From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sat Nov 11 06:15:51 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Nov 12 07:20:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
Message-ID: <576B79E8-061B-42B8-B2EE-6FD393D83EE4@dc.rr.com>
Somehow, after all this time we have survived. So someone must have
been doing something
right.
aavo was, by the way I post grad student of Bohm's and co-authored
some papers with him. He was
also a product of BrockwoodvPark the Krishnamurti school in England.
He is now a professor of
philosophy at a Swedish University and is an active part of the
consciousness research community
who speaks at conferences and still helps to promote the Bohm
approach to this field. He also has
a new book out published by Springer
don
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:52:13 +0200
From: heuvel@muc.de (William van den Heuvel)
Subject: Re: au revoir
Precedence: list
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Forwarded message from Paavo Pylkkanen:
My trouble is that there is so much coming all the time & I just
don't have
time to read it now. I do feel that something changed when the list
system
was changed; this may be totally irrational on my part, though. I, in
fact, don't know what happened & how (if at all) there was a change
(e.g.
were some dialogue lists combined?). It seemed to me that the group
changed & I couldn't recognize the people any more; it started
feeling just
like any of the e-mail lists you subscribe to, lot of stuff comes in all
the time & there's no time to read it; in other words, it becomes a
nuisance. It also seemed to me that with the change some people
unsubscribed just because of the change, but I don't know?
So I don't know/remember who's in the group, how/why they joined, is
anyone
(except the few who write) actually reading the list...
I also have a practical problem: when I am in Finland my Swedish e-mail
account gets filled with dialogue (it then feels like garbage) &
makes it
harder to read my other mail; & as I haven't read a lot of the dialogue
mail recently I thought I might need to quit, for a while at least.
Perhaps some discussion of how to make this kind of dialogue work, or an
evaluation of it is necessary? Perhaps some "rules" are needed, but
what
could they be? Perhaps a rule of committment: if one subscribes, one
should try to read all the mail. I don't know...
Paavo
Also, Paavo still appears to be on the list as a subscriber. But I
have no idea
whether he reads any of this or not.
don
From stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com Sat Nov 11 09:25:58 2006
From: stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com (STEPHEN DEVLIN)
Date: Sun Nov 12 10:30:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
In-Reply-To: <576B79E8-061B-42B8-B2EE-6FD393D83EE4@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20061111082558.13491.qmail@web86508.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
The only thing I've had trouble with on this list is the "button-pushers", they drag the whole thing down. I've been here long enough to see a few of them come and go. The people who think everyone should be given umpteen chances and understanding remain strangely silent when these people are churning out garbage and basically just resorting to ad hominen personality attacks because someone isnt sharing their doom n gloom outlook on existence. I've seen this list go totally silent where only a couple of people responded for weeks, and then those same people were bleating that such n such was kicked out too soon and had a lot to say. People who come here are given more chances to say what they have to say than on any other internet forum/list I've ever encountered, and that's the problem. They know they would be booted anywhere else very quickly, but this place is an easy touch. Ive seen similar people get their PCs hacked and messed right up for just trying to disturb what
are normally easy going people, communicating about whatever gets them out of bed.
Its all too easy to just pick fault and send a million one line, pseudo enigmatic garbaged english mails, we could all do it.
donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote: Somehow, after all this time we have survived. So someone must have
been doing something
right.
aavo was, by the way I post grad student of Bohm's and co-authored
some papers with him. He was
also a product of BrockwoodvPark the Krishnamurti school in England.
He is now a professor of
philosophy at a Swedish University and is an active part of the
consciousness research community
who speaks at conferences and still helps to promote the Bohm
approach to this field. He also has
a new book out published by Springer
don
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:52:13 +0200
From: heuvel@muc.de (William van den Heuvel)
Subject: Re: au revoir
Precedence: list
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Forwarded message from Paavo Pylkkanen:
My trouble is that there is so much coming all the time & I just
don't have
time to read it now. I do feel that something changed when the list
system
was changed; this may be totally irrational on my part, though. I, in
fact, don't know what happened & how (if at all) there was a change
(e.g.
were some dialogue lists combined?). It seemed to me that the group
changed & I couldn't recognize the people any more; it started
feeling just
like any of the e-mail lists you subscribe to, lot of stuff comes in all
the time & there's no time to read it; in other words, it becomes a
nuisance. It also seemed to me that with the change some people
unsubscribed just because of the change, but I don't know?
So I don't know/remember who's in the group, how/why they joined, is
anyone
(except the few who write) actually reading the list...
I also have a practical problem: when I am in Finland my Swedish e-mail
account gets filled with dialogue (it then feels like garbage) &
makes it
harder to read my other mail; & as I haven't read a lot of the dialogue
mail recently I thought I might need to quit, for a while at least.
Perhaps some discussion of how to make this kind of dialogue work, or an
evaluation of it is necessary? Perhaps some "rules" are needed, but
what
could they be? Perhaps a rule of committment: if one subscribes, one
should try to read all the mail. I don't know...
Paavo
Also, Paavo still appears to be on the list as a subscriber. But I
have no idea
whether he reads any of this or not.
don
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061111/b872a7dc/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sat Nov 11 16:17:40 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Nov 12 17:22:40 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Hiley remarks re Bohm,
Stapp and Consciousness ( or Personal Self )
Message-ID: <001501c705a4$8edcd100$7204153f@DL01>
Here are some very interesting Basil Hiley comments regarding :
1) (Bohm's) "ontology based interpretation without invoking consciousness and without invoking references to 'our knowledge" -- the personal self
2) "the circularity of using consciousness to formulate QM laws." -- quotes from below. Highlights added.
3) potentiality and actuality
Seems to me what Hiley says of consciousness is applicable to personal identity. Perhaps Hiley's idea of circularity here is the feedback loop Bohm talks about. Consider also Bohm's remark in On Dialogue regarding explaining something without referencing the self.
Also below, after Hiley's comments is a piece from Henry Stapp. I really like his language personal self and consciousness, especially the notion of the stream of consciousness in which the self as object appears in awareness. (to use Mait Edey's language "awareness and appearance" instead of subject and object.)
Don L
From: "Ray Mondor" <raymondor@rcn.com>
To: <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Mondor, Polanik, Lofting, Edwards, Nunn & the Stapp/Atmsanspacher dialogue
Through a fortunate and fortuitous connection I am able to forward Dr. Basil Hiley's reply to some of Dr. Stapp's remarks.
If anyone does not recognize Dr. Hiley's name:
"Bohm continued his work in quantum physics past his retirement in 1987. His final work, the posthumously published The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory (1993), resulted from a decades-long collaboration with his colleague Basil Hiley."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm)
Ray Mondor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: 07 November 2006 14:00
Subject: Reply to Henry Stapp's Comments on QM and consciousness
I find it very difficult to enter into a discussion that has been going on between two other parties. One misses the main thrust of the argument and often raise different points that may not be central to the discussion. However I will comment on the paragraph:-
As Wigner ("Remarks on the Mind-body Question"; cf. Wheeler and Zurek p. 169) said: "it was not possible to formulate the laws of Quantum Mechanics without reference to the consciousness." Also Heisenberg: "The laws of nature that we formulate mathematically in quantum theory deal no longer with the particles themselves but with our knowledge of the elementary particles." "no longer the behaviour of the elementary particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior"
These quotes are certainly correct and even though Wigner and Heisenberg were outstanding physicists (incidentally I did have the privilege of discussing some of these issues with both these men) these are merely opinions. They are opinions that have always troubled me. I find it difficult to reconcile them with the historic origins of quantum mechanics. Remember it all started from our inability to explain the distribution blackbody radiation and the stability of matter in terms of classical physics. Without the stability of matter there would be no life forms in which consciousness could be exhibited (not even Hoyl's Black Cloud). To use consciousness to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics seems circular, unless of course you assume some kind of universal consciousness lying at the centre of being as is proposed by certain forms of Hinduism.
Most physicists would expect to account for the stability of matter is a way that is independent of consciousness and certainly of human consciousness. But we have a problem. Through the wave function we have an account of the development of potentialities. This is an idea not only proposed by Heisenberg but also by Bohm in his book "Quantum Theory". The difficulty is with 'actuality'. Von Neumann tried to resolve the difficulty by 'Postulate 1', essentially the 'collapse of the wave function'. Picking out the 'actual' from all the 'potentials' was where Heisenberg's idea of 'our knowledge' comes from.
The Bohm approach recognises these problems and suggests that we can overcome the difficulty by abandoning the notion that the properties of particles, their positions and momenta must always correspond to eigenvalues of operators. It assumes a position eignevalue but assumes p = grad S. In this way an 'actual' x and p exists for the particle.
They are the 'beables'. Eigenvalues are the 'observables'. It is the 'observables' that are subject to the uncertainty principle not the beables.
What the Schr?dinger equation does is to allow you to calculate an ensemble of potential trajectories, these potentialities being encoded in the quantum potential. This is just another way of trying to handle the 'potentiality'/'actuality' question.
To me the questions of whether the Bohm approach is 'deterministic', whether it is 'causal', whether it is 'mechanical' of not are secondary issues. We can debate these but not here.
A crucial question for me is 'What is the difference between classical potentialities and quantum potentialities?' Classical potentialities arise from our lack of knowledge of the initial conditions. We make the assumption that these initial conditions can be realised, at least to some good degree of approximation. This is just what is not possible in quantum mechanics. Arguments similar to those used to justify the uncertainty principle when measuring complementary variables can be used to show it is impossible to produce a particle with a given (i.e. chosen before hand) simultaneous x and p. That is, preparation is subject to the same uncertainty principle as is measurement. With these provisos we can find a consistent interpretation of all quantum effects as has been shown in our book "The Undivided Universe" or Peter Holland's excellent book "The Quantum theory of Motion".
There are two features that have been cited as weaknesses to the Bohm approach.
1.. It is not relativistic. This has to be debated carefully.
(a) The Dirac equation can yield trajectories as shown in some beautiful work done by Doran, Lasenby and Gull in Found. Phys. 23, 1993, 1329-1356.
(b) This work has been extended to the two-particle Dirac where the EPR paradox can be demonstrated. I came across this work in a talk in Austin, Texas in the spring.
(c) Bohm and I published a discussion of this point in Found. Phys. 21, (1991) 1-9. We show how the two theories can be reconciled.
(d) Bohm, myself, Kaloyerou and Holland have all published papers on extending these ideas to field theory. Even in the limited attempts that I have been involved in with a Bohm approach to QED, we can handle photon creation and annihilation. Hence Henry Stapp's comment:-
Some physicists
(eg. Bohm, and Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber---and Philip Pearle) have tried
to eliminate consciousness but all have failed to accommodate relativistic
QM with particle production.
is just not correct. You can do it. [[ LAY I.e., you can accommodate relativistic QM with particle production. -- ??] The mathematics gets very messy but you can do it. The Dirac field has proved difficult but some of the results of the work by Lasenby and some of my more recent work shows that this is now possible but much is left to be done.
All of this, of course, is about providing an ontology based interpretation without invoking consciousness and without invoking references to 'our knowledge'. However it still leaves open the intriguing question of the relationship between mind and matter. There are those who feel quantum theory has nothing to offer in discussions on this subject. Here I whole heartedly agree with Henry Stapp. You will not come to understand this relationship without the lessons coming from quantum theory. Where we have differences, they involve a discussion of what are the precise lessons we should carry over. I will have more to say on this later but now I must get ready for this afternoon's seminar.
Basil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry P. Stapp
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:51 PM
Subject: [jcs-online] Re: Stapp/Atmanspacher and To what is conscious presented?
Polanik: "enduring insight: the distinction between a property and that
which has or exhibits that property."
HPS: Conscious experiences belong to stream's of conscious
experiences, and these streams are part of nature's proceess.
This process has aspects that are described in psychological language,
in terms of thoughts, ideas, or feelings which have various qualities
that have been given names by persons. Each person constitutes an aspect
of nature's process that possesses a stream of consciousness. One can
properly say, therefore, that a stream of conscious thoughts has
psychologically described properties. What "has" a psychologically
described property is primarily a conscious experience; secondarily
the stream of conscious experiences to which the experience belongs; and
tertially the person (an aspect of nature's process) the "has" this stream
of consciousness.
Polanik: "The next question is: If there is experience occuring; then
to what is that experience occuring?"
HPS: "To what?" I guess the correct question is "In what?", and the answer
is "In a stream of consciousness!"
Polanik: "...it follows that there is something real to which experiences
occur."
HPS: This may be harking back to "I assume that the presentee
is whatever entity in the brain experiences consciousness." (See
Hameroff, Oct 29) The idea the something in the brain "experiences
conscious" goes far beyond what science says. Nor does science tell us
that some immaterial entity "experiences consciousness". Experiences occur
in streams of conscious, which are aspects of nature's psycho-physical
process, and "to" a "person" by appearing in that person's stream of
consciousness. Each human person is an aspect of nature's process with
both physically described and psychologically described aspects. The
physically described aspects specify *potentialities* (objective
tndencies, in Heisenberg's words) for certain psychophysical events to
occur. Von Neumann has spelled out the currently known rules for the known
(to science) connection between the physically and psychologically
described aspects of nature's process.
Mondor: "But in 1952 David Bohm published an interpretation of QM that...
was completely deterministic."
HPS: But, in spite of massive intense effort, this result has not
been able to be carried over to the domain of special relativity,
where particle creation becomes important. [cf. Pearle, quant-ph/0205069]
And when, trying to generalize his ideas, Bohm was led to an infinite
tower of guiding fields each being guided by a higher one.
[Bohm 1990: A new theory of the relationship between mind and matter,
Philosophical Psychology 3, 371-286] Logical closure was lost.
Edwards: "When I say von Neumann believed in fairies I do not do so
lightly. Fairies are supernatural beings the existence of which we can
neither observe nor infer,... Abstract Egos seem to be that."
HPS: The account I have given above about the place of consciousness
in nature and in physics is essentially my understanding of von
Neumann. I find no fairies there. The term "abstract ego" highlights
the fact that reality contains psychologically described aspects that
are tighly tied to the physically described aspects of brains, but are
not fixed by specifying the prior physically described (quantum) state
of the universe. The quantum state of the universe fixes only the
potentialities for (collapse/reduction) events that---and this is the
key to the pragmatic success of quantum theory---are closely connected
to increments in human knowledge. The events have psychologically
described aspects, which are what we observe/experience, or, more
precisely, *are* the empirical data They are not superhatural or
unobservable, but are rather a core part of the quantum mechanical
description, and the only part of nature unequivocally known to be real.
But nature's overall process needs a (sub)process that partitions
the continuum of potentialities into some set experiencable parts.
At least that is how conventional (Copenhagen/vN) QM works in real
scientific practice. In that theory there is a psychologically described
aspect that is an intgral part of the whole dynamical structure, and that
continues to be essential (in connection with process 1) when the brain is
made part of the aspect of nature that is described on quantum physical
terms.
----- Original Message -----
From: 5BHenry P. Stapp
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Mondor, Polanik, Lofting, Edwards, Nunn & the Stapp/Atmsanspacher dialogue
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Ray Mondor wrote:
> Dr. Stapp, thank you for your response.
>
> I see now that your use of the term "free choice" has little or nothing
to do with the traditional meaning(s) of "free will" in philosophical
literature.
>
> I am pleased to know that your theory does not require the
> existence of free will.
Yes, I certainly do not subscibe to the notion that our conscious
choices have no causes or reasons whatever. But a commitment to the idea
that each conscious choice has some reason to be what it turns out to be
certainly does not mean that this reason can be specified completely in
term of the localized physical variables of classical physics, or their
direct quantum counterparts.
> May I also assume it does not require
> consciousness, since it may be that the "free choice" comes from
> unconscious mental activity preceding conscious awareness of it?
>
I repeatedly use the words "orthodox", "Copenhagen", or "Conventional"
to emphasize the fact that I am describing the quantum theory that is
used in actual scientific practice, and validated empirically.
As Wigner ("Remarks on the Mind-body Question"; cf. Wheeler and Zurek
p. 169) said: "it was not possible to formulate the laws of Quantum
Mechanics without reference to the consciousness." Also Heisenberg:
"The laws of nature that we formulate mathematically in quantum theory
deal no longer with the particles themselves but with our knowledge
of the elementary particles." "no longer the behaviour of the elementary
particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior"
Some physicists
(eg. Bohm, and Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber---and Philip Pearle) have tried
to eliminate consciousness but all have failed to accommodate relativistic
QM with particle production. Others have tried the many-worlds approach,
approach, which many have noted ought really be called the
"one-world, many-minds" theory because it tries to tie theory to data
(which is experiential/empirical) by somehow trying to understand why
the experienced world is so tremendously different from the world
governed by the currently known laws that make no reference to
consciousness, by assuming (without specifiyiong how) the one quantum
state is experienced in myriads of different ways that hang together
in mysiads of separate streams of consciousness that manifest
the statistical regularities specified by the quantum laws.
To even begin to face the problems one must bring in the concept
of consciousness. Then there is the question of whether the laws that
generate these fantastic regularities in our streams of consciousness
can be formulated or expressed without refering to consciousness.
So I would say that you cannot say the my theory (or orthodox, or
Copenhagen, or conventional quantum theory, or any other quantum
theory} does not require consciousness. The huge disparity
between the stucture of human experience and the stuctures generated by
the purely physically described quantum laws makes the discussion of the
relationship betweem conscious experiences and physically described laws
the primary issue in the use and understanding of quantum theory.
Henry P. Stapp
> Thank you for your clarification,
> Ray Mondor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Henry P. Stapp
> To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Mondor, Polanik, Lofting, Edwards, Nunn & the Stapp/Atmsanspacher dialogue
>
>
>
> First, regarding my use of the word "free" in "free choice", I have repeatedly
> emphasized that this word refers here specifically to the fact the causes
> of these choices are not specified by conventional (Copenhagen or von
> Neumann) quantum mechanics. The word is not meant to suggest that these
> choices have no causes at all.
>
> I believe that nothing happens without a sufficient reason of some sort, and my
> basic endeavor, in fact, is to try to achieve some understanding the
> nature of these causes or reasons.
>
> Polanik hits the mark when he emphasizes that the physically described
> brain (governed by vN process 2) is not self-collapsing, and hence that
> something outside the quantum mechanically described physical brain is
> involved in the selection of some particular thought from the mixture of
> potentialities generated by the physical/mathematical locally
> mechanistically described process 2.
>
> Von Neumann's discussion of the three parts I, II, and III
> (mentioned by Polanik) seems to me to be stressing "psycho-physical
> parallelism": the fact that certain systems can have aspects that are
> described in the mathematical language of QM, and also aspects described
> in the language of communication among the observing and acting agents.
> The whole is not adequately described in either one of these two
> languages alone. Nor need the causal relationshps be fully describable in
> one of these language alone. So when Lofting (Oct 20) says the we must
> "step out of the QM box and into the GENERAL box of how our neurology
> processes data" he seems to be assuming that the causal structure is
> describable in physical terms alone. I see the main message of quantum
> theory as an alert to the rational possibility that all causes and reasons
> need not be purely mechanical. Thoughts and intentions are themselves actual
> realities, and as such they ought to be able have real actual
> consequences. Quantum theory opens the door to this possibility by
> converting the deterministic mechanical structure of classical physical
> theory into a mathematically described structure of potentialities for
> observable events to occur. And the quantum rules that specify the content
> or structure of these events are treated in actual scientific practice
> as entering from outside those aspects of nature that are described in
> purely physical terms; i.e., from outside the aspects that are the quantum
> counterparts of the physical properties of classical physical theory.
>
> Feynman, mentioned by Edwards, asserted that he did not understand
> quantum mechanics, and doubted that anyone else did. The problem
> is basically the mismatch between the known basic purely physically
> described laws and our conscious experiences. QM tells us that when
> we try to descend to the microscopic roots of the "physical substrate" the
> physically described properties dissolve into potentialities for the
> occurence of experiencable events. The suggestion that Bohr, Heisenberg,
> Pauli, Wigner, and von Neumann were introducing "fairies" into
> basic physical theory, by introducing our experiences importantly
> into basic scientific theory, is unhelpful: the entry of causally
> efficaious consciousness coherently into physics ought not be
> treated lightly.
>
> Nunn (Oct 20) correctly observers that the theory entails a person's
> capacity to choose to sustain a desired macroscopic brain activity without
> that person's knowing the physically described details of what his choice is
> actually doing.
>
> Trial and error learning allows the person to correlate his mental
> effort to experienced feedback without his knowing how the conscious
> effort produces that conscious feedback. The mechanism that I am proposing
> merely requires that when a conscious (probing) action produces an
> experience that contains an experienced high positive valuation, the
> required choice is merely to repeat very quickly the *same
> action* as before, whatever it was. This allows the agent to choose to
> sustain positively valued actions without knowing the actual physical
> structure of the collapse events their efforts are causing. This theory
> accommodates nicely and naturally the experience of, for example,
> learning to use a prosthetic limb, by activating through effortful trail
> and error learning a conscious-effort/conscious-feedback loop never used
> either by the individual or any of his ancestors. Nunn asserts that "It's
> not obvious that this provides any better grounding for a naturalistic
> concept of free will than classical mechanistic accounts of brain
> function." But the quantum account gives a completely rational account
> of the "manifest" causal connection between mind and brain, by
> explaining it as a real understandable causal connection; whereas the
> classical mechanistic account says that every physical connection can be
> explained without mentioning consciousness. But how in this completely
> novel situation does consciousness enter in a way that gives the
> illusion that it is playing a crucial causal role in the physical process
> when it is really doing nothing at all. Is not a naturalistic
> actually-causal account of the apparently-causal connection between mind
> and brain, and an account that is rooted squarely in contemporary physical
> theory, "obviously" better than a theory rooted in a falsified theory that
> leaves mind out of the physical proceedings, but then brings it in ad
> hoc, deceptively pretending to do what it seems to do. Quantum theory
> *needs* something to fill a specific causal gap, and provides the means
> for mind to fill it. whereas (false) classical theory has no need for mind
> and provides no means for it to do anything, and no physical foundation
> into which it naturally fits.
>
>
> Henry P. Stapp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061111/c2b7d731/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sat Nov 11 17:48:17 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Nov 12 18:52:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Hiley remarks re Bohm,
Stapp and Consciousness ( or Personal Self )
In-Reply-To: <001501c705a4$8edcd100$7204153f@DL01>
References: <001501c705a4$8edcd100$7204153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <AC0F4840-483A-4654-9301-46D2845330B6@dc.rr.com>
Good stuff here, Don. Thanks
don
On Nov 11, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>
> Here are some very interesting Basil Hiley comments regarding :
>
> 1) (Bohm's) "ontology based interpretation without invoking
> consciousness and without invoking references to 'our knowledge" --
> the personal self
>
> 2) "the circularity of using consciousness to formulate QM laws."
> -- quotes from below. Highlights added.
>
> 3) potentiality and actuality
>
> Seems to me what Hiley says of consciousness is applicable to
> personal identity. Perhaps Hiley's idea of circularity here is the
> feedback loop Bohm talks about. Consider also Bohm's remark in On
> Dialogue regarding explaining something without referencing the self.
>
> Also below, after Hiley's comments is a piece from Henry Stapp. I
> really like his language personal self and consciousness,
> especially the notion of the stream of consciousness in which the
> self as object appears in awareness. (to use Mait Edey's language
> "awareness and appearance" instead of subject and object.)
>
> Don L
>
>
> From: "Ray Mondor" <raymondor@rcn.com>
> To: <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Mondor, Polanik, Lofting, Edwards, Nunn &
> the Stapp/Atmsanspacher dialogue
>
> Through a fortunate and fortuitous connection I am able to forward
> Dr. Basil Hiley's reply to some of Dr. Stapp's remarks.
>
> If anyone does not recognize Dr. Hiley's name:
> "Bohm continued his work in quantum physics past his retirement in
> 1987. His final work, the posthumously published The Undivided
> Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory (1993),
> resulted from a decades-long collaboration with his colleague Basil
> Hiley."
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm)
>
> Ray Mondor
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
> Sent: 07 November 2006 14:00
> Subject: Reply to Henry Stapp's Comments on QM and consciousness
>
> I find it very difficult to enter into a discussion that has been
> going on between two other parties. One misses the main thrust of
> the argument and often raise different points that may not be
> central to the discussion. However I will comment on the paragraph:-
>
> As Wigner ("Remarks on the Mind-body Question"; cf. Wheeler and
> Zurek p. 169) said: "it was not possible to formulate the laws of
> Quantum Mechanics without reference to the consciousness." Also
> Heisenberg: "The laws of nature that we formulate mathematically in
> quantum theory deal no longer with the particles themselves but
> with our knowledge of the elementary particles." "no longer the
> behaviour of the elementary particles but rather our knowledge of
> this behavior"
>
> These quotes are certainly correct and even though Wigner and
> Heisenberg were outstanding physicists (incidentally I did have the
> privilege of discussing some of these issues with both these men)
> these are merely opinions. They are opinions that have always
> troubled me. I find it difficult to reconcile them with the
> historic origins of quantum mechanics. Remember it all started
> from our inability to explain the distribution blackbody radiation
> and the stability of matter in terms of classical physics. Without
> the stability of matter there would be no life forms in which
> consciousness could be exhibited (not even Hoyl's Black Cloud). To
> use consciousness to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics seems
> circular, unless of course you assume some kind of universal
> consciousness lying at the centre of being as is proposed by
> certain forms of Hinduism.
>
> Most physicists would expect to account for the stability of matter
> is a way that is independent of consciousness and certainly of
> human consciousness. But we have a problem. Through the wave
> function we have an account of the development of potentialities.
> This is an idea not only proposed by Heisenberg but also by Bohm in
> his book "Quantum Theory". The difficulty is with 'actuality'.
> Von Neumann tried to resolve the difficulty by 'Postulate 1',
> essentially the 'collapse of the wave function'. Picking out the
> 'actual' from all the 'potentials' was where Heisenberg's idea of
> 'our knowledge' comes from.
>
> The Bohm approach recognises these problems and suggests that we
> can overcome the difficulty by abandoning the notion that the
> properties of particles, their positions and momenta must always
> correspond to eigenvalues of operators. It assumes a position
> eignevalue but assumes p = grad S. In this way an 'actual' x and p
> exists for the particle.
> They are the 'beables'. Eigenvalues are the 'observables'. It is
> the 'observables' that are subject to the uncertainty principle not
> the beables.
>
> What the Schr?dinger equation does is to allow you to calculate an
> ensemble of potential trajectories, these potentialities being
> encoded in the quantum potential. This is just another way of
> trying to handle the 'potentiality'/'actuality' question.
>
> To me the questions of whether the Bohm approach is
> 'deterministic', whether it is 'causal', whether it is 'mechanical'
> of not are secondary issues. We can debate these but not here.
>
> A crucial question for me is 'What is the difference between
> classical potentialities and quantum potentialities?' Classical
> potentialities arise from our lack of knowledge of the initial
> conditions. We make the assumption that these initial conditions
> can be realised, at least to some good degree of approximation.
> This is just what is not possible in quantum mechanics. Arguments
> similar to those used to justify the uncertainty principle when
> measuring complementary variables can be used to show it is
> impossible to produce a particle with a given (i.e. chosen before
> hand) simultaneous x and p. That is, preparation is subject to the
> same uncertainty principle as is measurement. With these provisos
> we can find a consistent interpretation of all quantum effects as
> has been shown in our book "The Undivided Universe" or Peter
> Holland's excellent book "The Quantum theory of Motion".
>
> There are two features that have been cited as weaknesses to the
> Bohm approach.
>
> 1.. It is not relativistic. This has to be debated carefully.
> (a) The Dirac equation can yield trajectories as
> shown in some beautiful work done by Doran, Lasenby and Gull in
> Found. Phys. 23, 1993, 1329-1356.
> (b) This work has been extended to the two-
> particle Dirac where the EPR paradox can be demonstrated. I came
> across this work in a talk in Austin, Texas in the spring.
> (c) Bohm and I published a discussion of this
> point in Found. Phys. 21, (1991) 1-9. We show how the two theories
> can be reconciled.
> (d) Bohm, myself, Kaloyerou and Holland have all
> published papers on extending these ideas to field theory. Even in
> the limited attempts that I have been involved in with a Bohm
> approach to QED, we can handle photon creation and annihilation.
> Hence Henry Stapp's comment:-
>
> Some physicists
>
> (eg. Bohm, and Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber---and Philip Pearle)
> have tried
> to eliminate consciousness but all have failed to accommodate
> relativistic
>
> QM with particle production.
>
> is just not correct. You can do it. [[ LAY I.e., you can
> accommodate relativistic QM with particle production. -- ??] The
> mathematics gets very messy but you can do it. The Dirac field has
> proved difficult but some of the results of the work by Lasenby and
> some of my more recent work shows that this is now possible but
> much is left to be done.
>
> All of this, of course, is about providing an ontology based
> interpretation without invoking consciousness and without invoking
> references to 'our knowledge'. However it still leaves open the
> intriguing question of the relationship between mind and matter.
> There are those who feel quantum theory has nothing to offer in
> discussions on this subject. Here I whole heartedly agree with
> Henry Stapp. You will not come to understand this relationship
> without the lessons coming from quantum theory. Where we have
> differences, they involve a discussion of what are the precise
> lessons we should carry over. I will have more to say on this
> later but now I must get ready for this afternoon's seminar.
>
> Basil.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Henry P. Stapp
> To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:51 PM
> Subject: [jcs-online] Re: Stapp/Atmanspacher and To what is
> conscious presented?
>
>
> Polanik: "enduring insight: the distinction between a property
> and that
> which has or exhibits that property."
>
> HPS: Conscious experiences belong to stream's of conscious
> experiences, and these streams are part of nature's proceess.
> This process has aspects that are described in psychological
> language,
> in terms of thoughts, ideas, or feelings which have various
> qualities
> that have been given names by persons. Each person constitutes an
> aspect
> of nature's process that possesses a stream of consciousness. One
> can
> properly say, therefore, that a stream of conscious thoughts has
> psychologically described properties. What "has" a psychologically
> described property is primarily a conscious experience; secondarily
> the stream of conscious experiences to which the experience
> belongs; and
> tertially the person (an aspect of nature's process) the "has"
> this stream
> of consciousness.
>
> Polanik: "The next question is: If there is experience occuring;
> then
> to what is that experience occuring?"
>
> HPS: "To what?" I guess the correct question is "In what?", and
> the answer
> is "In a stream of consciousness!"
>
> Polanik: "...it follows that there is something real to which
> experiences
> occur."
>
> HPS: This may be harking back to "I assume that the presentee
> is whatever entity in the brain experiences consciousness." (See
> Hameroff, Oct 29) The idea the something in the brain "experiences
> conscious" goes far beyond what science says. Nor does science
> tell us
> that some immaterial entity "experiences consciousness".
> Experiences occur
> in streams of conscious, which are aspects of nature's psycho-
> physical
> process, and "to" a "person" by appearing in that person's stream of
> consciousness. Each human person is an aspect of nature's process
> with
> both physically described and psychologically described aspects. The
> physically described aspects specify *potentialities* (objective
> tndencies, in Heisenberg's words) for certain psychophysical
> events to
> occur. Von Neumann has spelled out the currently known rules for
> the known
> (to science) connection between the physically and psychologically
> described aspects of nature's process.
>
> Mondor: "But in 1952 David Bohm published an interpretation of QM
> that...
> was completely deterministic."
>
> HPS: But, in spite of massive intense effort, this result has not
> been able to be carried over to the domain of special relativity,
> where particle creation becomes important. [cf. Pearle, quant-ph/
> 0205069]
> And when, trying to generalize his ideas, Bohm was led to an
> infinite
> tower of guiding fields each being guided by a higher one.
> [Bohm 1990: A new theory of the relationship between mind and
> matter,
> Philosophical Psychology 3, 371-286] Logical closure was lost.
>
> Edwards: "When I say von Neumann believed in fairies I do not do so
> lightly. Fairies are supernatural beings the existence of which
> we can
> neither observe nor infer,... Abstract Egos seem to be that."
>
> HPS: The account I have given above about the place of consciousness
> in nature and in physics is essentially my understanding of von
> Neumann. I find no fairies there. The term "abstract ego" highlights
> the fact that reality contains psychologically described aspects
> that
> are tighly tied to the physically described aspects of brains,
> but are
> not fixed by specifying the prior physically described (quantum)
> state
> of the universe. The quantum state of the universe fixes only the
> potentialities for (collapse/reduction) events that---and this is
> the
> key to the pragmatic success of quantum theory---are closely
> connected
> to increments in human knowledge. The events have psychologically
> described aspects, which are what we observe/experience, or, more
> precisely, *are* the empirical data They are not superhatural or
> unobservable, but are rather a core part of the quantum mechanical
> description, and the only part of nature unequivocally known to
> be real.
> But nature's overall process needs a (sub)process that partitions
> the continuum of potentialities into some set experiencable parts.
> At least that is how conventional (Copenhagen/vN) QM works in real
> scientific practice. In that theory there is a psychologically
> described
> aspect that is an intgral part of the whole dynamical structure,
> and that
> continues to be essential (in connection with process 1) when the
> brain is
> made part of the aspect of nature that is described on quantum
> physical
> terms.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: 5BHenry P. Stapp
> To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Mondor, Polanik, Lofting, Edwards, Nunn
> & the Stapp/Atmsanspacher dialogue
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Ray Mondor wrote:
>
> > Dr. Stapp, thank you for your response.
> >
> > I see now that your use of the term "free choice" has little or
> nothing
> to do with the traditional meaning(s) of "free will" in
> philosophical
> literature.
> >
> > I am pleased to know that your theory does not require the
> > existence of free will.
>
> Yes, I certainly do not subscibe to the notion that our conscious
> choices have no causes or reasons whatever. But a commitment to
> the idea
> that each conscious choice has some reason to be what it turns
> out to be
> certainly does not mean that this reason can be specified
> completely in
> term of the localized physical variables of classical physics, or
> their
> direct quantum counterparts.
>
> > May I also assume it does not require
> > consciousness, since it may be that the "free choice" comes from
> > unconscious mental activity preceding conscious awareness of it?
> >
>
> I repeatedly use the words "orthodox", "Copenhagen", or
> "Conventional"
> to emphasize the fact that I am describing the quantum theory
> that is
> used in actual scientific practice, and validated empirically.
>
> As Wigner ("Remarks on the Mind-body Question"; cf. Wheeler and
> Zurek
> p. 169) said: "it was not possible to formulate the laws of Quantum
> Mechanics without reference to the consciousness." Also Heisenberg:
> "The laws of nature that we formulate mathematically in quantum
> theory
> deal no longer with the particles themselves but with our knowledge
> of the elementary particles." "no longer the behaviour of the
> elementary
> particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior"
>
> Some physicists
> (eg. Bohm, and Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber---and Philip Pearle)
> have tried
> to eliminate consciousness but all have failed to accommodate
> relativistic
> QM with particle production. Others have tried the many-worlds
> approach,
> approach, which many have noted ought really be called the
> "one-world, many-minds" theory because it tries to tie theory to
> data
> (which is experiential/empirical) by somehow trying to understand
> why
> the experienced world is so tremendously different from the world
> governed by the currently known laws that make no reference to
> consciousness, by assuming (without specifiyiong how) the one
> quantum
> state is experienced in myriads of different ways that hang together
> in mysiads of separate streams of consciousness that manifest
> the statistical regularities specified by the quantum laws.
> To even begin to face the problems one must bring in the concept
> of consciousness. Then there is the question of whether the laws
> that
> generate these fantastic regularities in our streams of
> consciousness
> can be formulated or expressed without refering to consciousness.
>
>
> So I would say that you cannot say the my theory (or orthodox, or
> Copenhagen, or conventional quantum theory, or any other quantum
> theory} does not require consciousness. The huge disparity
> between the stucture of human experience and the stuctures
> generated by
> the purely physically described quantum laws makes the discussion
> of the
> relationship betweem conscious experiences and physically
> described laws
> the primary issue in the use and understanding of quantum theory.
>
> Henry P. Stapp
>
> > Thank you for your clarification,
> > Ray Mondor
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Henry P. Stapp
> > To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Mondor, Polanik, Lofting, Edwards,
> Nunn & the Stapp/Atmsanspacher dialogue
> >
> >
> >
> > First, regarding my use of the word "free" in "free choice", I
> have repeatedly
> > emphasized that this word refers here specifically to the fact
> the causes
> > of these choices are not specified by conventional (Copenhagen
> or von
> > Neumann) quantum mechanics. The word is not meant to suggest
> that these
> > choices have no causes at all.
> >
> > I believe that nothing happens without a sufficient reason of
> some sort, and my
> > basic endeavor, in fact, is to try to achieve some
> understanding the
> > nature of these causes or reasons.
> >
> > Polanik hits the mark when he emphasizes that the physically
> described
> > brain (governed by vN process 2) is not self-collapsing, and
> hence that
> > something outside the quantum mechanically described physical
> brain is
> > involved in the selection of some particular thought from the
> mixture of
> > potentialities generated by the physical/mathematical locally
> > mechanistically described process 2.
> >
> > Von Neumann's discussion of the three parts I, II, and III
> > (mentioned by Polanik) seems to me to be stressing "psycho-
> physical
> > parallelism": the fact that certain systems can have aspects
> that are
> > described in the mathematical language of QM, and also aspects
> described
> > in the language of communication among the observing and
> acting agents.
> > The whole is not adequately described in either one of these two
> > languages alone. Nor need the causal relationshps be fully
> describable in
> > one of these language alone. So when Lofting (Oct 20) says the
> we must
> > "step out of the QM box and into the GENERAL box of how our
> neurology
> > processes data" he seems to be assuming that the causal
> structure is
> > describable in physical terms alone. I see the main message of
> quantum
> > theory as an alert to the rational possibility that all causes
> and reasons
> > need not be purely mechanical. Thoughts and intentions are
> themselves actual
> > realities, and as such they ought to be able have real actual
> > consequences. Quantum theory opens the door to this
> possibility by
> > converting the deterministic mechanical structure of classical
> physical
> > theory into a mathematically described structure of
> potentialities for
> > observable events to occur. And the quantum rules that specify
> the content
> > or structure of these events are treated in actual scientific
> practice
> > as entering from outside those aspects of nature that are
> described in
> > purely physical terms; i.e., from outside the aspects that are
> the quantum
> > counterparts of the physical properties of classical physical
> theory.
> >
> > Feynman, mentioned by Edwards, asserted that he did not
> understand
> > quantum mechanics, and doubted that anyone else did. The problem
> > is basically the mismatch between the known basic purely
> physically
> > described laws and our conscious experiences. QM tells us
> that when
> > we try to descend to the microscopic roots of the "physical
> substrate" the
> > physically described properties dissolve into potentialities
> for the
> > occurence of experiencable events. The suggestion that Bohr,
> Heisenberg,
> > Pauli, Wigner, and von Neumann were introducing "fairies" into
> > basic physical theory, by introducing our experiences importantly
> > into basic scientific theory, is unhelpful: the entry of causally
> > efficaious consciousness coherently into physics ought not be
> > treated lightly.
> >
> > Nunn (Oct 20) correctly observers that the theory entails a
> person's
> > capacity to choose to sustain a desired macroscopic brain
> activity without
> > that person's knowing the physically described details of what
> his choice is
> > actually doing.
> >
> > Trial and error learning allows the person to correlate his
> mental
> > effort to experienced feedback without his knowing how the
> conscious
> > effort produces that conscious feedback. The mechanism that I
> am proposing
> > merely requires that when a conscious (probing) action
> produces an
> > experience that contains an experienced high positive
> valuation, the
> > required choice is merely to repeat very quickly the *same
> > action* as before, whatever it was. This allows the agent to
> choose to
> > sustain positively valued actions without knowing the actual
> physical
> > structure of the collapse events their efforts are causing.
> This theory
> > accommodates nicely and naturally the experience of, for example,
> > learning to use a prosthetic limb, by activating through
> effortful trail
> > and error learning a conscious-effort/conscious-feedback loop
> never used
> > either by the individual or any of his ancestors. Nunn asserts
> that "It's
> > not obvious that this provides any better grounding for a
> naturalistic
> > concept of free will than classical mechanistic accounts of brain
> > function." But the quantum account gives a completely rational
> account
> > of the "manifest" causal connection between mind and brain, by
> > explaining it as a real understandable causal connection;
> whereas the
> > classical mechanistic account says that every physical
> connection can be
> > explained without mentioning consciousness. But how in this
> completely
> > novel situation does consciousness enter in a way that gives the
> > illusion that it is playing a crucial causal role in the
> physical process
> > when it is really doing nothing at all. Is not a naturalistic
> > actually-causal account of the apparently-causal connection
> between mind
> > and brain, and an account that is rooted squarely in
> contemporary physical
> > theory, "obviously" better than a theory rooted in a falsified
> theory that
> > leaves mind out of the physical proceedings, but then brings
> it in ad
> > hoc, deceptively pretending to do what it seems to do. Quantum
> theory
> > *needs* something to fill a specific causal gap, and provides
> the means
> > for mind to fill it. whereas (false) classical theory has no
> need for mind
> > and provides no means for it to do anything, and no physical
> foundation
> > into which it naturally fits.
> >
> >
> > Henry P. Stapp
> >
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061111/1f5c4312/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sat Nov 11 18:29:13 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Nov 12 19:33:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
In-Reply-To: <20061111082558.13491.qmail@web86508.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <20061111082558.13491.qmail@web86508.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6983A279-9761-4C1C-9133-D9FB9A9BA123@dc.rr.com>
Welcome back into the fray. Haven't heard from you in a while.
Confirming what you've said here, we are certainly not alone having
to deal with these button pushers. I spoke to my daughter yesterday
about our problems here. She was a kind of organiser back in the days
of The Palace, one of the first web communities and currently she
earns her living administering and hosting some other forums and
websites. She said that they have had endless difficulties wit trolls
and never succeeded in finding a way to eliminate them. This, she
said, was a common condition on just about any chat group or forum.
Her warning to me was to look carefully at anyone with a yahoo or
hotmail connection. These, being free are the most used by trolls.
Commercial spammers these days are much more sophisticated and can
bypass just about any spam filter. Some have taken over my UK domain
which allows unlimited users and have been using it to spam me and
others. My provider says there is nothing that they can do about it
and that I should just change my account. But so far I've been able
to live with it.
Anyway, it seems that this phenomenon is wide-spread. And therefore,
it is certainly worth inquiring into. What does it mean? What do such
people hope to achieve? In what way are we implicated?
In the meantime, I hope to post a series of proposals taking our
experience, the comments and suggestions that have been posted on the
subject here, and then we can see where we go Of course, all this
depends on Susan's not beating me to the punch:-O
don
On Nov 11, 2006, at 12:25 AM, STEPHEN DEVLIN wrote:
> The only thing I've had trouble with on this list is the "button-
> pushers", they drag the whole thing down. I've been here long
> enough to see a few of them come and go. The people who think
> everyone should be given umpteen chances and understanding remain
> strangely silent when these people are churning out garbage and
> basically just resorting to ad hominen personality attacks because
> someone isnt sharing their doom n gloom outlook on existence. I've
> seen this list go totally silent where only a couple of people
> responded for weeks, and then those same people were bleating that
> such n such was kicked out too soon and had a lot to say. People
> who come here are given more chances to say what they have to say
> than on any other internet forum/list I've ever encountered, and
> that's the problem. They know they would be booted anywhere else
> very quickly, but this place is an easy touch. Ive seen similar
> people get their PCs hacked and messed right up for just trying to
> disturb what are normally easy going people, communicating about
> whatever gets them out of bed.
>
> Its all too easy to just pick fault and send a million one line,
> pseudo enigmatic garbaged english mails, we could all do it.
>
>
>
> donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> Somehow, after all this time we have survived. So someone must have
> been doing something
> right.
> aavo was, by the way I post grad student of Bohm's and co-authored
> some papers with him. He was
> also a product of BrockwoodvPark the Krishnamurti school in England.
> He is now a professor of
> philosophy at a Swedish University and is an active part of the
> consciousness research community
> who speaks at conferences and still helps to promote the Bohm
> approach to this field. He also has
> a new book out published by Springer
> don
>
> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:52:13 +0200
> From: heuvel@muc.de (William van den Heuvel)
> Subject: Re: au revoir
> Precedence: list
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
>
> Forwarded message from Paavo Pylkkanen:
>
> My trouble is that there is so much coming all the time & I just
> don't have
> time to read it now. I do feel that something changed when the list
> system
> was changed; this may be totally irrational on my part, though. I, in
> fact, don't know what happened & how (if at all) there was a change
> (e.g.
> were some dialogue lists combined?). It seemed to me that the group
> changed & I couldn't recognize the people any more; it started
> feeling just
> like any of the e-mail lists you subscribe to, lot of stuff comes
> in all
> the time & there's no time to read it; in other words, it becomes a
> nuisance. It also seemed to me that with the change some people
> unsubscribed just because of the change, but I don't know?
>
> So I don't know/remember who's in the group, how/why they joined, is
> anyone
> (except the few who write) actually reading the list...
>
> I also have a practical problem: when I am in Finland my Swedish e-
> mail
> account gets filled with dialogue (it then feels like garbage) &
> makes it
> harder to read my other mail; & as I haven't read a lot of the
> dialogue
> mail recently I thought I might need to quit, for a while at least.
>
> Perhaps some discussion of how to make this kind of dialogue work,
> or an
> evaluation of it is necessary? Perhaps some "rules" are needed, but
> what
> could they be? Perhaps a rule of committment: if one subscribes, one
> should try to read all the mail. I don't know...
>
> Paavo
>
> Also, Paavo still appears to be on the list as a subscriber. But I
> have no idea
> whether he reads any of this or not.
>
> don
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061111/3e5b61d6/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sat Nov 11 18:58:17 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Nov 12 20:02:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Hiley remarks re Bohm,
Stapp and Consciousness ( or Personal Self )
In-Reply-To: <001501c705a4$8edcd100$7204153f@DL01>
References: <001501c705a4$8edcd100$7204153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAC8ECE0-C447-430B-A2B5-EA0E6F6160D9@dc.rr.com>
Okay, so in awareness there appears to be a movement between the term
"consciousness" and the term "personal self". What emerges at this
point in awareness is that Bohm appears to have done his best to
avoid using the term consciousness and replaced it - as often as
possible while still making sense - with words like meaning and
significance. But again awareness appears to show that this can make
it difficult for other points of awareness to know what the hell
we're talking about
Awareness
On Nov 11, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>
> Here are some very interesting Basil Hiley comments regarding :
>
> 1) (Bohm's) "ontology based interpretation without invoking
> consciousness and without invoking references to 'our knowledge" --
> the personal self
>
> 2) "the circularity of using consciousness to formulate QM laws."
> -- quotes from below. Highlights added.
>
> 3) potentiality and actuality
>
> Seems to me what Hiley says of consciousness is applicable to
> personal identity. Perhaps Hiley's idea of circularity here is the
> feedback loop Bohm talks about. Consider also Bohm's remark in On
> Dialogue regarding explaining something without referencing the self.
>
> Also below, after Hiley's comments is a piece from Henry Stapp. I
> really like his language personal self and consciousness,
> especially the notion of the stream of consciousness in which the
> self as object appears in awareness. (to use Mait Edey's language
> "awareness and appearance" instead of subject and object.)
>
> Don L
>
>
> From: "Ray Mondor" <raymondor@rcn.com>
> To: <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Mondor, Polanik, Lofting, Edwards, Nunn &
> the Stapp/Atmsanspacher dialogue
>
> Through a fortunate and fortuitous connection I am able to forward
> Dr. Basil Hiley's reply to some of Dr. Stapp's remarks.
>
> If anyone does not recognize Dr. Hiley's name:
> "Bohm continued his work in quantum physics past his retirement in
> 1987. His final work, the posthumously published The Undivided
> Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory (1993),
> resulted from a decades-long collaboration with his colleague Basil
> Hiley."
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm)
>
> Ray Mondor
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
> Sent: 07 November 2006 14:00
> Subject: Reply to Henry Stapp's Comments on QM and consciousness
>
> I find it very difficult to enter into a discussion that has been
> going on between two other parties. One misses the main thrust of
> the argument and often raise different points that may not be
> central to the discussion. However I will comment on the paragraph:-
>
> As Wigner ("Remarks on the Mind-body Question"; cf. Wheeler and
> Zurek p. 169) said: "it was not possible to formulate the laws of
> Quantum Mechanics without reference to the consciousness." Also
> Heisenberg: "The laws of nature that we formulate mathematically in
> quantum theory deal no longer with the particles themselves but
> with our knowledge of the elementary particles." "no longer the
> behaviour of the elementary particles but rather our knowledge of
> this behavior"
>
> These quotes are certainly correct and even though Wigner and
> Heisenberg were outstanding physicists (incidentally I did have the
> privilege of discussing some of these issues with both these men)
> these are merely opinions. They are opinions that have always
> troubled me. I find it difficult to reconcile them with the
> historic origins of quantum mechanics. Remember it all started
> from our inability to explain the distribution blackbody radiation
> and the stability of matter in terms of classical physics. Without
> the stability of matter there would be no life forms in which
> consciousness could be exhibited (not even Hoyl's Black Cloud). To
> use consciousness to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics seems
> circular, unless of course you assume some kind of universal
> consciousness lying at the centre of being as is proposed by
> certain forms of Hinduism.
>
> Most physicists would expect to account for the stability of matter
> is a way that is independent of consciousness and certainly of
> human consciousness. But we have a problem. Through the wave
> function we have an account of the development of potentialities.
> This is an idea not only proposed by Heisenberg but also by Bohm in
> his book "Quantum Theory". The difficulty is with 'actuality'.
> Von Neumann tried to resolve the difficulty by 'Postulate 1',
> essentially the 'collapse of the wave function'. Picking out the
> 'actual' from all the 'potentials' was where Heisenberg's idea of
> 'our knowledge' comes from.
>
> The Bohm approach recognises these problems and suggests that we
> can overcome the difficulty by abandoning the notion that the
> properties of particles, their positions and momenta must always
> correspond to eigenvalues of operators. It assumes a position
> eignevalue but assumes p = grad S. In this way an 'actual' x and p
> exists for the particle.
> They are the 'beables'. Eigenvalues are the 'observables'. It is
> the 'observables' that are subject to the uncertainty principle not
> the beables.
>
> What the Schr?dinger equation does is to allow you to calculate an
> ensemble of potential trajectories, these potentialities being
> encoded in the quantum potential. This is just another way of
> trying to handle the 'potentiality'/'actuality' question.
>
> To me the questions of whether the Bohm approach is
> 'deterministic', whether it is 'causal', whether it is 'mechanical'
> of not are secondary issues. We can debate these but not here.
>
> A crucial question for me is 'What is the difference between
> classical potentialities and quantum potentialities?' Classical
> potentialities arise from our lack of knowledge of the initial
> conditions. We make the assumption that these initial conditions
> can be realised, at least to some good degree of approximation.
> This is just what is not possible in quantum mechanics. Arguments
> similar to those used to justify the uncertainty principle when
> measuring complementary variables can be used to show it is
> impossible to produce a particle with a given (i.e. chosen before
> hand) simultaneous x and p. That is, preparation is subject to the
> same uncertainty principle as is measurement. With these provisos
> we can find a consistent interpretation of all quantum effects as
> has been shown in our book "The Undivided Universe" or Peter
> Holland's excellent book "The Quantum theory of Motion".
>
> There are two features that have been cited as weaknesses to the
> Bohm approach.
>
> 1.. It is not relativistic. This has to be debated carefully.
> (a) The Dirac equation can yield trajectories as
> shown in some beautiful work done by Doran, Lasenby and Gull in
> Found. Phys. 23, 1993, 1329-1356.
> (b) This work has been extended to the two-
> particle Dirac where the EPR paradox can be demonstrated. I came
> across this work in a talk in Austin, Texas in the spring.
> (c) Bohm and I published a discussion of this
> point in Found. Phys. 21, (1991) 1-9. We show how the two theories
> can be reconciled.
> (d) Bohm, myself, Kaloyerou and Holland have all
> published papers on extending these ideas to field theory. Even in
> the limited attempts that I have been involved in with a Bohm
> approach to QED, we can handle photon creation and annihilation.
> Hence Henry Stapp's comment:-
>
> Some physicists
>
> (eg. Bohm, and Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber---and Philip Pearle)
> have tried
> to eliminate consciousness but all have failed to accommodate
> relativistic
>
> QM with particle production.
>
> is just not correct. You can do it. [[ LAY I.e., you can
> accommodate relativistic QM with particle production. -- ??] The
> mathematics gets very messy but you can do it. The Dirac field has
> proved difficult but some of the results of the work by Lasenby and
> some of my more recent work shows that this is now possible but
> much is left to be done.
>
> All of this, of course, is about providing an ontology based
> interpretation without invoking consciousness and without invoking
> references to 'our knowledge'. However it still leaves open the
> intriguing question of the relationship between mind and matter.
> There are those who feel quantum theory has nothing to offer in
> discussions on this subject. Here I whole heartedly agree with
> Henry Stapp. You will not come to understand this relationship
> without the lessons coming from quantum theory. Where we have
> differences, they involve a discussion of what are the precise
> lessons we should carry over. I will have more to say on this
> later but now I must get ready for this afternoon's seminar.
>
> Basil.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Henry P. Stapp
> To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:51 PM
> Subject: [jcs-online] Re: Stapp/Atmanspacher and To what is
> conscious presented?
>
>
> Polanik: "enduring insight: the distinction between a property
> and that
> which has or exhibits that property."
>
> HPS: Conscious experiences belong to stream's of conscious
> experiences, and these streams are part of nature's proceess.
> This process has aspects that are described in psychological
> language,
> in terms of thoughts, ideas, or feelings which have various
> qualities
> that have been given names by persons. Each person constitutes an
> aspect
> of nature's process that possesses a stream of consciousness. One
> can
> properly say, therefore, that a stream of conscious thoughts has
> psychologically described properties. What "has" a psychologically
> described property is primarily a conscious experience; secondarily
> the stream of conscious experiences to which the experience
> belongs; and
> tertially the person (an aspect of nature's process) the "has"
> this stream
> of consciousness.
>
> Polanik: "The next question is: If there is experience occuring;
> then
> to what is that experience occuring?"
>
> HPS: "To what?" I guess the correct question is "In what?", and
> the answer
> is "In a stream of consciousness!"
>
> Polanik: "...it follows that there is something real to which
> experiences
> occur."
>
> HPS: This may be harking back to "I assume that the presentee
> is whatever entity in the brain experiences consciousness." (See
> Hameroff, Oct 29) The idea the something in the brain "experiences
> conscious" goes far beyond what science says. Nor does science
> tell us
> that some immaterial entity "experiences consciousness".
> Experiences occur
> in streams of conscious, which are aspects of nature's psycho-
> physical
> process, and "to" a "person" by appearing in that person's stream of
> consciousness. Each human person is an aspect of nature's process
> with
> both physically described and psychologically described aspects. The
> physically described aspects specify *potentialities* (objective
> tndencies, in Heisenberg's words) for certain psychophysical
> events to
> occur. Von Neumann has spelled out the currently known rules for
> the known
> (to science) connection between the physically and psychologically
> described aspects of nature's process.
>
> Mondor: "But in 1952 David Bohm published an interpretation of QM
> that...
> was completely deterministic."
>
> HPS: But, in spite of massive intense effort, this result has not
> been able to be carried over to the domain of special relativity,
> where particle creation becomes important. [cf. Pearle, quant-ph/
> 0205069]
> And when, trying to generalize his ideas, Bohm was led to an
> infinite
> tower of guiding fields each being guided by a higher one.
> [Bohm 1990: A new theory of the relationship between mind and
> matter,
> Philosophical Psychology 3, 371-286] Logical closure was lost.
>
> Edwards: "When I say von Neumann believed in fairies I do not do so
> lightly. Fairies are supernatural beings the existence of which
> we can
> neither observe nor infer,... Abstract Egos seem to be that."
>
> HPS: The account I have given above about the place of consciousness
> in nature and in physics is essentially my understanding of von
> Neumann. I find no fairies there. The term "abstract ego" highlights
> the fact that reality contains psychologically described aspects
> that
> are tighly tied to the physically described aspects of brains,
> but are
> not fixed by specifying the prior physically described (quantum)
> state
> of the universe. The quantum state of the universe fixes only the
> potentialities for (collapse/reduction) events that---and this is
> the
> key to the pragmatic success of quantum theory---are closely
> connected
> to increments in human knowledge. The events have psychologically
> described aspects, which are what we observe/experience, or, more
> precisely, *are* the empirical data They are not superhatural or
> unobservable, but are rather a core part of the quantum mechanical
> description, and the only part of nature unequivocally known to
> be real.
> But nature's overall process needs a (sub)process that partitions
> the continuum of potentialities into some set experiencable parts.
> At least that is how conventional (Copenhagen/vN) QM works in real
> scientific practice. In that theory there is a psychologically
> described
> aspect that is an intgral part of the whole dynamical structure,
> and that
> continues to be essential (in connection with process 1) when the
> brain is
> made part of the aspect of nature that is described on quantum
> physical
> terms.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: 5BHenry P. Stapp
> To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Mondor, Polanik, Lofting, Edwards, Nunn
> & the Stapp/Atmsanspacher dialogue
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Ray Mondor wrote:
>
> > Dr. Stapp, thank you for your response.
> >
> > I see now that your use of the term "free choice" has little or
> nothing
> to do with the traditional meaning(s) of "free will" in
> philosophical
> literature.
> >
> > I am pleased to know that your theory does not require the
> > existence of free will.
>
> Yes, I certainly do not subscibe to the notion that our conscious
> choices have no causes or reasons whatever. But a commitment to
> the idea
> that each conscious choice has some reason to be what it turns
> out to be
> certainly does not mean that this reason can be specified
> completely in
> term of the localized physical variables of classical physics, or
> their
> direct quantum counterparts.
>
> > May I also assume it does not require
> > consciousness, since it may be that the "free choice" comes from
> > unconscious mental activity preceding conscious awareness of it?
> >
>
> I repeatedly use the words "orthodox", "Copenhagen", or
> "Conventional"
> to emphasize the fact that I am describing the quantum theory
> that is
> used in actual scientific practice, and validated empirically.
>
> As Wigner ("Remarks on the Mind-body Question"; cf. Wheeler and
> Zurek
> p. 169) said: "it was not possible to formulate the laws of Quantum
> Mechanics without reference to the consciousness." Also Heisenberg:
> "The laws of nature that we formulate mathematically in quantum
> theory
> deal no longer with the particles themselves but with our knowledge
> of the elementary particles." "no longer the behaviour of the
> elementary
> particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior"
>
> Some physicists
> (eg. Bohm, and Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber---and Philip Pearle)
> have tried
> to eliminate consciousness but all have failed to accommodate
> relativistic
> QM with particle production. Others have tried the many-worlds
> approach,
> approach, which many have noted ought really be called the
> "one-world, many-minds" theory because it tries to tie theory to
> data
> (which is experiential/empirical) by somehow trying to understand
> why
> the experienced world is so tremendously different from the world
> governed by the currently known laws that make no reference to
> consciousness, by assuming (without specifiyiong how) the one
> quantum
> state is experienced in myriads of different ways that hang together
> in mysiads of separate streams of consciousness that manifest
> the statistical regularities specified by the quantum laws.
> To even begin to face the problems one must bring in the concept
> of consciousness. Then there is the question of whether the laws
> that
> generate these fantastic regularities in our streams of
> consciousness
> can be formulated or expressed without refering to consciousness.
>
>
> So I would say that you cannot say the my theory (or orthodox, or
> Copenhagen, or conventional quantum theory, or any other quantum
> theory} does not require consciousness. The huge disparity
> between the stucture of human experience and the stuctures
> generated by
> the purely physically described quantum laws makes the discussion
> of the
> relationship betweem conscious experiences and physically
> described laws
> the primary issue in the use and understanding of quantum theory.
>
> Henry P. Stapp
>
> > Thank you for your clarification,
> > Ray Mondor
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Henry P. Stapp
> > To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Mondor, Polanik, Lofting, Edwards,
> Nunn & the Stapp/Atmsanspacher dialogue
> >
> >
> >
> > First, regarding my use of the word "free" in "free choice", I
> have repeatedly
> > emphasized that this word refers here specifically to the fact
> the causes
> > of these choices are not specified by conventional (Copenhagen
> or von
> > Neumann) quantum mechanics. The word is not meant to suggest
> that these
> > choices have no causes at all.
> >
> > I believe that nothing happens without a sufficient reason of
> some sort, and my
> > basic endeavor, in fact, is to try to achieve some
> understanding the
> > nature of these causes or reasons.
> >
> > Polanik hits the mark when he emphasizes that the physically
> described
> > brain (governed by vN process 2) is not self-collapsing, and
> hence that
> > something outside the quantum mechanically described physical
> brain is
> > involved in the selection of some particular thought from the
> mixture of
> > potentialities generated by the physical/mathematical locally
> > mechanistically described process 2.
> >
> > Von Neumann's discussion of the three parts I, II, and III
> > (mentioned by Polanik) seems to me to be stressing "psycho-
> physical
> > parallelism": the fact that certain systems can have aspects
> that are
> > described in the mathematical language of QM, and also aspects
> described
> > in the language of communication among the observing and
> acting agents.
> > The whole is not adequately described in either one of these two
> > languages alone. Nor need the causal relationshps be fully
> describable in
> > one of these language alone. So when Lofting (Oct 20) says the
> we must
> > "step out of the QM box and into the GENERAL box of how our
> neurology
> > processes data" he seems to be assuming that the causal
> structure is
> > describable in physical terms alone. I see the main message of
> quantum
> > theory as an alert to the rational possibility that all causes
> and reasons
> > need not be purely mechanical. Thoughts and intentions are
> themselves actual
> > realities, and as such they ought to be able have real actual
> > consequences. Quantum theory opens the door to this
> possibility by
> > converting the deterministic mechanical structure of classical
> physical
> > theory into a mathematically described structure of
> potentialities for
> > observable events to occur. And the quantum rules that specify
> the content
> > or structure of these events are treated in actual scientific
> practice
> > as entering from outside those aspects of nature that are
> described in
> > purely physical terms; i.e., from outside the aspects that are
> the quantum
> > counterparts of the physical properties of classical physical
> theory.
> >
> > Feynman, mentioned by Edwards, asserted that he did not
> understand
> > quantum mechanics, and doubted that anyone else did. The problem
> > is basically the mismatch between the known basic purely
> physically
> > described laws and our conscious experiences. QM tells us
> that when
> > we try to descend to the microscopic roots of the "physical
> substrate" the
> > physically described properties dissolve into potentialities
> for the
> > occurence of experiencable events. The suggestion that Bohr,
> Heisenberg,
> > Pauli, Wigner, and von Neumann were introducing "fairies" into
> > basic physical theory, by introducing our experiences importantly
> > into basic scientific theory, is unhelpful: the entry of causally
> > efficaious consciousness coherently into physics ought not be
> > treated lightly.
> >
> > Nunn (Oct 20) correctly observers that the theory entails a
> person's
> > capacity to choose to sustain a desired macroscopic brain
> activity without
> > that person's knowing the physically described details of what
> his choice is
> > actually doing.
> >
> > Trial and error learning allows the person to correlate his
> mental
> > effort to experienced feedback without his knowing how the
> conscious
> > effort produces that conscious feedback. The mechanism that I
> am proposing
> > merely requires that when a conscious (probing) action
> produces an
> > experience that contains an experienced high positive
> valuation, the
> > required choice is merely to repeat very quickly the *same
> > action* as before, whatever it was. This allows the agent to
> choose to
> > sustain positively valued actions without knowing the actual
> physical
> > structure of the collapse events their efforts are causing.
> This theory
> > accommodates nicely and naturally the experience of, for example,
> > learning to use a prosthetic limb, by activating through
> effortful trail
> > and error learning a conscious-effort/conscious-feedback loop
> never used
> > either by the individual or any of his ancestors. Nunn asserts
> that "It's
> > not obvious that this provides any better grounding for a
> naturalistic
> > concept of free will than classical mechanistic accounts of brain
> > function." But the quantum account gives a completely rational
> account
> > of the "manifest" causal connection between mind and brain, by
> > explaining it as a real understandable causal connection;
> whereas the
> > classical mechanistic account says that every physical
> connection can be
> > explained without mentioning consciousness. But how in this
> completely
> > novel situation does consciousness enter in a way that gives the
> > illusion that it is playing a crucial causal role in the
> physical process
> > when it is really doing nothing at all. Is not a naturalistic
> > actually-causal account of the apparently-causal connection
> between mind
> > and brain, and an account that is rooted squarely in
> contemporary physical
> > theory, "obviously" better than a theory rooted in a falsified
> theory that
> > leaves mind out of the physical proceedings, but then brings
> it in ad
> > hoc, deceptively pretending to do what it seems to do. Quantum
> theory
> > *needs* something to fill a specific causal gap, and provides
> the means
> > for mind to fill it. whereas (false) classical theory has no
> need for mind
> > and provides no means for it to do anything, and no physical
> foundation
> > into which it naturally fits.
> >
> >
> > Henry P. Stapp
> >
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061111/65d93ab8/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Sat Nov 11 19:38:19 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Sun Nov 12 20:39:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] For David Bohm
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0658@msw2k.msw.local>
I'm lost on these two messages. Anyone help me understand? D
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Franis Engel
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 3:56 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] For David Bohm
Welcome David,
Who is so often quoted and what is that actual quote about when you
translate one technology to another field, it is indistinguished from
magic? - Franis
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:25:23 +0000 "David da Costa"
<davidmillions@gmail.com> writes:
> God is perfect. All and Nothing infer. In Paradox there is no
> conflict. It is Magic.
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From joachimfaust at earthlink.net Sat Nov 11 20:18:00 2006
From: joachimfaust at earthlink.net (Joachim Faust)
Date: Sun Nov 12 21:22:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061112110003.791E524805@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
References: <20061112110003.791E524805@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <CC0F60EB-0BC2-4E93-8AC6-C8AD6167CAC7@earthlink.net>
I would like to bring up the topic of musical improvisation again
(now that
Mark has finished his dissertation-congratulations from me, too!).
This seems
particularly appropriate since the idea of "music is everywhere" also
was
mentioned recently here (also: nada brahma- the world is sound).
When the topic of improvisation came up a few weeks ago, I think one
of the
ideas was to use it as a metaphor for dialogue. Something along the
lines
of: in dialogue, we are all improvising; we need to listen to others;
we need to develop
a good intuition about which "sequence of notes to play" at what
time; we need
to be aware of the "whole" as much as possible, etc.
The question of moderation fits in here very neatly, because of the
other meanings,
the connotations (the overtones! ) of the word. Do I, perhaps, first
and foremost need to "moderate"
myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
all were more moderate,
as far as both quality and quantity of our talk are concerned?
The connection with musical improvisation would be: is this similar
to what musicians do when
they improvise?Do they also have to be "moderate"/"moderated" in this
sense?
Is there a specific mind/body-state that you should/could be in
when you want
to improvise successfully? Would it be helpful for dialogue to
describe this mind/body-state
(for others to "model" or emulate, sort of like it is done in
neurolinguistic programming)?
For example, Don and Dorothy, I am sorry about using the words "aged
white males" in my previous post, which
you both picked up on. I don't know whether the fact that I am myself
a future "aged white
male" gives me the right to use these words (just like a blonde can
get away with telling dumb-blonde jokes), or not, I
don't know. Perhaps not, and again, I apologize if anyone was
needlessly hurt by my choice of words.
However, that said, I do think that your questions, Dorothy, could/
should be seriously considered:
"How do you think two somewhat young white females or two somewhat young
African Americans might have acted differently?" (Dorothy).
They just might have acted differently, and, in my view, it is pretty
certain that these "cultural affiliations" have an impact on the way
people act.
One relevant question would be: Would the reality of this list would
be different, if a woman was the moderator?
And, Don and Pat, thanks for your (respective) reply and explanation
concerning the "spirit of dialogue", but
I still don't get the difference between actual "dialogue" and
talking "in the spirit of dialogue"
Joachim
Joachim Faust
joachimfaust@earthlink.net
From franis_franis at juno.com Sat Nov 11 20:48:32 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Sun Nov 12 21:57:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] For David Bohm
Message-ID: <20061111.114833.1496.8.franis_franis@juno.com>
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
Arthur C. Clarke - scifi writer b. 1917
He also said: “The limits of the possible can only be defined by going
beyond them into the impossible.”
David da Costa will just have to expound on what he meant. - Franis
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:38:19 -0500 "Dorothy Stulberg"
<DStulberg@msw-law.com> writes:
> I'm lost on these two messages. Anyone help me understand? D
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Franis
> Engel
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 3:56 PM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] For David Bohm
>
> Welcome David,
> Who is so often quoted and what is that actual quote about when you
> translate one technology to another field, it is indistinguished
> from
> magic? - Franis
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:25:23 +0000 "David da Costa"
> <davidmillions@gmail.com> writes:
> > God is perfect. All and Nothing infer. In Paradox there is no
> > conflict. It is Magic.
>
>
From franis_franis at juno.com Sat Nov 11 20:58:10 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Sun Nov 12 22:07:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
Message-ID: <20061111.115811.1496.9.franis_franis@juno.com>
>Do they also have to be "moderate"/"moderated" in this
sense?
Yes, being moderated is akin to agreeing to play something together, for
instance, that song which has been written down. Many "real" musicians
can play anything, so the music or an agreement a song gives everyone a
frame work of what to play with.
Or if they are just improvising, the moderation is what key everyone is
in, and every sound that is in common to all, such as rhythm, choice of
instrumentation, etc.
Often, if a musician doesn't play well enough, or what they play is
deemed "dissonant" and judged not an enhancing contribution to the rest
of the players, they are booted out of that group of musicians by whoever
will "dis-invite" them.
> I still don't get the difference between actual "dialogue" and
> talking "in the spirit of dialogue"
>
Neither do I. I think it's just a fancy way of justifying establishing
Dialogue "customs."
Franis
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:18:00 -0600 Joachim Faust
<joachimfaust@earthlink.net> writes:
> I would like to bring up the topic of musical improvisation again
> (now that
> Mark has finished his dissertation-congratulations from me, too!).
> This seems
> particularly appropriate since the idea of "music is everywhere"
> also
> was
> mentioned recently here (also: nada brahma- the world is sound).
>
> When the topic of improvisation came up a few weeks ago, I think one
>
> of the
> ideas was to use it as a metaphor for dialogue. Something along the
>
> lines
> of: in dialogue, we are all improvising; we need to listen to
> others;
> we need to develop
> a good intuition about which "sequence of notes to play" at what
> time; we need
> to be aware of the "whole" as much as possible, etc.
>
> The question of moderation fits in here very neatly, because of the
>
> other meanings,
> the connotations (the overtones! ) of the word. Do I, perhaps, first
>
> and foremost need to "moderate"
> myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
>
> all were more moderate,
> as far as both quality and quantity of our talk are concerned?
>
> The connection with musical improvisation would be: is this similar
>
> to what musicians do when
> they improvise?Do they also have to be "moderate"/"moderated" in
> this
> sense?
> Is there a specific mind/body-state that you should/could be in
> when you want
> to improvise successfully? Would it be helpful for dialogue to
> describe this mind/body-state
> (for others to "model" or emulate, sort of like it is done in
> neurolinguistic programming)?
>
> For example, Don and Dorothy, I am sorry about using the words
> "aged
> white males" in my previous post, which
> you both picked up on. I don't know whether the fact that I am
> myself
> a future "aged white
> male" gives me the right to use these words (just like a blonde can
>
> get away with telling dumb-blonde jokes), or not, I
> don't know. Perhaps not, and again, I apologize if anyone was
> needlessly hurt by my choice of words.
>
> However, that said, I do think that your questions, Dorothy, could/
> should be seriously considered:
> "How do you think two somewhat young white females or two somewhat
> young
> African Americans might have acted differently?" (Dorothy).
>
> They just might have acted differently, and, in my view, it is
> pretty
> certain that these "cultural affiliations" have an impact on the way
>
> people act.
> One relevant question would be: Would the reality of this list would
>
> be different, if a woman was the moderator?
>
> And, Don and Pat, thanks for your (respective) reply and explanation
>
> concerning the "spirit of dialogue", but
> I still don't get the difference between actual "dialogue" and
> talking "in the spirit of dialogue"
>
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joachim Faust
> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Sat Nov 11 21:09:40 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Sun Nov 12 22:11:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D065B@msw2k.msw.local>
Sort of related is the following that has to do with individuals and
groups and in a way the Dis-invite.
"when assertion no longer seems dangerous, the concept of relationships
changes from a bond of continuing dependence to a dynamic of
interdependence. Then the notion of care expands from the paralyzing
injunction not to hurt others to an injunction to act responsively
toward self and others , and to sustain connection. A consciousness of
the dynamics of human relationships then becomes central to moral
understanding, joining the heart and the eye in an ethic that ties the
activity of thought to the activity of care.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Franis Engel
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:58 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
>Do they also have to be "moderate"/"moderated" in this
sense?
Yes, being moderated is akin to agreeing to play something together, for
instance, that song which has been written down. Many "real" musicians
can play anything, so the music or an agreement a song gives everyone a
frame work of what to play with.
Or if they are just improvising, the moderation is what key everyone is
in, and every sound that is in common to all, such as rhythm, choice of
instrumentation, etc.
Often, if a musician doesn't play well enough, or what they play is
deemed "dissonant" and judged not an enhancing contribution to the rest
of the players, they are booted out of that group of musicians by
whoever will "dis-invite" them.
> I still don't get the difference between actual "dialogue" and talking
> "in the spirit of dialogue"
>
Neither do I. I think it's just a fancy way of justifying establishing
Dialogue "customs."
Franis
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:18:00 -0600 Joachim Faust
<joachimfaust@earthlink.net> writes:
> I would like to bring up the topic of musical improvisation again (now
> that Mark has finished his dissertation-congratulations from me,
> too!).
> This seems
> particularly appropriate since the idea of "music is everywhere"
> also
> was
> mentioned recently here (also: nada brahma- the world is sound).
>
> When the topic of improvisation came up a few weeks ago, I think one
>
> of the
> ideas was to use it as a metaphor for dialogue. Something along the
>
> lines
> of: in dialogue, we are all improvising; we need to listen to others;
> we need to develop a good intuition about which "sequence of notes to
> play" at what time; we need to be aware of the "whole" as much as
> possible, etc.
>
> The question of moderation fits in here very neatly, because of the
>
> other meanings,
> the connotations (the overtones! ) of the word. Do I, perhaps, first
>
> and foremost need to "moderate"
> myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
>
> all were more moderate,
> as far as both quality and quantity of our talk are concerned?
>
> The connection with musical improvisation would be: is this similar
>
> to what musicians do when
> they improvise?Do they also have to be "moderate"/"moderated" in this
> sense?
> Is there a specific mind/body-state that you should/could be in when
> you want to improvise successfully? Would it be helpful for dialogue
> to describe this mind/body-state (for others to "model" or emulate,
> sort of like it is done in neurolinguistic programming)?
>
> For example, Don and Dorothy, I am sorry about using the words "aged
> white males" in my previous post, which you both picked up on. I don't
> know whether the fact that I am myself a future "aged white male"
> gives me the right to use these words (just like a blonde can
>
> get away with telling dumb-blonde jokes), or not, I don't know.
> Perhaps not, and again, I apologize if anyone was needlessly hurt by
> my choice of words.
>
> However, that said, I do think that your questions, Dorothy, could/
> should be seriously considered:
> "How do you think two somewhat young white females or two somewhat
> young African Americans might have acted differently?" (Dorothy).
>
> They just might have acted differently, and, in my view, it is pretty
> certain that these "cultural affiliations" have an impact on the way
>
> people act.
> One relevant question would be: Would the reality of this list would
>
> be different, if a woman was the moderator?
>
> And, Don and Pat, thanks for your (respective) reply and explanation
>
> concerning the "spirit of dialogue", but I still don't get the
> difference between actual "dialogue" and talking "in the spirit of
> dialogue"
>
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joachim Faust
> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 11 21:15:35 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sun Nov 12 22:19:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
In-Reply-To: <CC0F60EB-0BC2-4E93-8AC6-C8AD6167CAC7@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F10B378EA1DE9FDB07369F0A5F60@phx.gbl>
When the topic of improvisation came up a few weeks ago, I think one of the
ideas was to use it as a metaphor for dialogue. Something along the lines
of: in dialogue, we are all improvising; we need to listen to others; we
need to develop a good intuition about which "sequence of notes to play" at
what time; we need to be aware of the "whole" as much as possible, etc.
Absolutely, Joachim. First, "Life is an improvisation." quote from NYC
Jazzmobile School. Then my explanation of how Dalcroze Eurhythmics proposed
to change the world through music and improvisation. Plus Mark's work.
Musicians develop a lot more than intuition. We must learn a language.
(See Leonard Bernstein, "The Unanswered Question".) The language and
materials of music have imbedded in their structure and content, all the
mechanical learning information that informs the inspiration of the moment
of group improvisatory creation. Our training includes "ear training" - how
to listen for all these things. That training carries into a prime
requisite for the improviser in an ensemble - to know when to be a leader,
and when to be a follower. We know there will be no music, if we don't work
together. If there are personality conflicts, the players either learn how
to separate their personal issues from the creative ensemble process,
disagree in private sessions or rehearsal without being disagreeable, or
find a group they are compatible with. Or - maybe it's the violinist's turn
to state a brand new motif or theme, and elaborate it, while the others
provide the rhythmic, harmonic and/or contrapuntal support. Then the other
players take turns making their own variations on it. We have various
strategies for this that include changing the rhythm, putting it in a new
key, playing it backwards, upside down, fragmenting and developing a portion
of the original, adding a new section to the original idea - and even if one
of the variations is loud and dissonant, the others support it. Often, we
get ideas for our own solos from what another player is doing. As a matter
of fact, if the entire composition stays on the same emotional level, it's
not successful. Too much repetition produces trance or boredom, depending
on certain things I'm not going to go into here.
Each musician must moderate him/herself in the process. If you're in
rehearsal, it's ok to stop and say "The drums are too loud. I can't hear
the cello." In performance, you can send out musical messages or body
language. Otherwise, it will have to be taken up afterwards.
Many groups have leaders, but a collaborative process is quite possible.
>From the smallest structure - the phrase/period - to the large symphonies, a
common pool of knowledge and goals informs the work. And - each size
structure has a shape, usually guided by achieving a climax somewhere along
the way, and bringing it down. Yes, it is like the metaphor I can hear you
thinking!
As a matter of fact, I'm going to go work on it now.
I really enjoy your posts, and look forward to creating beautiful ensemble
music here. k
>From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:18:00 -0600
>
>I would like to bring up the topic of musical improvisation again (now
>that
>Mark has finished his dissertation-congratulations from me, too!). This
>seems
>particularly appropriate since the idea of "music is everywhere" also was
>mentioned recently here (also: nada brahma- the world is sound).
>
>When the topic of improvisation came up a few weeks ago, I think one of
>the
>ideas was to use it as a metaphor for dialogue. Something along the lines
>of: in dialogue, we are all improvising; we need to listen to others; we
>need to develop
>a good intuition about which "sequence of notes to play" at what time; we
>need
>to be aware of the "whole" as much as possible, etc.
>
>The question of moderation fits in here very neatly, because of the other
>meanings,
>the connotations (the overtones! ) of the word. Do I, perhaps, first and
>foremost need to "moderate"
>myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we all
>were more moderate,
>as far as both quality and quantity of our talk are concerned?
>
>The connection with musical improvisation would be: is this similar to
>what musicians do when
>they improvise?Do they also have to be "moderate"/"moderated" in this
>sense?
> Is there a specific mind/body-state that you should/could be in when you
>want
>to improvise successfully? Would it be helpful for dialogue to describe
>this mind/body-state
>(for others to "model" or emulate, sort of like it is done in
>neurolinguistic programming)?
>
>For example, Don and Dorothy, I am sorry about using the words "aged
>white males" in my previous post, which
>you both picked up on. I don't know whether the fact that I am myself a
>future "aged white
>male" gives me the right to use these words (just like a blonde can get
>away with telling dumb-blonde jokes), or not, I
>don't know. Perhaps not, and again, I apologize if anyone was needlessly
>hurt by my choice of words.
>
>However, that said, I do think that your questions, Dorothy, could/ should
>be seriously considered:
>"How do you think two somewhat young white females or two somewhat young
>African Americans might have acted differently?" (Dorothy).
>
>They just might have acted differently, and, in my view, it is pretty
>certain that these "cultural affiliations" have an impact on the way
>people act.
>One relevant question would be: Would the reality of this list would be
>different, if a woman was the moderator?
>
>And, Don and Pat, thanks for your (respective) reply and explanation
>concerning the "spirit of dialogue", but
>I still don't get the difference between actual "dialogue" and talking "in
>the spirit of dialogue"
>
>
>Joachim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Joachim Faust
>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Sat Nov 11 20:32:26 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sun Nov 12 22:36:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
In-Reply-To: <CC0F60EB-0BC2-4E93-8AC6-C8AD6167CAC7@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <C17B816A.7E95%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Hi Joachim,
I really like your thoughts around improvisation and moderation. I was
recently reading about "entrainment" (in Nada Brahma), the phenomenon of
individuals or processes coming into alignment with others through
proximity, (a definition from the book: "the tendency of everything that
vibrates to swing together.") This certainly seems to me what happens in
improv, and I think could apply to any meaningful communication such as
dialogue.
This would mean that anyone taking part in a dialogue must have the ability
to empathize, align, be sensitive to others. I would suspect that people
who engage in "trolling" would be lacking in that ability. This was my
impression of the posts I read from Kirsten. And if this ability is
inherent in nature, it could be that people who lack it may be suffering
from a form of mental illness (pure speculation, I'm not qualified in that
field.)
Anyway, improvisation and dialogue both provide potential to further develop
the skills of intuition, sensitivity, empathy. I'm not sure it's possible
to describe the mind/body-state. Bohm's concept of suspension may come
close. I think mostly it's learned through experience.
Lynne
On 11/11/06 1:18 PM, "Joachim Faust" <joachimfaust@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I would like to bring up the topic of musical improvisation again
> (now that
> Mark has finished his dissertation-congratulations from me, too!).
> This seems
> particularly appropriate since the idea of "music is everywhere" also
> was
> mentioned recently here (also: nada brahma- the world is sound).
>
> When the topic of improvisation came up a few weeks ago, I think one
> of the
> ideas was to use it as a metaphor for dialogue. Something along the
> lines
> of: in dialogue, we are all improvising; we need to listen to others;
> we need to develop
> a good intuition about which "sequence of notes to play" at what
> time; we need
> to be aware of the "whole" as much as possible, etc.
>
> The question of moderation fits in here very neatly, because of the
> other meanings,
> the connotations (the overtones! ) of the word. Do I, perhaps, first
> and foremost need to "moderate"
> myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
> all were more moderate,
> as far as both quality and quantity of our talk are concerned?
>
> The connection with musical improvisation would be: is this similar
> to what musicians do when
> they improvise?Do they also have to be "moderate"/"moderated" in this
> sense?
> Is there a specific mind/body-state that you should/could be in
> when you want
> to improvise successfully? Would it be helpful for dialogue to
> describe this mind/body-state
> (for others to "model" or emulate, sort of like it is done in
> neurolinguistic programming)?
>
> For example, Don and Dorothy, I am sorry about using the words "aged
> white males" in my previous post, which
> you both picked up on. I don't know whether the fact that I am myself
> a future "aged white
> male" gives me the right to use these words (just like a blonde can
> get away with telling dumb-blonde jokes), or not, I
> don't know. Perhaps not, and again, I apologize if anyone was
> needlessly hurt by my choice of words.
>
> However, that said, I do think that your questions, Dorothy, could/
> should be seriously considered:
> "How do you think two somewhat young white females or two somewhat young
> African Americans might have acted differently?" (Dorothy).
>
> They just might have acted differently, and, in my view, it is pretty
> certain that these "cultural affiliations" have an impact on the way
> people act.
> One relevant question would be: Would the reality of this list would
> be different, if a woman was the moderator?
>
> And, Don and Pat, thanks for your (respective) reply and explanation
> concerning the "spirit of dialogue", but
> I still don't get the difference between actual "dialogue" and
> talking "in the spirit of dialogue"
>
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joachim Faust
> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sat Nov 11 21:37:28 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Nov 12 22:41:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
In-Reply-To: <CC0F60EB-0BC2-4E93-8AC6-C8AD6167CAC7@earthlink.net>
References: <20061112110003.791E524805@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
<CC0F60EB-0BC2-4E93-8AC6-C8AD6167CAC7@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <6B044DA4-AC8D-44F1-B3B1-A85BD2E323AD@dc.rr.com>
Let me try commenting on a few of your points. I will clip the bits
that I am not commenting on only for the sake of clarity,
not because I don't consider them important.
On Nov 11, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Joachim Faust wrote:
>
> When the topic of improvisation came up a few weeks ago, I think
> one of the
> ideas was to use it as a metaphor for dialogue. Something along the
> lines
> of: in dialogue, we are all improvising; we need to listen to
> others; we need to develop
> a good intuition about which "sequence of notes to play" at what
> time; we need
> to be aware of the "whole" as much as possible, etc.
>
> The question of moderation fits in here very neatly, because of the
> other meanings,
> the connotations (the overtones! ) of the word.
We have used the word moderator because the list-serve software does
not allow
facilitator which I would have preferred. Actually, in a live
dialogue I have always been
opposed to having facilitators at all. Bohm felt it was necessary
only at the beginning
of a new group and the position would dissolve away once everyone got
the idea. This
worked very well in a live group because as everyone caught on,
individual members of
the group were able to facilitate - that is, to call attention, to
certain, perhaps unnoticed
processes - as we went along.
Here, on this list, with the large degree of anonymity that ensues,
this approach has not seemed to
work as you may have gleaned from the discussion of the PK episodes.
So people felt that some
sort of moderation was necessary. Thinking of the music metaphor, the
area that seems meaningful
to me is jazz. Although the idea in a jazz group the idea of free
improvision has been taken for granted,
that isn't really the case. The improvisation is limited by the chord
progressions of the tune being played
and also by the type of jazz that the leader desires to play. Someone
playing with, say, Ornette Coleman
would certainly not be able to use the same musical language as, one
playing with, say, Louis Armstrong.
And if she was playing a saxaphone for Benny Goodman, she would be
even more limited.
> Do I, perhaps, first and foremost need to "moderate"
> myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
> all were more moderate,
> as far as both quality and quantity of our talk are concerned?
That is the ideal state and here on this list people have moderated
themselves very well and within reason. In ten years
we have only had to "moderate" this list on three occasions. The
first time a moderator might have been necessary
was during the first Peter Krauss episode that caused the entire
unmoderated list, having already lost many of its
participants, to close down.
>
> For example, Don and Dorothy, I am sorry about using the words
> "aged white males" in my previous post, which
> you both picked up on. I don't know whether the fact that I am
> myself a future "aged white
> male" gives me the right to use these words (just like a blonde can
> get away with telling dumb-blonde jokes), or not, I
> don't know. Perhaps not, and again, I apologize if anyone was
> needlessly hurt by my choice of words.
I had no difficulty with that. Franis has accused me of being sexist
a couple of times. But we tend to define that slightly
differently. For me, such "insults" would be defined as such in the
context of what kind of relationship I have with the
insulter or the insulted. If we are friends then there is a lot more
leeway and, I, perhaps mistakenly, consider all of the
regulars here as friends and colleagues. And I tend to think that it
is okay to tease them on occasion and vice versa.
But there have been times when this has gone beyond the pale, and
where that might lay has to be decided by
someone. To stop a good thread, for consultation, or take time to
deal with everyone's differing views whether
some post was appropriate or not, would seem to me to be unnecessary.
A certain amount of trust must be
available in this kind of consideration. But it someone feels that
the trust is being abused it would be their
responsibilty to make this known. Anyway, that's the way it seems to
me at the moment.
>
> However, that said, I do think that your questions, Dorothy, could/
> should be seriously considered:
> "How do you think two somewhat young white females or two somewhat
> young
> African Americans might have acted differently?" (Dorothy).
It would be interesting. But then there would be the question of how
would a Chinese moderator or Navajo moderator
do his or her job? Cultural differences would certainly make a
difference.
>
> They just might have acted differently, and, in my view, it is
> pretty certain that these "cultural affiliations" have an impact on
> the way people act.
> One relevant question would be: Would the reality of this list
> would be different, if a woman was the moderator?
I don't know. But since the necessity for moderation has so rarely
come up over the past ten years, it seems to me a
further waste of precious time - especially for those of us who have
realised that we are no longer immortal as
we once believed.
>
> And, Don and Pat, thanks for your (respective) reply and
> explanation concerning the "spirit of dialogue", but
> I still don't get the difference between actual "dialogue" and
> talking "in the spirit of dialogue"
And as for this. A dialogue in Bohm's terms involves at least twenty
people sitting in a circle facing each other. In this virtual
dialogue we have over ninety people who can neither see nor hear one
another and who have no idea of the identity or intentions of most of
the other subscribers, so we all have to behave in a spirit that
would be similar to the face-to-face
sort of dialogue that Bohm proposed. And that would be that
friendship or fellowship was the highest priority.
don
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sat Nov 11 21:42:22 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Nov 12 22:46:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D065B@msw2k.msw.local>
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D065B@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <1AF0F12C-16B8-4957-A491-FD3B0AA21261@dc.rr.com>
Dorothy, this is excellent. You have an opening quotation mark but
not a closing one.
Is it a quote? If so, who said it? If it is you. Congratulation, it
is a marvelous statement
of what the sort of fellowship we have been talking about actually is.
don
On Nov 11, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
> Sort of related is the following that has to do with individuals and
> groups and in a way the Dis-invite.
> "when assertion no longer seems dangerous, the concept of
> relationships
> changes from a bond of continuing dependence to a dynamic of
> interdependence. Then the notion of care expands from the paralyzing
> injunction not to hurt others to an injunction to act responsively
> toward self and others , and to sustain connection. A consciousness of
> the dynamics of human relationships then becomes central to moral
> understanding, joining the heart and the eye in an ethic that ties the
> activity of thought to the activity of care.
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 11 21:46:21 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sun Nov 12 22:50:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
In-Reply-To: <1AF0F12C-16B8-4957-A491-FD3B0AA21261@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F5D83F4A40AB0560F24914A5F60@phx.gbl>
Yes, it's beautiful. I shall try to remember it as we improvise together.
k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:42:22 -0800
>
>Dorothy, this is excellent. You have an opening quotation mark but not a
>closing one.
>Is it a quote? If so, who said it? If it is you. Congratulation, it is a
>marvelous statement
>of what the sort of fellowship we have been talking about actually is.
>don
>On Nov 11, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
>
>>Sort of related is the following that has to do with individuals and
>>groups and in a way the Dis-invite.
>> "when assertion no longer seems dangerous, the concept of relationships
>>changes from a bond of continuing dependence to a dynamic of
>>interdependence. Then the notion of care expands from the paralyzing
>>injunction not to hurt others to an injunction to act responsively
>>toward self and others , and to sustain connection. A consciousness of
>>the dynamics of human relationships then becomes central to moral
>>understanding, joining the heart and the eye in an ethic that ties the
>>activity of thought to the activity of care.
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Sat Nov 11 22:02:12 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Sun Nov 12 23:03:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D065D@msw2k.msw.local>
For sure they are not my words. I'm not good at "giving credit" as I
think our words belong to everyone once said and that our words are the
result of so much contribution from others that even if they were mine I
would claim credit. I think I can find the source and will send it to
you. I've been auditing a class on women and science and through that I
have met new people and new ideas and new "thinkers". It is from
something during that class.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 3:46 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
Yes, it's beautiful. I shall try to remember it as we improvise
together.
k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:42:22 -0800
>
>Dorothy, this is excellent. You have an opening quotation mark but not
>a closing one.
>Is it a quote? If so, who said it? If it is you. Congratulation, it is
>a marvelous statement of what the sort of fellowship we have been
>talking about actually is.
>don
>On Nov 11, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
>
>>Sort of related is the following that has to do with individuals and
>>groups and in a way the Dis-invite.
>> "when assertion no longer seems dangerous, the concept of
>>relationships changes from a bond of continuing dependence to a
>>dynamic of interdependence. Then the notion of care expands from the
>>paralyzing injunction not to hurt others to an injunction to act
>>responsively toward self and others , and to sustain connection. A
>>consciousness of the dynamics of human relationships then becomes
>>central to moral understanding, joining the heart and the eye in an
>>ethic that ties the activity of thought to the activity of care.
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sat Nov 11 22:10:29 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Nov 12 23:14:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D065D@msw2k.msw.local>
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D065D@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BDD5B7ED-4862-4CB0-9BFE-626BF397F79D@dc.rr.com>
Ah, a true Bohmian. Your attitude was shared by David Bohm. He would
never
accept an advance on any of his books. He told his wife it was
because he was
never sure that he would finish them and didn't want to have to pay
anything back.
But he said elsewhere pretty much what you said. The downside was
that other
scientists of his renown ended up with a lot of money and security
but Saral has
had to struggle along on his University pension and ever declining
royalties from
his publisher who only stocks university book shops. Just try to find
one of his book
in a big chain bookshop.
Anyway, I am thankful for Amazon.com if only for this reason.
don
On Nov 11, 2006, at 1:02 PM, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
> For sure they are not my words. I'm not good at "giving credit" as I
> think our words belong to everyone once said and that our words are
> the
> result of so much contribution from others that even if they were
> mine I
> would claim credit. I think I can find the source and will send it to
> you. I've been auditing a class on women and science and through
> that I
> have met new people and new ideas and new "thinkers". It is from
> something during that class.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 3:46 PM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
>
> Yes, it's beautiful. I shall try to remember it as we improvise
> together.
> k
>
>
>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
>> Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:42:22 -0800
>>
>> Dorothy, this is excellent. You have an opening quotation mark
>> but not
>
>> a closing one.
>> Is it a quote? If so, who said it? If it is you. Congratulation,
>> it is
>
>> a marvelous statement of what the sort of fellowship we have been
>> talking about actually is.
>> don
>> On Nov 11, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
>>
>>> Sort of related is the following that has to do with individuals and
>>> groups and in a way the Dis-invite.
>>> "when assertion no longer seems dangerous, the concept of
>>> relationships changes from a bond of continuing dependence to a
>>> dynamic of interdependence. Then the notion of care expands from the
>>> paralyzing injunction not to hurt others to an injunction to act
>>> responsively toward self and others , and to sustain connection. A
>>> consciousness of the dynamics of human relationships then becomes
>>> central to moral understanding, joining the heart and the eye in an
>>> ethic that ties the activity of thought to the activity of care.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
> Microsoft Office Live
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 11 22:17:02 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sun Nov 12 23:21:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061110.152602.2236.10.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1892F66275530B685DE2B8A5F60@phx.gbl>
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:26:01 -0500
>
>Kathy, why are you so obsessed with Zoe? (don)
>
>Is this characterization correct?
>When are interests called "obsessions?"
>Is the object of the 'interest-called-obsession'
>correct? Deep interests take on numerous
>'faces' at different times, depending
>on current situations. (pat)
>
>Why not let her say what she
>wants to say to the list. She can do it via
>you or write to me and I will make certain
>it is on the list. (don)
>
>It seems Kathy wanted someone to invite
>her to send something from "zoe" - now you
>have done so. (pat)
>
>What some of us are trying to do here is not to dedicate days and
>hours to dealing with a particuare perceived injustice. (don)
>
>This reminds me of the 'objection to content' thread.
>What does it matter WHAT the subject matter is
>when 'looking at the function of thought' (which,
>I must assume, is "in the spirit of Bohm Dialogue). (pat)
>
>But if you really feel this is so important to the whole question of
>blocked communication and persistently increasing fragmentation in
>humanity as a whole. Then please tell us something more general (don).
>
>The general is funnelled through the specific.
>
>One of the, actually THE most difficult thing (for those involved
>in the fact of a dialogue group or list) is the necessary distinction
>between roles of making the group actually happen, and the often
>overlapping
>role of engaging in all of the bohm dialogical stuff which includes
>keeping all discovered assumptions available to suspension
>[which is somewhat of a 'contradiction in terms' because
>assumptions discovered AS assumptions (rather than 'truths'.)
>are, by definition, "suspended"].
>
>The contradiction occurs for the one in the 'group
>logistic maker' or 'buck stopper' role when s/he must
>"take a stand' and act on an assumption, rather than
>"suspend."
>
>This IS a moderated list. The group could
>bring it up again whether or not we still want
>this to be a moderated list. That's one possibility.
>
>Another possibility is: we could all talk about HOW
>the [moderated] list is to be moderated. This might start
>with objections regarding how the list is being moderated now.
>
>Another possibility would be for the moderator to decide
>and send to all of us, the limitations of moderation within which
>s/he is willing to work, and we could agree to accept of reject
>(unsubscribe) his/her terms.
>
>Other possibilities?
>
>pat
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 11 22:32:24 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sun Nov 12 23:36:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061110.152602.2236.10.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F15BAA4944931C0B49D9C03A5F60@phx.gbl>
ob·sess v
1. vt to occupy somebody’s thoughts constantly and exclusively
2. vi to think or worry about something constantly and compulsively
com·pul·sive adj
1. driven by an irresistible inner force to do something
2. exerting a powerful attraction or interest
n somebody whose actions are driven by a usually irrational psychological
force
to respond, I would need to know what definition you're using. I don't want
to jump to the conclusion that you're saying I'm irrational. That would
push a button I'd have to deal with before I responded. Moreover, I can't
seem to state it enough different ways for it to be clear - Zoe's case is
only one of many, including those kinds of actions against myself and loved
ones. Because I've experienced that pain on a deep personal level, I'm
passionate about social justice for everyone.
She sent you her statement at 1:53 PM to this address: dfactor@dc.rr.com.
If you don't receive it for whatever reason, please let me know, and I'll
see that she resends it. Did I give her the right email address?
best, k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:26:01 -0500
>
>Kathy, why are you so obsessed with Zoe? (don)
>
>Is this characterization correct?
>When are interests called "obsessions?"
>Is the object of the 'interest-called-obsession'
>correct? Deep interests take on numerous
>'faces' at different times, depending
>on current situations. (pat)
>
>Why not let her say what she
>wants to say to the list. She can do it via
>you or write to me and I will make certain
>it is on the list. (don)
>
>It seems Kathy wanted someone to invite
>her to send something from "zoe" - now you
>have done so. (pat)
>
>What some of us are trying to do here is not to dedicate days and
>hours to dealing with a particuare perceived injustice. (don)
>
>This reminds me of the 'objection to content' thread.
>What does it matter WHAT the subject matter is
>when 'looking at the function of thought' (which,
>I must assume, is "in the spirit of Bohm Dialogue). (pat)
>
>But if you really feel this is so important to the whole question of
>blocked communication and persistently increasing fragmentation in
>humanity as a whole. Then please tell us something more general (don).
>
>The general is funnelled through the specific.
>
>One of the, actually THE most difficult thing (for those involved
>in the fact of a dialogue group or list) is the necessary distinction
>between roles of making the group actually happen, and the often
>overlapping
>role of engaging in all of the bohm dialogical stuff which includes
>keeping all discovered assumptions available to suspension
>[which is somewhat of a 'contradiction in terms' because
>assumptions discovered AS assumptions (rather than 'truths'.)
>are, by definition, "suspended"].
>
>The contradiction occurs for the one in the 'group
>logistic maker' or 'buck stopper' role when s/he must
>"take a stand' and act on an assumption, rather than
>"suspend."
>
>This IS a moderated list. The group could
>bring it up again whether or not we still want
>this to be a moderated list. That's one possibility.
>
>Another possibility is: we could all talk about HOW
>the [moderated] list is to be moderated. This might start
>with objections regarding how the list is being moderated now.
>
>Another possibility would be for the moderator to decide
>and send to all of us, the limitations of moderation within which
>s/he is willing to work, and we could agree to accept of reject
>(unsubscribe) his/her terms.
>
>Other possibilities?
>
>pat
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Sat Nov 11 22:33:09 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sun Nov 12 23:38:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: altered states
In-Reply-To: <20061112110004.9DDE32490E@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFB7285300.C350D83D-ON85257223.0074D916-85257223.00766493@dialogos.com>
Rodger __thats funny, my father also prefered his so called natural state
of consciousness over altered states. Unfortunately, neither strong
intellect, genuis IQ, or natural state, saved him from dying with more
regret than fulfiment about his life.
Also Chinese medicine and/or nutritionalists can tell us how our natural
state is produced and altered by our diet.
I.e. aluminum in table salt = altzheimers = memory erosion // sugar = x,
wheat = y // minerals or lack of, in water = w // and so on, and so on.
I tend to think the natural state is one that is constantly being
altered._R
.
.
From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering/Consiousness
.
I trust my natural state of consciousness to serve me better than altered
states.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061111/bcf721a1/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Sat Nov 11 22:50:04 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sun Nov 12 23:54:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: moderating
In-Reply-To: <20061112110004.9DDE32490E@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFEB85C6FE.00E588DB-ON85257223.0076D52A-85257223.0077F10C@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Are WE really so small, our ego so large, that WE attribute so
much importance to a POSSIBLE mistake, heaven forbid, made by our
moderator?
Is this mistake an invasion of Iraq? Genocide in the Congo? Or maybe
something even more significant and horribly subtle?
Or is it simply an opportunity to fine-tune moderation in a virtual,
internet bohm_dialogue.? _R
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Message-ID: <BAY22-F142406C441F935B8198280A5F70@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
According to William it was NOT because he thought Zoe was Peter or even
that he felt Zoe was being disruptive, but because he felt that Zoe had
clearly stated that she rejected the idea of being on a list that had any
kind of moderation or structure of any kind.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061111/3f5a95ab/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sat Nov 11 23:55:32 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Nov 13 00:59:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F15BAA4944931C0B49D9C03A5F60@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F15BAA4944931C0B49D9C03A5F60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <0C2F46E3-3805-4F36-A69C-A0C98F3FFB53@dc.rr.com>
I received Zoe's letter and I have forwarded it to William for his
comments before I post it to the list. But I have to ask why are you
still worrying about it? What is your self-perceived role in all
this. Zoe has done her bit. Why not just let it play out as it needs
to.
You have done your job - very well indeed.
don
On Nov 11, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> She sent you her statement at 1:53 PM to this address:
> dfactor@dc.rr.com. If you don't receive it for whatever reason,
> please let me know, and I'll see that she resends it. Did I give
> her the right email address?
>
> best, k
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061111/7662fe70/attachment.html