit
> anti-social. When you are always suspending, people are not getting
> their expected responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to
> say something or do something is to get a response. This is also
> the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt you:
> they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and
> they want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you
> are always in suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work,
> because there is no reaction on your side. At first glance this is
> perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the situation
> from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this, which
> is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a form of
> communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't
> respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are
> effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be
> willing to communicate on a different level but that channel is not
> open both ways. The point is, you are denying communication on the
> channel on which it is invited.
> So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not
> actually your intention to deny communication. You are probably in
> compassion mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever
> wants to touch you. Have you reached a point where you would
> consider suspending suspension, out of compassion, and give the
> person the feeling of having touched you? Would you like to comment
> before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is leading
> up to.
>
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending -
> was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
>
> But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
>
> There are times when I experience what you might be calling
> "detachment" or something I might legitimately call "detachment."
> And there are many childhood memories of something I can call
> "detachment," especially when I was in school.
>
> This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
> comfortable; the other is not.
> The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or
> not feeling like a participant.
> How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as
> saying something. Anything.
> But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable
> for its rarity. And there is a
> preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort
> but to just observe
> what is going on beneath the discomfort.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
> 'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all
> but indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires
> imagining a "something" that actually does the "detaching." This
> is possible - this imagining. But it is clearly an isolated
> imagining and not a visceral experience.
>
> I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
>
> -- funny
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
> "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
> Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint.
> Yes, i think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also
> noticed that I need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached
> from the rest of the world, like preferring to quietly watch the
> game from a distance instead of playing it. Is this tendency also
> the case with you, and if so how are you coping with this?
>
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
> Language,Map, and Email Identities
>
> "The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner
> when he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and
> then be ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of
> circumstances which may point to an entirely fresh approach to
> their material."
> from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
> This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared
> plan " again and again.
> The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more
> of what the group
> is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see
> the "sacrifices"
> [of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising
> surprises. Or, one
> could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response
> on what further
> "suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
>
> Simple suspension alone though has yielded
> surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
> [the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
> interested in "suspension."
> Not recommending; just reporting.
> -- funny
>
> >"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
> "suspension" are
> >appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its
> appeal. The fruits of
> >suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what
> is read or heard] are
> >that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very
> satisfying to respond
> >with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to
> be able to do this
> >because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested."
> Very long story short, with
> >each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
> >Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
> investment'. This is the
> >logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple
> proposal of "suspension'.
> >Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
> yourself responding with
> >things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not
> fun. And there is no
> >rush for the "completion."
> >-- funny
>
> Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am
> sorry "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or
> demented. Or could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an
> unrecognized artist, or some brilliant genious ahead of his time,
> or what else could this be? Is there anyway this could be
> understood as something other than sheer nonsense? Or if you are
> talking from some higher intelligence could you please come down
> and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> Can you guess the film? Search Charades!
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/f9ce931f/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Tue Dec 11 01:21:11 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Dec 11 01:25:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W37E2C8B992F7C618146EEFDC6B0@phx.gbl>
References: <20071210.100634.2428.219.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<96258.60382.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<BAY123-W37E2C8B992F7C618146EEFDC6B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <D415DBB9-DE40-4781-A9C9-CF6F1026DF19@dc.rr.com>
Rob, when are you ever just kidding?
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 1:47 PM, rob mooney wrote:
> "Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
> and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
>
> I recognise this. the observation releases them from your
> expectations of them and then you can release yourself from your
> own expectation. then you are detached enough to get even (just
> kidding)
>
>
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:18:10 -0800
> From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> Sounds like straight from some Self-help-book. Who's the author?
> You like that kind of stuff, don't you, funny.
>
> Alan
>
> ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
>
> don
>
>
> "Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
> and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marcus Aurelius
>
> Such a bohm - like quote [not that such is uncommon in perennial
> wisdom literature]
> that I ran the author down the page a bit for effect.
>
> -- funny
>
>
>
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:48 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
> writes:
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:10 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> Not sure who you are quoting here... (df)
>
> check the original
>
> Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>
> The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/118c2334/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Tue Dec 11 01:28:09 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Dec 11 01:32:48 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
Message-ID: <9EBEBCC7-12BB-4E15-9B47-01A253527932@dc.rr.com>
I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
they need to give me a good reason to send it.
don
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 01:34:28 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 01:39:06 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <9EBEBCC7-12BB-4E15-9B47-01A253527932@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <778064.6180.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
they need to give me a good reason to send it.
don
Don, will a bad reason do, too?
I am bored out of my mind.
Alan
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/a9e797fa/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Tue Dec 11 01:35:45 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Dec 11 01:40:31 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
References: <9EBEBCC7-12BB-4E15-9B47-01A253527932@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <015801c83b8d$c8c76f40$e477480c@HOME>
Hahahaha!! Trying to get us to coax you into posting them Don? Don't you think curiosity is enough? I have some or the posts going back to 2000 (I think) and I find it quite interesting to read the posts I posted back then. So you can count me in as being interested in which posts you picked to re-post.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:28 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
they need to give me a good reason to send it.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/abfa0459/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Tue Dec 11 01:41:19 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Dec 11 01:46:04 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
References: <778064.6180.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <017101c83b8e$8fe2cf20$e477480c@HOME>
I am bored out of my mind.
Alan
I think we got that.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/c6d7b891/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Tue Dec 11 01:43:25 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Dec 11 01:48:04 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <015801c83b8d$c8c76f40$e477480c@HOME>
References: <9EBEBCC7-12BB-4E15-9B47-01A253527932@dc.rr.com>
<015801c83b8d$c8c76f40$e477480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <EF6791A2-C0E3-47A2-9FD1-C422728F9D0C@dc.rr.com>
Well, I have no idea why I saved these. They may be the only ones I
was able to salvage from an old computer, ISP and operating system.
So they are choice free. But as long as two of you have insisted, I
will edit the long headers and send them as a word file. But it may
take me a little while. And, Alan, relief from bordom is a service
worth offering.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> Hahahaha!! Trying to get us to coax you into posting them Don?
> Don't you think curiosity is enough? I have some or the posts
> going back to 2000 (I think) and I find it quite interesting to
> read the posts I posted back then. So you can count me in as being
> interested in which posts you picked to re-post.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:28 PM
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
>
> I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
> early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
> an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
> microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
> except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
> but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
> guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
> lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
> group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
> they need to give me a good reason to send it.
>
> don
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/d1b5a8d0/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 02:07:49 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Tue Dec 11 02:12:28 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <9EBEBCC7-12BB-4E15-9B47-01A253527932@dc.rr.com>
References: <9EBEBCC7-12BB-4E15-9B47-01A253527932@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712101707y4cae961aj75105d3134f7aaa0@mail.gmail.com>
it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about. Don't know if I
can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if there are other pov's,
insights, and information offered that might add to the meaning-pool. Would
also be good for trying to observe the TAS process functioning. Might even
give clues as to where and why people, including self, get stuck. Not just
examples, but clues as to why. And maybe hypotheses about unplugging the
drain. Also, how close to or far away we are from our roots.
On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
> early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
> an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
> microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
> except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
> but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
> guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
> lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
> group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
> they need to give me a good reason to send it.
>
> don
>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/a9ac282f/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Tue Dec 11 02:36:22 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Dec 11 02:41:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712101707y4cae961aj75105d3134f7aaa0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9EBEBCC7-12BB-4E15-9B47-01A253527932@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712101707y4cae961aj75105d3134f7aaa0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6653A523-1746-4675-9CB6-F5BD46C8FDC2@dc.rr.com>
I just had a go at clipping the boring parts of the headers. but I
ran out of steam. The doc is 1.2 megbytes which even with the clips
is too big for the list serve. Basically, the piece is one month's
posts, October 1997. and it is very repetitious since many of the
posts include the previous posts. That hasn't changed. Perhaps, if
Alan is bored to tears he might enjoy plowing through it and clipping
those boring bits out of all the headers which might reduce the size
but probably not enough for the listserve limit. So if anyone likes,
I will send the whole thing thing directly to those of you who want
to plow through it, Just let me know.
Enjoy
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> it dawned on me that if
> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
>
> I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
>
> Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about. Don't
> know if I can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if there are
> other pov's, insights, and information offered that might add to
> the meaning-pool. Would also be good for trying to observe the TAS
> process functioning. Might even give clues as to where and why
> people, including self, get stuck. Not just examples, but clues
> as to why. And maybe hypotheses about unplugging the drain. Also,
> how close to or far away we are from our roots.
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
> early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
> an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
> microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
> except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
> but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
> guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
> lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
> group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
> they need to give me a good reason to send it.
>
> don
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/be70ccbb/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 01:49:44 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 02:54:25 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <EF6791A2-C0E3-47A2-9FD1-C422728F9D0C@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <979013.67557.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Keep 'em on, Don. Those heads. Why waste time chopping __ unless you are bored out of your mind, too ;-|
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well, I have no idea why I saved these. They may be the only ones I was able to salvage from an old computer, ISP and operating system. So they are choice free. But as long as two of you have insisted, I will edit the long headers and send them as a word file. But it may take me a little while. And, Alan, relief from bordom is a service worth offering.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
Hahahaha!! Trying to get us to coax you into posting them Don? Don't you think curiosity is enough? I have some or the posts going back to 2000 (I think) and I find it quite interesting to read the posts I posted back then. So you can count me in as being interested in which posts you picked to re-post.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:28 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
they need to give me a good reason to send it.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/08428f9a/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 03:07:12 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 03:11:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
Message-ID: <624415.2353.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: Hey, maybe if I hang out here long enough I pick up how to suspensed boredom. As some Funny characters around seem to be fond of. Just maybe {;-o}
Alan
How was supper last night, Susan?
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I am bored out of my mind.
Alan
I think we got that.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/99273212/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 03:08:02 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Tue Dec 11 03:12:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <6653A523-1746-4675-9CB6-F5BD46C8FDC2@dc.rr.com>
References: <9EBEBCC7-12BB-4E15-9B47-01A253527932@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712101707y4cae961aj75105d3134f7aaa0@mail.gmail.com>
<6653A523-1746-4675-9CB6-F5BD46C8FDC2@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712101808u533ee42q2dac4250ac18cea8@mail.gmail.com>
I: That works for me Don. Please send.
On Dec 10, 2007 8:36 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> I just had a go at clipping the boring parts of the headers. but I ran out
> of steam. The doc is 1.2 megbytes which even with the clips is too big for
> the list serve. Basically, the piece is one month's posts, October 1997. and
> it is very repetitious since many of the posts include the previous posts.
> That hasn't changed. Perhaps, if Alan is bored to tears he might enjoy
> plowing through it and clipping those boring bits out of all the headers
> which might reduce the size but probably not enough for the listserve limit.
> So if anyone likes, I will send the whole thing thing directly to those of
> you who want to plow through it, Just let me know.
> Enjoy
>
> don
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> it dawned on me that if
> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
>
> I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
>
> Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about. Don't know if
> I can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if there are other pov's,
> insights, and information offered that might add to the meaning-pool. Would
> also be good for trying to observe the TAS process functioning. Might even
> give clues as to where and why people, including self, get stuck. Not just
> examples, but clues as to why. And maybe hypotheses about unplugging the
> drain. Also, how close to or far away we are from our roots.
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
> > early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
> > an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
> > microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
> > except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
> > I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
> > provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
> > but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
> > guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
> > lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
> > group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
> > they need to give me a good reason to send it.
> >
> > don
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/ed710a83/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Tue Dec 11 04:13:37 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Dec 11 04:18:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712101808u533ee42q2dac4250ac18cea8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9EBEBCC7-12BB-4E15-9B47-01A253527932@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712101707y4cae961aj75105d3134f7aaa0@mail.gmail.com>
<6653A523-1746-4675-9CB6-F5BD46C8FDC2@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712101808u533ee42q2dac4250ac18cea8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3DD4EDC6-FC91-4C81-B9AC-A5D98F07334A@dc.rr.com>
Okay I've sent one to Irene. Anyone else still game?
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:08 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> I: That works for me Don. Please send.
>
> On Dec 10, 2007 8:36 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> I just had a go at clipping the boring parts of the headers. but I
> ran out of steam. The doc is 1.2 megbytes which even with the clips
> is too big for the list serve. Basically, the piece is one month's
> posts, October 1997. and it is very repetitious since many of the
> posts include the previous posts. That hasn't changed. Perhaps, if
> Alan is bored to tears he might enjoy plowing through it and
> clipping those boring bits out of all the headers which might
> reduce the size but probably not enough for the listserve limit. So
> if anyone likes, I will send the whole thing thing directly to
> those of you who want to plow through it, Just let me know.
>
> Enjoy
>
> don
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
>> it dawned on me that if
>> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
>> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
>>
>> I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about. Don't
>> know if I can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if there are
>> other pov's, insights, and information offered that might add to
>> the meaning-pool. Would also be good for trying to observe the
>> TAS process functioning. Might even give clues as to where and
>> why people, including self, get stuck. Not just examples, but
>> clues as to why. And maybe hypotheses about unplugging the
>> drain. Also, how close to or far away we are from our roots.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>> I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
>> early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
>> an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
>> microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
>> except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
>> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
>> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
>> but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
>> guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
>> lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
>> group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
>> they need to give me a good reason to send it.
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Irene
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/68f88e47/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 04:19:36 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 04:24:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <3DD4EDC6-FC91-4C81-B9AC-A5D98F07334A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <440652.33933.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Hey Don, I am looking at stuff on Bohm on the net. How this this guy ever develop this intense faszination with thought? What's the root? You know?
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Okay I've sent one to Irene. Anyone else still game?
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:08 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: That works for me Don. Please send.
On Dec 10, 2007 8:36 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just had a go at clipping the boring parts of the headers. but I ran out of steam. The doc is 1.2 megbytes which even with the clips is too big for the list serve. Basically, the piece is one month's posts, October 1997. and it is very repetitious since many of the posts include the previous posts. That hasn't changed. Perhaps, if Alan is bored to tears he might enjoy plowing through it and clipping those boring bits out of all the headers which might reduce the size but probably not enough for the listserve limit. So if anyone likes, I will send the whole thing thing directly to those of you who want to plow through it, Just let me know.
Enjoy
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about. Don't know if I can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if there are other pov's, insights, and information offered that might add to the meaning-pool. Would also be good for trying to observe the TAS process functioning. Might even give clues as to where and why people, including self, get stuck. Not just examples, but clues as to why. And maybe hypotheses about unplugging the drain. Also, how close to or far away we are from our roots.
On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
they need to give me a good reason to send it.
don
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/8e93da39/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 04:21:44 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 04:26:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
Message-ID: <554133.69807.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: Don, why not have Don L. put it on his web-site? I see there is some other Bohm stuff there, too. And the heads: I don't mind a few heads here and there ;;-]
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just had a go at clipping the boring parts of the headers. but I ran out of steam. The doc is 1.2 megbytes which even with the clips is too big for the list serve. Basically, the piece is one month's posts, October 1997. and it is very repetitious since many of the posts include the previous posts. That hasn't changed. Perhaps, if Alan is bored to tears he might enjoy plowing through it and clipping those boring bits out of all the headers which might reduce the size but probably not enough for the listserve limit. So if anyone likes, I will send the whole thing thing directly to those of you who want to plow through it, Just let me know.
Enjoy
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about. Don't know if I can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if there are other pov's, insights, and information offered that might add to the meaning-pool. Would also be good for trying to observe the TAS process functioning. Might even give clues as to where and why people, including self, get stuck. Not just examples, but clues as to why. And maybe hypotheses about unplugging the drain. Also, how close to or far away we are from our roots.
On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
they need to give me a good reason to send it.
don
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/615741e9/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Tue Dec 11 04:34:14 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Dec 11 04:38:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <440652.33933.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <440652.33933.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <890C67AD-D47B-4956-A881-09BE4A77E323@dc.rr.com>
Its a long story but you might enjoy reading, Infinite Potential, the
life and times of David Bohm, by David Peat.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> Hey Don, I am looking at stuff on Bohm on the net. How this this
> guy ever develop this intense faszination with thought? What's the
> root? You know?
>
> Alan
>
> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> Okay I've sent one to Irene. Anyone else still game?
>
> don
>
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:08 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
>> I: That works for me Don. Please send.
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2007 8:36 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>> I just had a go at clipping the boring parts of the headers. but I
>> ran out of steam. The doc is 1.2 megbytes which even with the
>> clips is too big for the list serve. Basically, the piece is one
>> month's posts, October 1997. and it is very repetitious since many
>> of the posts include the previous posts. That hasn't changed.
>> Perhaps, if Alan is bored to tears he might enjoy plowing through
>> it and clipping those boring bits out of all the headers which
>> might reduce the size but probably not enough for the listserve
>> limit. So if anyone likes, I will send the whole thing thing
>> directly to those of you who want to plow through it, Just let me
>> know.
>>
>> Enjoy
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>>
>>> it dawned on me that if
>>> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it
>>> might
>>> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
>>>
>>> I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about.
>>> Don't know if I can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if
>>> there are other pov's, insights, and information offered that
>>> might add to the meaning-pool. Would also be good for trying to
>>> observe the TAS process functioning. Might even give clues as to
>>> where and why people, including self, get stuck. Not just
>>> examples, but clues as to why. And maybe hypotheses about
>>> unplugging the drain. Also, how close to or far away we are from
>>> our roots.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from
>>> the
>>> early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
>>> an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
>>> microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
>>> except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me
>>> that if
>>> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it
>>> might
>>> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
>>> but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
>>> guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
>>> lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
>>> group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
>>> they need to give me a good reason to send it.
>>>
>>> don
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Irene
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Irene
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/d0c0b1cb/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 01:47:39 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 04:39:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <017101c83b8e$8fe2cf20$e477480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <709206.69098.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Hey, maybe if I hang out here long enough I pick up how to suspensed boredom. As some Funny characters around seem to be fond of. Just maybe {;-o}
Alan
How was supper last night, Susan?
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I am bored out of my mind.
Alan
I think we got that.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/c6d9e8ee/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Tue Dec 11 04:42:31 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Dec 11 04:47:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <554133.69807.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <554133.69807.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <61E7BBCE-00A2-4EAB-93BA-FAA2DF02516E@dc.rr.com>
Actually, William maintains a very interesting website devoted to
Bohm with some articles by a number of people including Bohm.
<http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/>
This doc really doesn't want to be published because it is just a
collection of letters that give a taste of what the early stages of
this virtual dialogue were like ten years ago best appreciated, I
think, by those who are actually involved in it.
But would you like it?
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
>
> "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don, why not have Don L. put it on his web-site? I see there is
> some other Bohm stuff there, too. And the heads: I don't mind a few
> heads here and there ;;-]
>
> Alan
>
> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> I just had a go at clipping the boring parts of the headers. but I
> ran out of steam. The doc is 1.2 megbytes which even with the clips
> is too big for the list serve. Basically, the piece is one month's
> posts, October 1997. and it is very repetitious since many of the
> posts include the previous posts. That hasn't changed. Perhaps, if
> Alan is bored to tears he might enjoy plowing through it and
> clipping those boring bits out of all the headers which might
> reduce the size but probably not enough for the listserve limit. So
> if anyone likes, I will send the whole thing thing directly to
> those of you who want to plow through it, Just let me know.
>
> Enjoy
>
> don
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
>> it dawned on me that if
>> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
>> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
>>
>> I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about. Don't
>> know if I can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if there are
>> other pov's, insights, and information offered that might add to
>> the meaning-pool. Would also be good for trying to observe the
>> TAS process functioning. Might even give clues as to where and
>> why people, including self, get stuck. Not just examples, but
>> clues as to why. And maybe hypotheses about unplugging the
>> drain. Also, how close to or far away we are from our roots.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>> I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
>> early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
>> an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
>> microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
>> except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
>> I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
>> provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
>> but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
>> guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
>> lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
>> group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
>> they need to give me a good reason to send it.
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Irene
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/1e396860/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 04:47:27 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 04:52:06 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <61E7BBCE-00A2-4EAB-93BA-FAA2DF02516E@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <169825.59139.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Aprpos, are the ladies out dancin tonite?
Alan
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/5f66d13d/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 04:42:16 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 04:53:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <890C67AD-D47B-4956-A881-09BE4A77E323@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <777530.75898.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
In a nut-shell? After all, he was a theoretical physicist. His love for that Krisnamurti-guru?
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Its a long story but you might enjoy reading, Infinite Potential, the life and times of David Bohm, by David Peat.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Hey Don, I am looking at stuff on Bohm on the net. How this this guy ever develop this intense faszination with thought? What's the root? You know?
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Okay I've sent one to Irene. Anyone else still game?
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:08 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: That works for me Don. Please send.
On Dec 10, 2007 8:36 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just had a go at clipping the boring parts of the headers. but I ran out of steam. The doc is 1.2 megbytes which even with the clips is too big for the list serve. Basically, the piece is one month's posts, October 1997. and it is very repetitious since many of the posts include the previous posts. That hasn't changed. Perhaps, if Alan is bored to tears he might enjoy plowing through it and clipping those boring bits out of all the headers which might reduce the size but probably not enough for the listserve limit. So if anyone likes, I will send the whole thing thing directly to those of you who want to plow through it, Just let me know.
Enjoy
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about. Don't know if I can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if there are other pov's, insights, and information offered that might add to the meaning-pool. Would also be good for trying to observe the TAS process functioning. Might even give clues as to where and why people, including self, get stuck. Not just examples, but clues as to why. And maybe hypotheses about unplugging the drain. Also, how close to or far away we are from our roots.
On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
they need to give me a good reason to send it.
don
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/44d4f1e1/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 04:45:16 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 04:56:36 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <61E7BBCE-00A2-4EAB-93BA-FAA2DF02516E@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <607741.28395.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
How many pages? Gotta be economical with my boredom ;-q
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Actually, William maintains a very interesting website devoted to Bohm with some articles by a number of people including Bohm.
<http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/>
This doc really doesn't want to be published because it is just a collection of letters that give a taste of what the early stages of this virtual dialogue were like ten years ago best appreciated, I think, by those who are actually involved in it.
But would you like it?
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: Don, why not have Don L. put it on his web-site? I see there is some other Bohm stuff there, too. And the heads: I don't mind a few heads here and there ;;-]
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just had a go at clipping the boring parts of the headers. but I ran out of steam. The doc is 1.2 megbytes which even with the clips is too big for the list serve. Basically, the piece is one month's posts, October 1997. and it is very repetitious since many of the posts include the previous posts. That hasn't changed. Perhaps, if Alan is bored to tears he might enjoy plowing through it and clipping those boring bits out of all the headers which might reduce the size but probably not enough for the listserve limit. So if anyone likes, I will send the whole thing thing directly to those of you who want to plow through it, Just let me know.
Enjoy
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about. Don't know if I can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if there are other pov's, insights, and information offered that might add to the meaning-pool. Would also be good for trying to observe the TAS process functioning. Might even give clues as to where and why people, including self, get stuck. Not just examples, but clues as to why. And maybe hypotheses about unplugging the drain. Also, how close to or far away we are from our roots.
On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
they need to give me a good reason to send it.
don
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/eadddf8b/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 03:10:46 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 06:02:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] other people's posts
In-Reply-To: <6653A523-1746-4675-9CB6-F5BD46C8FDC2@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <408433.47483.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Don, why not have Don L. put it on his web-site? I see there is some other Bohm stuff there, too. And the heads: I don't mind a few heads here and there ;;-]
Alan
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just had a go at clipping the boring parts of the headers. but I ran out of steam. The doc is 1.2 megbytes which even with the clips is too big for the list serve. Basically, the piece is one month's posts, October 1997. and it is very repetitious since many of the posts include the previous posts. That hasn't changed. Perhaps, if Alan is bored to tears he might enjoy plowing through it and clipping those boring bits out of all the headers which might reduce the size but probably not enough for the listserve limit. So if anyone likes, I will send the whole thing thing directly to those of you who want to plow through it, Just let me know.
Enjoy
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful.
I: Good idea. I'll give it a little more time, and do the same.
Meanwhile, I'd love to read the ones you're debating about. Don't know if I can give a good reason, but I'd like to see if there are other pov's, insights, and information offered that might add to the meaning-pool. Would also be good for trying to observe the TAS process functioning. Might even give clues as to where and why people, including self, get stuck. Not just examples, but clues as to why. And maybe hypotheses about unplugging the drain. Also, how close to or far away we are from our roots.
On Dec 10, 2007 7:28 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
I just came across a document made up of some very old posts from the
early days of this list - 1997. And they led me into what felt like
an archeological dig that revealed some of the roots of this
microculture. On one level it showed that nothing much has changed,
except most of the names. And for some reason it dawned on me that if
I read my own posts as if they were written by someone else, it might
provide a kind of proprioceptive view that could be useful. It did
but it was nothing that I can easily describe here - meaningful, I
guess you could say, but in a very subtle sort of way. I had a
lengthy argument with myself as to whether to offer them to the
group. But his remains unsettled. So if anyone is curious about it,
they need to give me a good reason to send it.
don
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071210/abd7be9d/attachment.html
From Funny at Dancing.Org Tue Dec 11 06:00:40 2007
From: Funny at Dancing.Org (Peter Renzland)
Date: Tue Dec 11 06:05:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] virus alert from CNN
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712100956i5a42f6a9xa17aafad7860e9d3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c47283890712100956i5a42f6a9xa17aafad7860e9d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A78A8E2-2566-4403-8B75-94589B54FC59@Dancing.Org>
Some friends.
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/merry-christmas-virus-hoax.shtml
funny pete
On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:56 , Irene Darcy wrote:
> Just received this alert from friends.
>
> Do not open any message with an attached file called "Merry
> Christmas" regardless of who sent it, It is a virus that opens as an
> Open Log Fire and will burn the whole hard disc in your computer.
>
>
> This virus will be received from someone who has your e-mail address
> in his/her contact list. This virus was discovered by McAfee
> yesterday, and there is no repair yet. This virus simply destroys
> the Zero Sector of the Hard Disc, where the vital information is kept
>
> http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/postcard.aspb
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/be92f696/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 12:33:31 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Tue Dec 11 12:38:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
In-Reply-To: <20071210.151110.2428.242.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <944959.83863.qm@web57410.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Ae.Dropper. Every year, in the United States about 1,500 people have surgical objects accidentally left inside them after surgery, according to medical studies. About two-thirds of the surgical objects left behind are sponges. AL
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: Then there was that lunch with Germaine Greer.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:19:10 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
It actually refers to something I wrote mentioning Dennis Hopper, an old friend.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
The what, "hopper"? And where does that one come in here now? More scrolling to do for me? O-boy --gender!--, this list is a wild ride.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's [the question] is in "the hopper." It seems a stretch but that's
not new. Connections LOVE to make themselves.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Almost time for eggs and ham. That's for certain. But does that count, too, Funny?
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"We can seldom go erect. Almost every man we meet requires some civility, requires to be humored; -- he has some fame, some talent, some whim of religion or philanthropy in his head that is not to be questioned, and so spoils all conversation with him." -- Emerson
"Almost"
It's always the "almost" that promises faithfully the
alternative that delivers the tiniest exception that changes
e v e r y t h i n g.
-- funny
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/a77efa63/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 12:34:46 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Tue Dec 11 12:39:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
In-Reply-To: <15218.97884.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <78041.28749.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Rob Mooney. 5. tweet 5 up, 10 down - slang word for a vagina. what a whore, her skirt's so short you can almost see her tweet 6. tweet 5 up, 11 down - a pussy wedgie. Did you see that chick pick her tweet! AL
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
ALMOST. Had to look this one up; almost ;--),)
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } tweet!
---------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:59:59 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language, Map, and Email Identities
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Now this I call true generosity!
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
That made me think of the Buddhist thing about picturing your internal chatter as birds in a tree and just letting them get on with
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Get closer to the jungle. I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/24430050/attachment.html
From pennyduby at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 13:06:05 2007
From: pennyduby at yahoo.com (Penelope Duby)
Date: Tue Dec 11 13:10:50 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Message-ID: <691927.13441.qm@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/dc6b5bb6/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 11 14:26:54 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Tue Dec 11 14:38:19 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
In-Reply-To: <691927.13441.qm@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <230152.64688.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Good morning list, and welcome Penlope! I thought I would send this little poem before I go out and help Mom feed the animals. How is everybody this fine morning? Later,
Alan
I had thought the tumors
on my spine would kill me but
the tumors on my head seem to be
extraordinary competitive this week.
For the past twenty or thirty years
I have eaten the freshest most
organic and colorful fruits and
vegetables I did not drink I
did drink one small glass of red
wine with dinner nearly every day
as suggested by The New York Times
I should have taken longer walks but
obviously I have done something wrong
I don't mean morally or ethically or
geographically I did not live near
a nuclear graveyard or under a coal
stack nor did I allow my children
to do so I lived in a city no worse
than any other great and famous city I
lived one story above a street that led
cabs and ambulances to the local hospital
that didn't seem so bad and was
often convenient
In any event I am
already old and therefore a little ashamed
to have written this poem full
of complaints against mortality which
biological fact I have been constructed for
to hand on to my children and grand?
children as I received it from my
dear mother and father and beloved
grandmother who all
ah if I remember it
were in great pain at leaving
and were furiously saying goodbye
Penelope Duby <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/f23a1820/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Dec 11 15:16:30 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 16:00:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Message-ID: <20071211.095954.2428.305.ae.dropper@juno.com>
They already have. All of them. All fiction. And it's a gift that keeps
on giving. Endless hilarity.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:08:57 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Funny! Just imagine, all or big chunks of what you come to think in your
life will in the end turn out not so. Hilarious!!
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
'Everything existing "is already disintegrating and changing...
everything is by nature made but to die." -- DF quoting Aurelius.
Good find. I'm always on the lookout for different ways of
saying "the continuous and simultaneous unfolding/enfolding."
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:00:22 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Ah, way down. Thanks. So it was a kind of early self help book, wasn't
it? Except they are the words of an emperor sitting on his thrown
conducting one of many wars. He also wrote: 'Everything existing "is
already disintegrating and changing... everything is by nature made but
to die."
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:34 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Who's the author? (Alan)
Is this a "guy thing?"
-- funny
p.s. scroll
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:18:10 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Sounds like straight from some Self-help-book. Who's the author? You like
that kind of stuff, don't you, funny.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
"Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
Marcus Aurelius
Such a bohm - like quote [not that such is uncommon in perennial wisdom
literature]
that I ran the author down the page a bit for effect.
-- funny
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:48 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:10 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Not sure who you are quoting here... (df)
check the original
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/36ed9b1c/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Dec 11 15:07:51 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 16:01:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Message-ID: <20071211.095954.2428.302.ae.dropper@juno.com>
It's all improv comedy. Just read carefully. You still won't catch them
all but let "this one" pass or you will miss the "next five." Explaining
works
sometimes but not very often and not really, and only when timing remains
the priority.
Timing is everything. And keep enough of the context to conveniently
reread. LOTS can get
missed in the first reading and even in the first few readings. And like
they say about
Driving in Massachusetts - Understanding is not a right; it is a
privilege. But why am
I telling you all of this. You are obviously a pro. A little work on the
timing though.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:54:28 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Funny, you lost me. Where does gender come in here? What's your point?
You are not touchy when it comes to "Self-help", are you? ;>)
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Who's the author? (Alan)
Is this a "guy thing?"
-- funny
p.s. scroll
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:18:10 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Sounds like straight from some Self-help-book. Who's the author? You like
that kind of stuff, don't you, funny.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
"Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
Marcus Aurelius
Such a bohm - like quote [not that such is uncommon in perennial wisdom
literature]
that I ran the author down the page a bit for effect.
-- funny
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:48 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:10 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Not sure who you are quoting here... (df)
check the original
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/811deaff/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Dec 11 15:12:59 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 16:01:05 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quotes of the day
Message-ID: <20071211.095954.2428.304.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The notion of a problem is useful when the thing with which we are
dealing is not significantly affected by our thought about it, but not
when, as with [psychological] hurt, thought plays a crucial role in
producing it. The notion of a problem is then too limited to be
appropriate. -- Bohm
~
When the arm is hurt, to step back in the mind and say "my arm is hurt, I
must do something" makes sense because thought and the arm are not that
closely connected (there is a kind of separation), but when it comes to
the psychological pain it doesn't make sense. -- Bohm
~
The deepest and most common assumption is that I have been hurt by
another person. -- Bohm
~
There is no [psychological] hurt independent of the words. -- Bohm
~
"Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves." --
Aurelius
~
-- Funny
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Dec 11 15:05:07 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 16:01:07 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
Message-ID: <20071211.095954.2428.301.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Memory thrives on repetition.
"Dave," by the way, has actually
worn out 3 metaphorical sofas.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:18:57 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
How did that get into Hopper Dropper?
Good memory though. Your TAS must be well tuned
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:11 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Then there was that lunch with Germaine Greer.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:19:10 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
It actually refers to something I wrote mentioning Dennis Hopper, an old
friend.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
The what, "hopper"? And where does that one come in here now? More
scrolling to do for me? O-boy --gender!--, this list is a wild ride.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's [the question] is in "the hopper." It seems a stretch but that's
not new. Connections LOVE to make themselves.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Almost time for eggs and ham. That's for certain. But does that count,
too, Funny?
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"We can seldom go erect. Almost every man we meet requires some civility,
requires to be humored; -- he has some fame, some talent, some whim of
religion or philanthropy in his head that is not to be questioned, and so
spoils all conversation with him." -- Emerson
"Almost"
It's always the "almost" that promises faithfully the
alternative that delivers the tiniest exception that changes
e v e r y t h i n g.
-- funny
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/2ec1e6a6/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Dec 11 15:59:28 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 16:01:10 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
Message-ID: <20071211.095954.2428.309.ae.dropper@juno.com>
It's over. True tired is true rest. They are inseparable.
Whatever needed affirming is no longer there. It was never there.
Not substantially. It was static. Static affirming static.
Clarity is just that. Clarity.
It's only edge is its flowing
crystalline expression of itself
about itself. It's expression
is how it knows its beauty.
It's expression is its beauty.
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to do
something about it, I share the following with you.
I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain:
Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD
and Sharon Begley. I normally don't like psychiatrists et al, but I read
their ideas so I won't be ignorant on the topics. This one has a couple
of things I think are valuable. About him personally, he says that at
15, he was convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only
mystery worth pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And
amazingly, some of his writing reads like the 'excitation - inhibition'
work we do in Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear chapter on The
Quantum Brain, and has managed to explain 'observer & observed' so it
makes sense to me. Actually, it's something I've always been aware of,
and used. But the fancy words in books made it seem like something
esoteric and unfamiliar.
Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used variations
of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to incorporate and add
something to the TAS process.
Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our
'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they arise
and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's presence,
then saying your own specific version of "that is a false message due to
a jammed transmission in the brain". The author makes me laugh. He says
"The brain's gonna do what the brain's gonna do, but you don't have to
let it push you around." I agree.
In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with "Every day
in every way, I'm getting better and better." Affirmations are the core
of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the lines "Now I walk in Beauty"
have been passed down as 'poetry'.
Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.
(The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four
corners.)
On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not
a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written:
"How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For
those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity
came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about
clarity - "getting to" clarity.
The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self)
which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each
level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness
is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations
of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a
static sensation and a non satisfaction.
Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the
words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are
music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that I say" that
interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to
me.
It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely
[seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain
confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too.
One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I
said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure"
turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There
is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no
defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom
the response is being written.
Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily a
response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is
its own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if
I understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course,
where this is leading up to. (wm)
Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative for
all of it though.
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope
with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered"
suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better
word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When
you are always suspending, people are not getting their expected
responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to say something or do
something is to get a response. This is also the case when someone utters
an insult, or attempt to hurt you: they usually do this because they are
disappointed or angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have
touched you. Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted
hurt doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first
glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the
situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this,
which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a form of
communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't respond,
don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are effectively refusing
to communicate on this level. You may be willing to communicate on a
different level but that channel is not open both ways. The point is, you
are denying communication on the channel on which it is invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually
your intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion
mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch
you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending
suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having
touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize,
of course, where this is leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment"
or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many
childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when
I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not
feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying
something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for
its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to
just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but
indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a
"something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this
imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral
experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i
think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I
need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the
world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead
of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are
you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when
he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be
ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances
which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of
what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
"sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises.
Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what
further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
"suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal.
The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is
read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be
able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
"suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun.
And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
"funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/d2888e8e/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Dec 11 14:58:53 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 16:01:11 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
Message-ID: <20071211.095954.2428.300.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I know. I gave you that information myself 3 or 4 years ago.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:33:31 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman
<landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Ae.Dropper. Every year, in the United States about 1,500 people have
surgical objects accidentally left inside them after surgery, according
to medical studies. About two-thirds of the surgical objects left behind
are sponges. AL
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Then there was that lunch with Germaine Greer.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:19:10 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
It actually refers to something I wrote mentioning Dennis Hopper, an old
friend.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
The what, "hopper"? And where does that one come in here now? More
scrolling to do for me? O-boy --gender!--, this list is a wild ride.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's [the question] is in "the hopper." It seems a stretch but that's
not new. Connections LOVE to make themselves.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Almost time for eggs and ham. That's for certain. But does that count,
too, Funny?
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"We can seldom go erect. Almost every man we meet requires some civility,
requires to be humored; -- he has some fame, some talent, some whim of
religion or philanthropy in his head that is not to be questioned, and so
spoils all conversation with him." -- Emerson
"Almost"
It's always the "almost" that promises faithfully the
alternative that delivers the tiniest exception that changes
e v e r y t h i n g.
-- funny
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/46e43232/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Dec 11 15:28:35 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 16:01:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending
Message-ID: <20071211.095954.2428.307.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Here's a quote that speaks to this
"layered suspension" (Paradigm A).
"What one can get is proportionate to
what one is prepared to pay.
And one has to pay in advance,
there is no credit." -- Ouspensky
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:59:51 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
I hope this makes some sense... (wm)
I'm so intrigued by all this; so bereft of understanding the paradigm in
application.
I've got that there are two channels. Channel A is one way and Channel B
is two way
or potentially so. But Channel B in terms of Paradigm A, translates
viscerally,
as a sewer pipe. Can't override the reflex to close my mouth and get out
of the way! Maybe this process could include at some point, an example
from this list of how Channel B works or has worked as a two way channel.
Also "worked" presumes the purpose of Paradigm B, which seems so far
to be "communication." Do I have this right? And this would perhaps be
a "communication" of having been "touched?" Or would you say that it is
a "communication" of having been successfully "hurt?"
Lots of loose pieces floating around about this.
Do you use this "method" on this list?
Did you "use it" with me? Don't want to get to far afield
with these questions but is "I am sorry "funny" but to me it
sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented." an example
of the method? Except that wouldn't work as an example because
what you were responding to couldn't possible have made you
feel "hurt." It certainly wasn't directed at "hurting" you. It
wasn't directed at you at all.
So, you can see, how far off I am in understanding. No need to
feel like I am asking you to address specifics. Whatever more you
have to say will go into the mix. I'm especially interested in
experiencing
the first example of practical application.
"When we define the terms of one journey in terms of a totally different
journey the results can only be invalid and confusing. We cannot lift
terms out of their original experiential context and redefine them
according to a totally different paradigm and set of experiences."
Roberts
-- funny
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:33:10 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
So far, we seem to be talking about quite different things. But I almost
don't want to say this
because it might inhibit the complimentary development in each of our
directions, which development
is totally fascinating to me. But I feel a need to say just this much.
The parallel development though, of these two renderings of recent and
current
experience will hopefully continue along their parallel paths. I truly
want to see this development
continue; yours reads like a real page turner novel - but I have to wait
for the next chapter.
Mine, to me, reads like poetry (because it captures better than I could
have imagined
possible, the actual breakthrough experience. And because of the feedback
there is
confidence that the pointy nose of the clarifying process will continue
its
"breaking through").
And I'll just add that the mutual and back and forth praxis of experience
and
development of the language of the experience has been really in the
forefront
of awareness during the breakthrough process. "Which comes first?"
[Language. Experience]. Can't say at all.
-- funny
>Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation -
>not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had
>written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
I am a bit busy at the moment, Pat, but I'll pick it up again later. For
the time being, let me just say that this is leading up to passion. But
not exactly the same kind of passion that we have talked about a few
years ago. This "new" passion is a further development of the earlier
version. It's more like a second order of passion corresponding with the
equally "new" second order of suspension. But more later...
>
>Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the
words that I say.
>The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are music. But that's
another story.
>So it is these "words that I say" that interest me. I am really very
tired of saying words
>that are hurtful to me.
But it's the hearing that works, not the saying. Whether words are spoken
by yourself or by someone else doesn't really matter. In both cases you
hear the words, and that is what is causing the reactions. You can
misunderstand what somebody is saying and hear something else. In such a
case, the reaction is to what you mistakenly think the person is saying.
Thus, suspension is suspending the reaction to what you hear. What you
hear is of your own making.
The "second order suspension" is suspending suspension. This is like
taking yourself out of suspension mode and allow the reaction to unfold
with all its consequences. This is almost the same as if there never was
suspension, like ging back to square one, but with a subtle difference.
This also gives rise to a new kind of passion because suspension and
passion are very closely related. Ordinary passion (first order passion)
means allowing the hurt, let it happen without resistence, but also
without reaction. However, this means the attempted hurt is not working
as intended. The reaction is missing. The passion has the effect of
making you kind of "transparent" and this can be frustrating to anyone
who wanted to hurt you: it's not working. This is where the second order
passion comes in; you move into second order suspension and let the
reaction react, and the hurt hurt. This second order passion is almost
the same as a mechanical reaction (at least that's what it looks like on
the surface). The reason for doing this is to avoid the frustration of
the other person. A mechanical reaction can quickly escalate the
situation, but frustration with a "transparent" person doesn't help much
either; chances are that the frustration finds someone else. I hope this
makes some sense... (wm)
Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not
a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written:
"How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For
those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity
came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about
clarity - "getting to" clarity.
The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self)
which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each
level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness
is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations
of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a
static sensation and a non satisfaction.
Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the
words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are
music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that I say" that
interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to
me.
It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely
[seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain
confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too.
One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I
said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure"
turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There
is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no
defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom
the response is being written.
Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily a
response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is
its own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if
I understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course,
where this is leading up to. (wm)
Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative for
all of it though.
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope
with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered"
suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better
word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When
you are always suspending, people are not getting their expected
responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to say something or do
something is to get a response. This is also the case when someone utters
an insult, or attempt to hurt you: they usually do this because they are
disappointed or angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have
touched you. Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted
hurt doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first
glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the
situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this,
which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a form of
communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't respond,
don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are effectively refusing
to communicate on this level. You may be willing to communicate on a
different level but that channel is not open both ways. The point is, you
are denying communication on the channel on which it is invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually
your intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion
mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch
you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending
suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having
touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize,
of course, where this is leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment"
or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many
childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when
I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not
feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying
something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for
its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to
just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but
indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a
"something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this
imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral
experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i
think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I
need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the
world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead
of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are
you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when
he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be
ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances
which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of
what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
"sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises.
Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what
further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
"suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal.
The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is
read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be
able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
"suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun.
And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
"funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/0a5a0792/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Dec 11 15:10:54 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 16:01:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
Message-ID: <20071211.095954.2428.303.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Bye AL. Sigh. But of course, we still get to have Alan.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:34:46 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman
<landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Rob Mooney. 5. tweet 5 up, 10 down - slang word for a vagina. what a
whore, her skirt's so short you can almost see her tweet 6. tweet 5 up,
11 down - a pussy wedgie. Did you see that chick pick her tweet! AL
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
ALMOST. Had to look this one up; almost ;--),)
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
tweet!
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:59:59 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language, Map, and Email Identities
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Now this I call true generosity!
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
That made me think of the Buddhist thing about picturing your internal
chatter as birds in a tree and just letting them get on with
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Get closer to the jungle. I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/d22f7f86/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Dec 11 15:32:07 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 16:01:15 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Message-ID: <20071211.095954.2428.308.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Welcome to anarchy Penelope.
Exhaust the familiar. Then nothing is "lost." It just gives up.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:06:05 -0800 (PST) Penelope Duby
<pennyduby@yahoo.com> writes:
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online
conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing?
The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and
follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting
service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a
political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue,
but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for
your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams;
believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by
some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it.
For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along
a road heading who k