From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Sep 11 02:36:55 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Sep 12 03:31:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
Message-ID: <20060910.203704.1608.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Does anyone here NOT recall times when tunnel vision
occurred during entrapment in a certain identity?
At first, awareness of [the gross versions of] these states
occurs in retrospect. Virtually everyone experiences this.
Can anyone here describe this state better than I
seem to be able to achieve? (original post below).
pat
On 10 Sep 2006, at 14:58, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Consider this example of personal identification
> interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
> (Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
> systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
> given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
> between the confines of the identity.
But does it really? Necessarily? My mother might have told me that
she was my mother and that implied a particular sort of relationship,
but I also knew that she was an artist and a pretty good poker player
each of which provided different but overlapping categories. In fact,
sub-consciously I also know that she was had a great many other
qualities. So, these all blend into, not so much an image of
the person or the relationship, but a set of image that flow in and out
of each other, more like a bunch of film clips that anything static.
> The person one is
> relating to can now only be related to, according to
> the images supplied by the beliefs that support
> the identity.
Possibly. But more likely different situations and contexts will call
forth
different aspects of the image cluster, or different strips of the film.
> Intelligence is blocked by the
> walls in which the particular self/world
> is contained.
> There is no true relationship).
But if one had no idea about who this person was - if she was a total
stranger - would intelligence then be able to inform us of what a true
relationship might be?
>
> It might be argued that such identification
> is necessary to protect the child but consider
> that the above description can only apply to
> homo saps.
I am not certain, because I only understand a couple of
homo sap languages. But I do know that a puppy recognises
its mother and behaves differently toward her than others and
vice versa, as do most other mammals.
>
> What are some of the beliefs that support
> such an identity?
I find it more interesting to ask this question from
the point of view of a self-world-view. I would have to say that
in the world there a mother's and their offspring. They form what
some would call a logical type. I would call it a specific sort or
category of relationship. Within this category there are many
variations and my relationship with my mother - who BTW, died
more than thirty years ago - would fit somewhere within this
category. One thing I could say specifically is that my feeling about
her now, are warmer than they were when she was alive.
>
> pat
don
~~
Consider this example of personal identification
interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
(Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
between the confines of the identity. The person one is
relating to can now only be related to, according to
the images supplied by the beliefs that support
the identity. Intelligence is blocked by the
walls in which the particular self/world
is contained. There is no true relationship).
It might be argued that such identification
is necessary to protect the child but consider
that the above description can only apply to
homo saps.
What are some of the beliefs that support
such an identity?
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Sep 11 02:25:57 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Sep 12 03:31:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060910.203704.1608.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way
the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and
'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation
in a domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations'
bang into each other and it hurts if one of them is "me." -- Pat
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest
destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of
"destructiveness" of that which does not exist, i.e.,
the "me" fixation in thought, the persona idem.
pat
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 02:42:12 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Tue Sep 12 03:33:30 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] intelligence
In-Reply-To: <20060906191100.36052.qmail@web52902.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060911004212.80358.qmail@web61020.mail.yahoo.com>
Fanda, thanks for your post...I don't know if I agree
with that, but it is interesting to contemplate. what
if someone has no awareness of this deeper energy?
personally i feel the energy and my experiences lead
my to believe that it exists...is the person who
doesnt believe in this not creative? or just limited?
hmm.
thanks,
kari
There are times in life when something happened or
something touches me deeply and profoundly no matter
what this might be, which changes me as well deeply
and profoundly even though maybe just for a moment.
>From that moment I am looking upon the world through
different glasses. It is also this something telling
me that there is more to life and living then what I
only know. There is something somewhere beyond my
understanding, which I have a feeling that exists and
it is acting upon my consciousness. Perhaps it is for
this unknown energy, which I cannot put my finger on
so do speak that is the driving force in my life to
search for and to find out what ever I am looking for.
There must be more to life then what I known
obviously, and to find that out I must keep open mind
to all possibilities.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 11 03:06:53 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 12 03:58:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
References: <20060910.203704.1608.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <001201c6d53e$98d0d7b0$db2c153f@DL01>
> Does anyone here NOT recall times when tunnel vision
> occurred during entrapment in a certain identity?
> At first, awareness of [the gross versions of] these states
> occurs in retrospect. Virtually everyone experiences this.
>
> Can anyone here describe this state better than I
> seem to be able to achieve? (original post below). -- pat
I can recall being young and crazy and tas or something telling me I could
whip four or five people, and I got an ass whooping. Does that qualify as
tunnel vision? That happened more than a few times.
I recall once having tunnel vision re a very pretty girl, thinking she was
just waiting for me to approach her, etc. What a shock! She had no idea
what I was doing; either that or she lied. I've had that general sprt of
thing occur many times, many times.
Something really interesting is how people cannot identify such experiences,
or if they can, how the "identity as it" prevents them from talking about it
"objectively".
Pat, I wonder if there is a better way to talk about this. Generally, it
seems people are afraid to not play whatever role got them this far. Also,
it seems that when getting close to describing what actually is, anxiety
drives people to attack with the 'ad persona' as occurred recently when
someone associated me with the Nazisism because I quoted a philosopher who
did not flea Hitler ... somewhat like what occurred with Bohm and the
McCarthy-ites. We inhabit a very strange world. -- Don L
> On 10 Sep 2006, at 14:58, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> Consider this example of personal identification
>> interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
>> (Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
>> systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
>> given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
>> between the confines of the identity.
>
> But does it really? Necessarily? My mother might have told me that
> she was my mother and that implied a particular sort of relationship,
> but I also knew that she was an artist and a pretty good poker player
> each of which provided different but overlapping categories. In fact,
> sub-consciously I also know that she was had a great many other
> qualities. So, these all blend into, not so much an image of
> the person or the relationship, but a set of image that flow in and out
> of each other, more like a bunch of film clips that anything static.
>
>> The person one is
>> relating to can now only be related to, according to
>> the images supplied by the beliefs that support
>> the identity.
>
> Possibly. But more likely different situations and contexts will call
> forth
> different aspects of the image cluster, or different strips of the film.
>
>> Intelligence is blocked by the
>> walls in which the particular self/world
>> is contained.
>> There is no true relationship).
>
> But if one had no idea about who this person was - if she was a total
> stranger - would intelligence then be able to inform us of what a true
> relationship might be?
>>
>> It might be argued that such identification
>> is necessary to protect the child but consider
>> that the above description can only apply to
>> homo saps.
>
> I am not certain, because I only understand a couple of
> homo sap languages. But I do know that a puppy recognises
> its mother and behaves differently toward her than others and
> vice versa, as do most other mammals.
>>
>> What are some of the beliefs that support
>> such an identity?
>
> I find it more interesting to ask this question from
> the point of view of a self-world-view. I would have to say that
> in the world there a mother's and their offspring. They form what
> some would call a logical type. I would call it a specific sort or
> category of relationship. Within this category there are many
> variations and my relationship with my mother - who BTW, died
> more than thirty years ago - would fit somewhere within this
> category. One thing I could say specifically is that my feeling about
> her now, are warmer than they were when she was alive.
>>
>> pat
> don
> ~~
> Consider this example of personal identification
> interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
> (Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
> systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
> given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
> between the confines of the identity. The person one is
> relating to can now only be related to, according to
> the images supplied by the beliefs that support
> the identity. Intelligence is blocked by the
> walls in which the particular self/world
> is contained. There is no true relationship).
>
> It might be argued that such identification
> is necessary to protect the child but consider
> that the above description can only apply to
> homo saps.
>
> What are some of the beliefs that support
> such an identity?
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 11 03:45:49 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 12 04:37:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060907.093908.15224.43.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<001b01c6d293$73523270$3664153f@DL01>
<31946072-BAB6-4654-A93A-B3F8D1F42551@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00c901c6d2a4$f92d1a70$3664153f@DL01> <004701c6d360$c5e68d60$1378153f@DL01>
<7F43A285-0162-44ED-BEA6-45C80199F59E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<8175E78A-7C52-48B9-B337-AF882C5D5FBA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<706324E0-7213-48F4-9B48-C1D9919ACA89@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005f01c6d3b3$ac167f00$630a153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <003701c6d544$14faf000$db2c153f@DL01>
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of"destructiveness" of that which does not exist, i.e., the "me" fixation in thought, the persona idem. -- pat
This is really hard to talk about. It is helpful perhaps to simplify, simplify. Some of the early Greeks held that existence was what emerges, stands out. Seeing this, then perhaps we say existence means the imagery that emerges, stands out in the imagination ... as does the imagination of a tree when you experience that word. Another example, BEACH may now stand when experiencing that word. One more: SNOWMAN with pieces of coal for eyes, a carrot nose, etc., on a cold winter day. If snowman stands out in imagination, that's existence. Socrates holds up a glob, says this is being: then points to the mirror image of the glob and says that is existence. It stands out as and in vision, or maybe feeling or felts, and may be contrasted with what is insensate.
One interpretation of existence/being says that existence stands out while also standing in, that something must first stand in being before it can stand out of being (as a very tall man with red hat may stand out of a crowd of short, hatless men). Part of the benefit of looking at this is to experience being prior to the split between the East and the West. Also perhaps to begin having a way to explicate that which is prior to the subject/object split, the SOS.
IF existence is understood as imagination we might see how the fixedness of an image would be very troublesome. Or, if we held a fixed image of our significant other which they did not measure up to, that could be very troublemsome. If we held opposing images, conflicting images, we might be paralysed with confusion: the fusion of conflicting subsystems.
If we held self imagery, imagination of our self (our existence) which was almost purely based on other imagination rather than a mirror view, we might be in sad shape, might even get a trip or two to the crises center or nut house.
This make sense? -- don L
These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way
the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and
'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation
in a domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations'
bang into each other and it hurts if one of them is "me." -- Pat
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest
destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of
"destructiveness" of that which does not exist, i.e.,
the "me" fixation in thought, the persona idem.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060910/42b6e249/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 11 03:56:58 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 12 04:48:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
References: <20060910.203704.1608.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<001201c6d53e$98d0d7b0$db2c153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <004101c6d545$93987620$db2c153f@DL01>
More tunnel vision:
I remember an actor in Hollywood, maybe more than a bit in love with
himself, dated a woman and both of the ended up at her apartment when one of
here girlfriends came by. They were actors and actresses and smoked a bit
of dope and the girls were visiting, sort of 'catching up' with news of
each other.
Then, he related this to us later, he had the notion (tunnel vision??) that
both those ladies want his body and he began disrobing, even doing a kind of
stripper's dance. He said he really thought they wanted him to do that in
spite of their protestations, until they called the police.
Would the paranoia with grass be like the tunnel vision? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
>> Does anyone here NOT recall times when tunnel vision
>> occurred during entrapment in a certain identity?
>> At first, awareness of [the gross versions of] these states
>> occurs in retrospect. Virtually everyone experiences this.
>>
>> Can anyone here describe this state better than I
>> seem to be able to achieve? (original post below). -- pat
>
> I can recall being young and crazy and tas or something telling me I could
> whip four or five people, and I got an ass whooping. Does that qualify as
> tunnel vision? That happened more than a few times.
>
> I recall once having tunnel vision re a very pretty girl, thinking she was
> just waiting for me to approach her, etc. What a shock! She had no idea
> what I was doing; either that or she lied. I've had that general sprt of
> thing occur many times, many times.
>
> Something really interesting is how people cannot identify such
> experiences, or if they can, how the "identity as it" prevents them from
> talking about it "objectively".
>
> Pat, I wonder if there is a better way to talk about this. Generally, it
> seems people are afraid to not play whatever role got them this far.
> Also, it seems that when getting close to describing what actually is,
> anxiety drives people to attack with the 'ad persona' as occurred recently
> when someone associated me with the Nazisism because I quoted a
> philosopher who did not flea Hitler ... somewhat like what occurred with
> Bohm and the McCarthy-ites. We inhabit a very strange world. -- Don L
>
>
>> On 10 Sep 2006, at 14:58, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>> Consider this example of personal identification
>>> interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
>>> (Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
>>> systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
>>> given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
>>> between the confines of the identity.
>>
>> But does it really? Necessarily? My mother might have told me that
>> she was my mother and that implied a particular sort of relationship,
>> but I also knew that she was an artist and a pretty good poker player
>> each of which provided different but overlapping categories. In fact,
>> sub-consciously I also know that she was had a great many other
>> qualities. So, these all blend into, not so much an image of
>> the person or the relationship, but a set of image that flow in and out
>> of each other, more like a bunch of film clips that anything static.
>>
>>> The person one is
>>> relating to can now only be related to, according to
>>> the images supplied by the beliefs that support
>>> the identity.
>>
>> Possibly. But more likely different situations and contexts will call
>> forth
>> different aspects of the image cluster, or different strips of the film.
>>
>>> Intelligence is blocked by the
>>> walls in which the particular self/world
>>> is contained.
>>> There is no true relationship).
>>
>> But if one had no idea about who this person was - if she was a total
>> stranger - would intelligence then be able to inform us of what a true
>> relationship might be?
>>>
>>> It might be argued that such identification
>>> is necessary to protect the child but consider
>>> that the above description can only apply to
>>> homo saps.
>>
>> I am not certain, because I only understand a couple of
>> homo sap languages. But I do know that a puppy recognises
>> its mother and behaves differently toward her than others and
>> vice versa, as do most other mammals.
>>>
>>> What are some of the beliefs that support
>>> such an identity?
>>
>> I find it more interesting to ask this question from
>> the point of view of a self-world-view. I would have to say that
>> in the world there a mother's and their offspring. They form what
>> some would call a logical type. I would call it a specific sort or
>> category of relationship. Within this category there are many
>> variations and my relationship with my mother - who BTW, died
>> more than thirty years ago - would fit somewhere within this
>> category. One thing I could say specifically is that my feeling about
>> her now, are warmer than they were when she was alive.
>>>
>>> pat
>> don
>> ~~
>> Consider this example of personal identification
>> interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
>> (Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
>> systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
>> given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
>> between the confines of the identity. The person one is
>> relating to can now only be related to, according to
>> the images supplied by the beliefs that support
>> the identity. Intelligence is blocked by the
>> walls in which the particular self/world
>> is contained. There is no true relationship).
>>
>> It might be argued that such identification
>> is necessary to protect the child but consider
>> that the above description can only apply to
>> homo saps.
>>
>> What are some of the beliefs that support
>> such an identity?
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 11 04:46:09 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 12 05:37:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060907.093908.15224.43.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<001b01c6d293$73523270$3664153f@DL01>
<31946072-BAB6-4654-A93A-B3F8D1F42551@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00c901c6d2a4$f92d1a70$3664153f@DL01> <004701c6d360$c5e68d60$1378153f@DL01>
<7F43A285-0162-44ED-BEA6-45C80199F59E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<8175E78A-7C52-48B9-B337-AF882C5D5FBA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<706324E0-7213-48F4-9B48-C1D9919ACA89@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005f01c6d3b3$ac167f00$630a153f@DL01>
<003701c6d544$14faf000$db2c153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <007701c6d54c$72eb6ca0$db2c153f@DL01>
PAT: Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of"destructiveness" of that which does not exist, i.e., the "me" fixation in thought, the persona idem.
DON L: Do we say the self image, the personal identity emerges, stands out, and therefore exists? That is, maybe it is coherent to say the persona idem has existence, but may be shy on Being, actuality. I believe this would be consistent with what db says re the self in TAS, that we do not know what we are but that what we are is being revealed.
PAT: These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and 'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation in a domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations' bang into each other and it hurts if one of them is "me."
DON L: If we see the "unlimited" in terms of the Greek teloi, the telos or inner aim of being then perhaps we can say that what Bohm calls the "common pool of meaning". We may also then have a way to judge the limited. I believe if we look at what scientists, (db) says re beauty, elegance, dignity, by which theories are judged, we are considering the telos or inner aim of the whole.
Pat, I have several of your posts marked for answering and will get to them as I can. -- Don L
From: Don Lay
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:45 PM
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of"destructiveness" of that which does not exist, i.e., the "me" fixation in thought, the persona idem. -- pat
This is really hard to talk about. It is helpful perhaps to simplify, simplify. Some of the early Greeks held that existence was what emerges, stands out. Seeing this, then perhaps we say existence means the imagery that emerges, stands out in the imagination ... as does the imagination of a tree when you experience that word. Another example, BEACH may now stand when experiencing that word. One more: SNOWMAN with pieces of coal for eyes, a carrot nose, etc., on a cold winter day. If snowman stands out in imagination, that's existence. Socrates holds up a glob, says this is being: then points to the mirror image of the glob and says that is existence. It stands out as and in vision, or maybe feeling or felts, and may be contrasted with what is insensate.
One interpretation of existence/being says that existence stands out while also standing in, that something must first stand in being before it can stand out of being (as a very tall man with red hat may stand out of a crowd of short, hatless men). Part of the benefit of looking at this is to experience being prior to the split between the East and the West. Also perhaps to begin having a way to explicate that which is prior to the subject/object split, the SOS.
IF existence is understood as imagination we might see how the fixedness of an image would be very troublesome. Or, if we held a fixed image of our significant other which they did not measure up to, that could be very troublemsome. If we held opposing images, conflicting images, we might be paralysed with confusion: the fusion of conflicting subsystems.
If we held self imagery, imagination of our self (our existence) which was almost purely based on other imagination rather than a mirror view, we might be in sad shape, might even get a trip or two to the crises center or nut house.
This make sense? -- don L
These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way
the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and
'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation
in a domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations'
bang into each other and it hurts if one of them is "me." -- Pat
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest
destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of
"destructiveness" of that which does not exist, i.e.,
the "me" fixation in thought, the persona idem.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060910/ac129548/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 11 11:23:46 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 12 12:15:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
In-Reply-To: <001201c6d53e$98d0d7b0$db2c153f@DL01>
References: <20060910.203704.1608.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<001201c6d53e$98d0d7b0$db2c153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <74FF6B90-4DFB-4F4B-9BEB-590A636A00CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 11 Sep 2006, at 02:06, Don Lay wrote:
> Pat, I wonder if there is a better way to talk about this.
> Generally, it seems people are afraid to not play whatever role got
> them this far. Also, it seems that when getting close to
> describing what actually is, anxiety drives people to attack with
> the 'ad persona' as occurred recently when someone associated me
> with the Nazisism because I quoted a philosopher who did not flea
> Hitler ... somewhat like what occurred with Bohm and the McCarthy-
> ites. We inhabit a very strange world. -- Don L
Did you really feel that You were being associated with Naziism?
That's interesting because such an idea never dawned on me. What I
referred to was the fact that on one hand a so-called great
philosopher, Martin Heidegger, did not just fail to flee Hitler, he
spoke, and wrote in defence of him. Many other academics did leave,
and not only Jews. But Martin stuck around, clung to his good job and
then talked his way out of being treated as a collaborator after the
war. To be a Nazi and to be a great philosopher at the same time
seems to me to be a contradiction. But I have used the odd Heigegger
quote in the past when it was particularly relevant to something I
was working on. What does some curious to me is that you sound as if
somehow your persona felt attacked and you immediately identified
with Bohm and McCarthyism. In any case, this does sound like a good
example of the sort of thing Pat is talking about.
don
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 11 12:36:34 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 12 13:28:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Holo&graphic
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F254A6848280C5D9224B16DA8350@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F254A6848280C5D9224B16DA8350@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8EA20D3A-C0F5-4505-81A7-93A5FB59DF38@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
And you, my dear, ought to try to understand what an analogy is.
Analogies are never exact representations of something else, they
are similar but different. Just as a map is not the territory that it
describes. A hologram is usually made out of glass. Our nervous
system is made out of living stuff that is infinitely more complex.
The notion of a holographic brain came about as a
way of trying to understand why information in the brain is
distributed in a way that is difficult to understand without the
help of such an analogy or model. Look up Karl Pribram if you
would like to learn more.
don
On 10 Sep 2006, at 19:44, kirsten schneide wrote:
> Dear Don
>
> You might want to read up on
>
> The 'working(s)' of holograms....
>
> The smaller a piece of the whole
>
> The more blurred the (re&constructed) image=idea=vision
>
>
> If you throw around ("alternative") paradigms
>
> Don't you want to have at least the(ir) basics 'nailed down' :-?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LovBot
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> One other paradigm might be termed the holographic paradigm
>> which extends
>> to the general model of a participatory universe. Within this
>> paradigm it is possible
>> for the parts to "know" the whole and even perhaps to influence
>> the whole system.
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Spaces is here! It?s easy to create your own personal
> Web site. http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 11 12:52:32 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 12 13:44:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F1954EFED7CEDC02E21C77CA8350@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F1954EFED7CEDC02E21C77CA8350@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <525C11B3-B6F0-4BCA-B46E-3153E926A4DD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>> Also, it may be worth your noticing that the argument that the
>> complexity is a product
>> of the relationship between the parts or subsystems is, itself a
>> product of the dominant
>> assumptions within that reductionist paradigm, so one could say
>> that it becomes
>> hopelessly illogical once you step outside of those defining limits.
>>
> ____________________________
Okay, to say that "complexity is a product of the relationship
between the parts or subsystems" is
to treat the subject within a mechanistic paradigm. It is what is
known in the trade as a bottom up
description. But complexity theory tells a different story,
especially when we also look at it from a
system's perspective that uses more of a top down perspective. From
this latter point of view, it
makes no sense to think of the parts of a complex whole as simply
adding up to that whole. They
are, when considered in this way, internally connected, or as
physicists like to put it, entangled.
Bohm described this as "the whole organises the parts.
Look up the work of H.R. Maturana and Francisco Varela for starters,
if you would like to learn
more.
don
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 11 14:30:25 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 12 15:24:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
In-Reply-To: <74FF6B90-4DFB-4F4B-9BEB-590A636A00CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <20060910.203704.1608.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<001201c6d53e$98d0d7b0$db2c153f@DL01>
<74FF6B90-4DFB-4F4B-9BEB-590A636A00CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <22652512-6B71-49A0-AF40-70D36A75835C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Now here's someone with a real identity problem. Read the Savitri
Devi Mukherji post from the attached Metafilter page/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Metafilter | Community Weblog.webarchive
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 126933 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060911/c5939043/MetafilterCommunityWeblog.obj
-------------- next part --------------
don
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Mon Sep 11 15:33:14 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Tue Sep 12 16:24:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177C@msw2k.msw.local>
Could you send it another way? My computer won't let me pull it up. D.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:30 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
Now here's someone with a real identity problem. Read the Savitri Devi
Mukherji post from the attached Metafilter page/
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 11 15:35:11 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 12 16:26:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Holo&graphic
In-Reply-To: <8EA20D3A-C0F5-4505-81A7-93A5FB59DF38@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F4B2D9CE1C6177C0B2F96CA82A0@phx.gbl>
Don, Dear
A - holograms are not (usually) "made out of": glass
B - "analogies" don't do much good --- if you don't/can't use them properly
C - whats the point of see the brain as 'distributed' (like a hologram?)
anyhow (in the context of tas)?
D - ps, i like to unlearn more, not the other way around..... you dopamanic
system is showing, dear ;-!
LovBot
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>And you, my dear, ought to try to understand what an analogy is.
>Analogies are never exact representations of something else, they
>are similar but different. Just as a map is not the territory that it
>describes. A hologram is usually made out of glass. Our nervous
>system is made out of living stuff that is infinitely more complex.
>
>The notion of a holographic brain came about as a
>way of trying to understand why information in the brain is
>distributed in a way that is difficult to understand without the
>help of such an analogy or model. Look up Karl Pribram if you
>would like to learn more.
>
>don
>
>On 10 Sep 2006, at 19:44, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
>>Dear Don
>>
>>You might want to read up on
>>
>>The 'working(s)' of holograms....
>>
>>The smaller a piece of the whole
>>
>>The more blurred the (re&constructed) image=idea=vision
>>
>>
>>If you throw around ("alternative") paradigms
>>
>>Don't you want to have at least the(ir) basics 'nailed down' :-?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>LovBot
>>--------------------------
>>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>One other paradigm might be termed the holographic paradigm which
>>>extends
>>>to the general model of a participatory universe. Within this paradigm
>>>it is possible
>>>for the parts to "know" the whole and even perhaps to influence the
>>>whole system.
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web
>>site. http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Mon Sep 11 15:40:52 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Tue Sep 12 16:32:26 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] intelligence
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177E@msw2k.msw.local>
Or fearful?
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Mr. Frantisek
Plessl
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:42 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] intelligence
Fanda, thanks for your post...I don't know if I agree with that, but it
is interesting to contemplate. what if someone has no awareness of this
deeper energy?
personally i feel the energy and my experiences lead my to believe that
it exists...is the person who doesnt believe in this not creative? or
just limited?
hmm.
thanks,
kari
There are times in life when something happened or something touches me
deeply and profoundly no matter what this might be, which changes me as
well deeply and profoundly even though maybe just for a moment.
>From that moment I am looking upon the world through
different glasses. It is also this something telling me that there is
more to life and living then what I only know. There is something
somewhere beyond my understanding, which I have a feeling that exists
and it is acting upon my consciousness. Perhaps it is for this unknown
energy, which I cannot put my finger on so do speak that is the driving
force in my life to search for and to find out what ever I am looking
for.
There must be more to life then what I known obviously, and to find that
out I must keep open mind to all possibilities.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
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 kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 11 15:44:57 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 12 16:36:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Tunneling
In-Reply-To: <004101c6d545$93987620$db2c153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F15AF1F578FA2BBCC77F20EA82A0@phx.gbl>
Dear Lay,
Would you classify
A (Chat)Group of
Un&Certain People
"Identifying" that some
Thinkgs is 'wrong' with
Thought = Tas
(And, digging
For a "fix") :
As ::
Paranoid?
Sun, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>More tunnel vision:
>
>I remember an actor in Hollywood, maybe more than a bit in love with
>himself, dated a woman and both of the ended up at her apartment when one
>of here girlfriends came by. They were actors and actresses and smoked a
>bit of dope and the girls were visiting, sort of 'catching up' with news
>of each other.
>
>Then, he related this to us later, he had the notion (tunnel vision??) that
>both those ladies want his body and he began disrobing, even doing a kind
>of stripper's dance. He said he really thought they wanted him to do that
>in spite of their protestations, until they called the police.
>
>Would the paranoia with grass be like the tunnel vision? -- Don L
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:06 PM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
>
>
>>>Does anyone here NOT recall times when tunnel vision
>>>occurred during entrapment in a certain identity?
>>>At first, awareness of [the gross versions of] these states
>>>occurs in retrospect. Virtually everyone experiences this.
>>>
>>>Can anyone here describe this state better than I
>>>seem to be able to achieve? (original post below). -- pat
>>
>>I can recall being young and crazy and tas or something telling me I could
>>whip four or five people, and I got an ass whooping. Does that qualify as
>>tunnel vision? That happened more than a few times.
>>
>>I recall once having tunnel vision re a very pretty girl, thinking she was
>>just waiting for me to approach her, etc. What a shock! She had no idea
>>what I was doing; either that or she lied. I've had that general sprt of
>>thing occur many times, many times.
>>
>>Something really interesting is how people cannot identify such
>>experiences, or if they can, how the "identity as it" prevents them from
>>talking about it "objectively".
>>
>>Pat, I wonder if there is a better way to talk about this. Generally, it
>>seems people are afraid to not play whatever role got them this far. Also,
>>it seems that when getting close to describing what actually is, anxiety
>>drives people to attack with the 'ad persona' as occurred recently when
>>someone associated me with the Nazisism because I quoted a philosopher who
>>did not flea Hitler ... somewhat like what occurred with Bohm and the
>>McCarthy-ites. We inhabit a very strange world. -- Don L
>>
>>
>>>On 10 Sep 2006, at 14:58, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Consider this example of personal identification
>>>>interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
>>>>(Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
>>>>systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
>>>>given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
>>>>between the confines of the identity.
>>>
>>>But does it really? Necessarily? My mother might have told me that
>>>she was my mother and that implied a particular sort of relationship,
>>> but I also knew that she was an artist and a pretty good poker player
>>>each of which provided different but overlapping categories. In fact,
>>>sub-consciously I also know that she was had a great many other
>>>qualities. So, these all blend into, not so much an image of
>>>the person or the relationship, but a set of image that flow in and out
>>>of each other, more like a bunch of film clips that anything static.
>>>
>>>>The person one is
>>>>relating to can now only be related to, according to
>>>>the images supplied by the beliefs that support
>>>>the identity.
>>>
>>>Possibly. But more likely different situations and contexts will call
>>>forth
>>>different aspects of the image cluster, or different strips of the film.
>>>
>>>>Intelligence is blocked by the
>>>>walls in which the particular self/world
>>>>is contained.
>>>>There is no true relationship).
>>>
>>>But if one had no idea about who this person was - if she was a total
>>>stranger - would intelligence then be able to inform us of what a true
>>>relationship might be?
>>>>
>>>>It might be argued that such identification
>>>>is necessary to protect the child but consider
>>>>that the above description can only apply to
>>>>homo saps.
>>>
>>>I am not certain, because I only understand a couple of
>>>homo sap languages. But I do know that a puppy recognises
>>>its mother and behaves differently toward her than others and
>>>vice versa, as do most other mammals.
>>>>
>>>>What are some of the beliefs that support
>>>>such an identity?
>>>
>>>I find it more interesting to ask this question from
>>>the point of view of a self-world-view. I would have to say that
>>>in the world there a mother's and their offspring. They form what
>>>some would call a logical type. I would call it a specific sort or
>>>category of relationship. Within this category there are many
>>>variations and my relationship with my mother - who BTW, died
>>>more than thirty years ago - would fit somewhere within this
>>>category. One thing I could say specifically is that my feeling about
>>>her now, are warmer than they were when she was alive.
>>>>
>>>>pat
>>>don
>>>~~
>>>Consider this example of personal identification
>>>interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
>>>(Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
>>>systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
>>>given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
>>>between the confines of the identity. The person one is
>>>relating to can now only be related to, according to
>>>the images supplied by the beliefs that support
>>>the identity. Intelligence is blocked by the
>>>walls in which the particular self/world
>>>is contained. There is no true relationship).
>>>
>>>It might be argued that such identification
>>>is necessary to protect the child but consider
>>>that the above description can only apply to
>>>homo saps.
>>>
>>>What are some of the beliefs that support
>>>such an identity?
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 11 15:52:08 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 12 16:43:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Sense", making, Giving
In-Reply-To: <003701c6d544$14faf000$db2c153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F245E86956C3C0FF866AF0DA82A0@phx.gbl>
This Susbscriber appears to obsess with
Quotesenseendquote
>This make sense? -- don L
Dear L
Well, what if it 'does': NOT?
Is L on a mission to
Make/Give
"Sense"?
Is L 'less'
If the group, this chat group
Will withdraw/withholds its cheststrokes?
Will L (then) turn
A way
If his ego is not (breast)fed?
Air, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 11 16:05:27 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 12 16:56:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177C@msw2k.msw.local>
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177C@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <B8BD5C13-0F75-4031-BF9C-34256BB53AD3@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Hi, Dorothy, I'm sorry, this was the only way i was able to send it -
as a web archive. You might be able to open it
in your web browser by using "open file" under the file pull-down
menu. If not you can go to www.metafilter,dot.com and scroll down
until you find a post headed "Savitri Devi Mukherji" then click on
some of the links.
don
On 11 Sep 2006, at 14:33, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
> Could you send it another way? My computer won't let me pull it
> up. D.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:30 AM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
>
> Now here's someone with a real identity problem. Read the Savitri Devi
> Mukherji post from the attached Metafilter page/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 11 16:24:40 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 12 17:16:18 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Holo&graphic
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F4B2D9CE1C6177C0B2F96CA82A0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F4B2D9CE1C6177C0B2F96CA82A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <75922A04-DC16-4D00-B00A-6E3971533046@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 11 Sep 2006, at 14:35, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
> Don, Dear
>
> A - holograms are not (usually) "made out of": glass
What you may think of as holograms are not those little shiny bits on
your credit cards. A hologram is a photograph that is taken with a
special sort of camera that scans the subject using laser light -
not a single lens - that when another laser light is scanned across
it emerges as a 3D image. These are generally done on glass.
The holographic approach to both neuroscience and physics lets you
look at something through more than a single perspective as the brain
if not our conscious perspective is able to do. As I say, don't ask
me, read the literature.
>
> B - "analogies" don't do much good --- if you don't/can't use them
> properly
Or if someone is so literal minded that they can't recognise one when
they stumble across it.
>
> C - whats the point of see the brain as 'distributed' (like a
> hologram?) anyhow (in the context of tas)?
Because Bohm's view of brain function grew out of his view of the
quantum field - that is quantum field theory - where particles and
waves are not fundamental but something more non-local or
multidimensional is the case. With this in mind he collaborated with
the neuroscientist/neurosurgeon Karl Pribram. A search of the two
names together might give you a fresh insight.
>
> D - ps, i like to unlearn more, not the other way around..... you
> dopamanic system is showing, dear
I think if you continue to unlearn the way you are doing you will end
up with a completely empty head, which would be a great relief for
some of us. And by the way, dopamanic refers to Parkinson's disease
and restless leg syndrome. What did you imagine it meant?
> ;-!
> don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> And you, my dear, ought to try to understand what an analogy is.
>> Analogies are never exact representations of something else, they
>> are similar but different. Just as a map is not the territory that it
>> describes. A hologram is usually made out of glass. Our nervous
>> system is made out of living stuff that is infinitely more complex.
>>
>> The notion of a holographic brain came about as a
>> way of trying to understand why information in the brain is
>> distributed in a way that is difficult to understand without the
>> help of such an analogy or model. Look up Karl Pribram if you
>> would like to learn more.
>>
>> don
>>
>> On 10 Sep 2006, at 19:44, kirsten schneide wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Don
>>>
>>> You might want to read up on
>>>
>>> The 'working(s)' of holograms....
>>>
>>> The smaller a piece of the whole
>>>
>>> The more blurred the (re&constructed) image=idea=vision
>>>
>>>
>>> If you throw around ("alternative") paradigms
>>>
>>> Don't you want to have at least the(ir) basics 'nailed down' :-?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LovBot
>>> --------------------------
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> One other paradigm might be termed the holographic paradigm
>>>> which extends
>>>> to the general model of a participatory universe. Within this
>>>> paradigm it is possible
>>>> for the parts to "know" the whole and even perhaps to influence
>>>> the whole system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Windows Live Spaces is here! It?s easy to create your own
>>> personal Web site. http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE http://imagine-msn.com/
> messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Sep 11 16:53:09 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Sep 12 17:46:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
Message-ID: <20060911.105309.1608.13.ae.dropper@juno.com>
> Does anyone here NOT recall times when tunnel vision
> occurred during entrapment in a certain identity?
> At first, awareness of [the gross versions of] these states
> occurs in retrospect. Virtually everyone experiences this.
>
> Can anyone here describe this state better than I
> seem to be able to achieve? (original post below). -- pat
I can recall being young and crazy and tas or something telling me I
could
whip four or five people, and I got an ass whooping. Does that qualify
as
tunnel vision? That happened more than a few times. [Definitely!
Acknowledgement of the point appreciated.]
I recall once having tunnel vision re a very pretty girl, thinking she
was
just waiting for me to approach her, etc. What a shock! She had no idea
what I was doing; either that or she lied. I've had that general sprt of
thing occur many times, many times. [Another prime example from millions
of possibilities.]
Something really interesting is how people cannot identify such
experiences,
or if they can, how the "identity as it" prevents them from talking about
it
"objectively". [Interesting, intriguing, puzzling, curious. Because there
are SO MANY of these identities per person that the 'entrapment'
in a particular one, or in a subset of a particular one, does not usually
last long. How many times have we each said to ourselves or a 'loved one'
"I don't know WHAT I was thinking." ? Perhaps though,the initial way of
identifying tunnel vision can be to see it in another* and be thus
alerted
to the seeing of personal examples.]
[* It can then be seen that "seeing it in another IS, simultaneously,
a way of seeing personal examples. Byron Katie's work excels at this.]
Pat, I wonder if there is a better way to talk about this.
Don L, YES. This would be excellent as an open question.
As a sort of "call for help."
Generally, it
seems people are afraid to not play whatever role got them this far.
Also,
it seems that when getting close to describing what actually is, anxiety
drives people to attack with the 'ad persona' as occurred recently when
someone associated me with the Nazisism because I quoted a philosopher
who
did not flea Hitler ... somewhat like what occurred with Bohm and the
McCarthy-ites. We inhabit a very strange world. -- Don L
One of the things I so enjoyed about Bohm was
his deeply disarming quality. It seemed such a necessity
because of the apparently threatening nature of his
message.
I tend to think the "disarming" quality
is either inborn or very hard won. And that I ain't got it.
But yes, I too wonder if there is a better way to talk
about this.
But then, having said all that, bluntness can have
extraordinary "wake up" value. Teaching/learning
'moments' differ as much as people.
pat
> On 10 Sep 2006, at 14:58, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> Consider this example of personal identification
>> interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
>> (Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
>> systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
>> given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
>> between the confines of the identity.
>
> But does it really? Necessarily? My mother might have told me that
> she was my mother and that implied a particular sort of relationship,
> but I also knew that she was an artist and a pretty good poker player
> each of which provided different but overlapping categories. In fact,
> sub-consciously I also know that she was had a great many other
> qualities. So, these all blend into, not so much an image of
> the person or the relationship, but a set of image that flow in and out
> of each other, more like a bunch of film clips that anything static.
>
>> The person one is
>> relating to can now only be related to, according to
>> the images supplied by the beliefs that support
>> the identity.
>
> Possibly. But more likely different situations and contexts will call
> forth
> different aspects of the image cluster, or different strips of the
film.
>
>> Intelligence is blocked by the
>> walls in which the particular self/world
>> is contained.
>> There is no true relationship).
>
> But if one had no idea about who this person was - if she was a total
> stranger - would intelligence then be able to inform us of what a true
> relationship might be?
>>
>> It might be argued that such identification
>> is necessary to protect the child but consider
>> that the above description can only apply to
>> homo saps.
>
> I am not certain, because I only understand a couple of
> homo sap languages. But I do know that a puppy recognises
> its mother and behaves differently toward her than others and
> vice versa, as do most other mammals.
>>
>> What are some of the beliefs that support
>> such an identity?
>
> I find it more interesting to ask this question from
> the point of view of a self-world-view. I would have to say that
> in the world there a mother's and their offspring. They form what
> some would call a logical type. I would call it a specific sort or
> category of relationship. Within this category there are many
> variations and my relationship with my mother - who BTW, died
> more than thirty years ago - would fit somewhere within this
> category. One thing I could say specifically is that my feeling about
> her now, are warmer than they were when she was alive.
>>
>> pat
> don
> ~~
> Consider this example of personal identification
> interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
> (Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
> systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
> given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
> between the confines of the identity. The person one is
> relating to can now only be related to, according to
> the images supplied by the beliefs that support
> the identity. Intelligence is blocked by the
> walls in which the particular self/world
> is contained. There is no true relationship).
>
> It might be argued that such identification
> is necessary to protect the child but consider
> that the above description can only apply to
> homo saps.
>
> What are some of the beliefs that support
> such an identity?
>
> pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060911/aba6fc66/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 11 17:10:36 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 12 18:03:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
References: <20060910.203704.1608.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<001201c6d53e$98d0d7b0$db2c153f@DL01>
<74FF6B90-4DFB-4F4B-9BEB-590A636A00CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <005301c6d5b4$7b9db340$5e57153f@DL01>
Did you really feel that You were being associated with ... -- don F
Ohhh! What "really" happened was that tas exploded with many thoughts, many
scenarios, some amusing, some scary, some perhaps quite insane. And as your
query suggests, some were identified, personified. That is, some thoughts
"in thought" were attributed "by thought" to Don Lay. Again, some thoughts
IN TAS were attributed by thoughts IN TAS to what Bohm refers to as that
special image that tas says is "me".
Don (or anyone), YOU tell ME, which of those many, many personification
thoughts am I? Which is my "real" "me"? Or maybe "I" should ask Peter!
[Are you old enough to remember that radio show re identity, "Will the real
___ stand up!"?]
The largest tas 'explosion' occurs with another post, your statement: "This
imaginary personal-self which seems to you to be the enemy". This after
repeatedly, maybe ten times, certainly five times, trying to explain my
position re the "personal-self" as an element of the PIS, a sub-system of
SOS, the word/image/identity system. ((I have what may be paranoid thoughts
about developing and publishing these thoughts -- maybe bottling and selling
....)) It's really frustrating, and I need to think about the time involved
with this, my goals and needs, etc.
I "really felt and still feel" that I advanced information relating to the
topic, but the topic was not addressed. Instead the remark about "your
friend Heidegger", an _ad hominem_ smoke screen (I believe), directing
attention away from the relevance of the early Greek for that line of
thought which I believe explains db far better than don F or any friendship
could. My opinion.
Is it possible to see the _ad hominem_ as a smoke screen that is part of
tas, perhaps the primary tas defensive tactic, the primary way tas defends
itself?
I "really feel" that we are again, now, avoiding something very difficult to
approach, not because of 'my' self or 'your' self, but because of "the
systems" operating in us, perhaps tas or, I prefer "LAS", Language as a
System, SOS and the sub-system, LAS. I believe these systems should be
viewed as "ontic", rather than personal (as I believe Bohm suggests), and I
believe when or if we do that we "go deeper" in the sense that the PIS is
surficial, social, cultural.
Don L
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
>
> On 11 Sep 2006, at 02:06, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> Pat, I wonder if there is a better way to talk about this. Generally,
>> it seems people are afraid to not play whatever role got them this far.
>> Also, it seems that when getting close to describing what actually is,
>> anxiety drives people to attack with the 'ad persona' as occurred
>> recently when someone associated me with the Nazisism because I quoted a
>> philosopher who did not flea Hitler ... somewhat like what occurred with
>> Bohm and the McCarthy- ites. We inhabit a very strange world. -- Don L
>
> Did you really feel that You were being associated with Naziism? That's
> interesting because such an idea never dawned on me. What I referred to
> was the fact that on one hand a so-called great philosopher, Martin
> Heidegger, did not just fail to flee Hitler, he spoke, and wrote in
> defence of him. Many other academics did leave, and not only Jews. But
> Martin stuck around, clung to his good job and then talked his way out of
> being treated as a collaborator after the war. To be a Nazi and to be a
> great philosopher at the same time seems to me to be a contradiction. But
> I have used the odd Heigegger quote in the past when it was particularly
> relevant to something I was working on. What does some curious to me is
> that you sound as if somehow your persona felt attacked and you
> immediately identified with Bohm and McCarthyism. In any case, this does
> sound like a good example of the sort of thing Pat is talking about.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 11 17:54:09 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 12 18:45:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Power&Play
In-Reply-To: <74FF6B90-4DFB-4F4B-9BEB-590A636A00CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F9D2DFC337AFB08FD0DD25A82A0@phx.gbl>
EXCLUSIVE...9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics
Editors of "Debunking 9/11 Myths"
September 11, 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking
questions about what happened on that day in New York, Washington and
Pennsylvania. Websites, articles, books and documentaries have put forward a
variety of alternate theories to the government's account of what happened.
The most popular of these is a documentary called "Loose Change." Now, a
book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the
magazine Popular Mechanics, it's called "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why
Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts." In a Democracy Now!
national broadcast exclusive, we host a debate between the filmmakers of
Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 9/11. [includes rush
transcript - partial]
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
LovBot
_________________________________________________________________
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 11 18:51:38 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 12 19:43:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] RE: Holo&Graphic
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177E@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F35F7DD45059DE7B373BB61A82A0@phx.gbl>
Dear Donf,
When you say, and you said it, holograms are made of glass:
It is like saying a movie is made of canvas
[Which is at best: simply silly ~ and at worst: simply stupid]
[[ Don't you know 'better', Dear ;-? ]]
And at any rate
You can quote David & Karl up & down as you wish
But what does that {holographic brainy stuff} have
To do with your previous claim
Of 'gaining' an (factorian) awareness/understanding
Of the quotewholesystemendquote ?
PS: Your dopamine/levels ok?
Redbeets, Kirsten
On 11 Sep 2006, at 14:35, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
>Don, Dear
>
>A - holograms are not (usually) "made out of": glass
What you may think of as holograms are not those little shiny bits on
your credit cards. A hologram is a photograph that is taken with a
special sort of camera that scans the subject using laser light -
not a single lens - that when another laser light is scanned across
it emerges as a 3D image. These are generally done on glass.
The holographic approach to both neuroscience and physics lets you
look at something through more than a single perspective as the brain
if not our conscious perspective is able to do. As I say, don't ask
me, read the literature.
>
>B - "analogies" don't do much good --- if you don't/can't use them
>properly
Or if someone is so literal minded that they can't recognise one when
they stumble across it.
>
>C - whats the point of see the brain as 'distributed' (like a hologram?)
>anyhow (in the context of tas)?
Because Bohm's view of brain function grew out of his view of the
quantum field - that is quantum field theory - where particles and
waves are not fundamental but something more non-local or
multidimensional is the case. With this in mind he collaborated with
the neuroscientist/neurosurgeon Karl Pribram. A search of the two
names together might give you a fresh insight.
>
>D - ps, i like to unlearn more, not the other way around..... you
>dopamanic system is showing, dear
I think if you continue to unlearn the way you are doing you will end
up with a completely empty head, which would be a great relief for
some of us. And by the way, dopamanic refers to Parkinson's disease
and restless leg syndrome. What did you imagine it meant?
>;-!
>don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>And you, my dear, ought to try to understand what an analogy is.
>>Analogies are never exact representations of something else, they
>>are similar but different. Just as a map is not the territory that
it
>>describes. A hologram is usually made out of glass. Our nervous
>>system is made out of living stuff that is infinitely more complex.
>>
>>The notion of a holographic brain came about as a
>>way of trying to understand why information in the brain is
>>distributed in a way that is difficult to understand without the
>>help of such an analogy or model. Look up Karl Pribram if you
>>would like to learn more.
>>
>>don
>>
_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 11 19:40:02 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 12 20:31:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] RE: Holo&Graphic
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F35F7DD45059DE7B373BB61A82A0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F35F7DD45059DE7B373BB61A82A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <7500F208-A70B-4095-9628-5A13DCB82278@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Well, at least you have apparently been able to accept the rest of
what I said.
don
On 11 Sep 2006, at 17:51, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
> Dear Donf,
>
> When you say, and you said it, holograms are made of glass:
>
> It is like saying a movie is made of canvas
>
> [Which is at best: simply silly ~ and at worst: simply stupid]
>
> [[ Don't you know 'better', Dear ;-? ]]
>
>
>
> And at any rate
>
> You can quote David & Karl up & down as you wish
>
> But what does that {holographic brainy stuff} have
>
> To do with your previous claim
>
> Of 'gaining' an (factorian) awareness/understanding
>
> Of the quotewholesystemendquote ?
>
>
> PS: Your dopamine/levels ok?
>
>
>
>
>
> Redbeets, Kirsten
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 Sep 2006, at 14:35, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
>>
>> Don, Dear
>>
>> A - holograms are not (usually) "made out of": glass
>
> What you may think of as holograms are not those little shiny bits on
> your credit cards. A hologram is a photograph that is taken with a
> special sort of camera that scans the subject using laser light -
> not a single lens - that when another laser light is scanned across
> it emerges as a 3D image. These are generally done on glass.
>
> The holographic approach to both neuroscience and physics lets you
> look at something through more than a single perspective as the brain
> if not our conscious perspective is able to do. As I say, don't ask
> me, read the literature.
>>
>> B - "analogies" don't do much good --- if you don't/can't use
>> them properly
>
> Or if someone is so literal minded that they can't recognise one when
> they stumble across it.
>>
>> C - whats the point of see the brain as 'distributed' (like a
>> hologram?) anyhow (in the context of tas)?
>
> Because Bohm's view of brain function grew out of his view of the
> quantum field - that is quantum field theory - where particles and
> waves are not fundamental but something more non-local or
> multidimensional is the case. With this in mind he collaborated with
> the neuroscientist/neurosurgeon Karl Pribram. A search of the two
> names together might give you a fresh insight.
>>
>> D - ps, i like to unlearn more, not the other way around..... you
>> dopamanic system is showing, dear
>
> I think if you continue to unlearn the way you are doing you will end
> up with a completely empty head, which would be a great relief for
> some of us. And by the way, dopamanic refers to Parkinson's disease
> and restless leg syndrome. What did you imagine it meant?
>> ;-!
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And you, my dear, ought to try to understand what an analogy is.
>>> Analogies are never exact representations of something else, they
>>> are similar but different. Just as a map is not the territory that
> it
>>> describes. A hologram is usually made out of glass. Our nervous
>>> system is made out of living stuff that is infinitely more complex.
>>>
>>> The notion of a holographic brain came about as a
>>> way of trying to understand why information in the brain is
>>> distributed in a way that is difficult to understand without the
>>> help of such an analogy or model. Look up Karl Pribram if you
>>> would like to learn more.
>>>
>>> don
>>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now! http://
> search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Sep 11 20:08:50 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Sep 12 21:01:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
Message-ID: <20060911.140853.1608.15.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Is it possible to see the _ad hominem_ as a smoke screen that is part of
tas, perhaps the primary tas defensive tactic, the primary way tas
defends
itself? (lay)
Ad Hominem is "an appeal to prejudice
[prejudgment]." It is a primary defensive tactic
of thought and the centuries prove that it
"works" quite well as a smoke screen.
Incidentally, a "flash" came this morning
that an inability to "hear' the "point" that the other is
attempting to make [other than an admitted lack of clarity where one
just needs to ask the other for "clarification"], coincides with
an inability to hear what one's self is saying. It's kind of like
that "Know Thyself" [that you may know others] wisdom in
reverse. A kind of "Hear thyself that ye may be able to
hear others" thing. (Speaking of Ad Hominem, any 'Dirty
Laundry' on Plato?; maybe there are some "old friends"
of Plato out there. Or maybe it wasn't even Plato who
said that and someone can show us how smart they are
by posting who really said it. Meanwhile, consideration
of "Know Thyself" gets "smoke screened" back into the
background).
Can we say that self awareness and other awareness
mirror each other?
And along with the dual faces of this 'non hearing' is its
primary feature - non awareness of non hearing, i.e., "hearing"
is presumed. And then the 'cherry' on the top of this
'dish' of penetration proof perfection, might be
a sprinkle of token uncertainty.
(So in awe of people who are "disarming"),
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Sep 11 20:30:57 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Sep 12 21:24:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] tunnel visioning
Message-ID: <20060911.143157.1608.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
A prime example of an 'individual' identity [tacking on a {limiting}
object to the "I am"], that we all share in a moment of conflict
with another, "I am Right." Anyone not recognize that one?
Maybe the words of the thought remain implicit, but it is
the feeling of the thought that can be easily recognized.
Anyone not see the "tunnel vision" quality of this identity?
pat
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Mon Sep 11 21:41:51 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Tue Sep 12 22:33:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695517C1@msw2k.msw.local>
I'll try. Thanks. D.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:05 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
Hi, Dorothy, I'm sorry, this was the only way i was able to send it - as
a web archive. You might be able to open it in your web browser by using
"open file" under the file pull-down menu. If not you can go to
www.metafilter,dot.com and scroll down until you find a post headed
"Savitri Devi Mukherji" then click on some of the links.
don
On 11 Sep 2006, at 14:33, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
> Could you send it another way? My computer won't let me pull it up.
> D.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:30 AM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
>
> Now here's someone with a real identity problem. Read the Savitri Devi
> Mukherji post from the attached Metafilter page/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 11 22:13:24 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 12 23:04:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] RE: Holo&graphic
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177E@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F237715F485111F07DF91FFA82A0@phx.gbl>
Dear Don,
No, not that I know of.
[Do you know 'more' than I do ;-? ]
P.S.: How about addressing the issue* {for a break}?
Reminder: Factor and awareness of "the whole system", etc etc
Applepie, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Well, at least you have apparently been able to accept the rest of
what I said.
don
_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Sep 11 22:33:23 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Sep 12 23:25:06 2006
Subject: Subject: Fwd: [Bohm_Dialogue] SSC and Acting and Pretending the
Separate Personal Identity
In-Reply-To: <20060911100002.D356E22A6A@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFF5697D22.ABCDC307-ON852571E6.0070A113-852571E6.0070EB8B@dialogos.com>
Rodger__ Amazing stuff, sorry to be so short of time! _R
.
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:40:03 +0100
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject:SSC and Acting and Pretending the Separate Personal Identity
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
"So what I am saying is that this apparent duality needs to be dissolved
and so far
I don't think we have found where the gap is that will let us do it."
don
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060911/c48d7c0f/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Sep 11 22:28:03 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Sep 12 23:25:07 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] intelligence
In-Reply-To: <20060911100002.D356E22A6A@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFA05DD791.4310DE89-ON852571E6.006BC6F8-852571E6.00706E92@dialogos.com>
Rodger__ No time now, I'll provide research files asap.
I agree Dorothy, I remember several recent neural studies from Britain
showing how the learning-abilities differ between boys and girls. Re:
schooling.
Beisides girls having their pre-puberty flood of synapse 2 years ahead of
the boys, making it possible for girls to verbally comprehend more, sooner
than boys of same age.
At that age,the girls greatest capacity for learning is in the areas of
brain designed for verbal-process; girls can focus attention on blackboard
text, teacher instruction, textbook learning -- without loosing their place
in their ongoing conversations with girlfriends in next row.
Boys on the other hand, once their pre-puberty synapse do kick-in have
greater capacity in the areas of brain designed for visual-process; boys
can process information if it comes with pictures.
Re: They tended to be much better at recalling events from comic books,
than recalling events from text books.
The above conclussions came with EEGs et al of how much of which parts of
the brain are used at that age by the two gender -generally. Anyway I
think whatever difference there may be between gender brain function, it is
incidental, and only significant when understood as a complementing of
mind._ R
.
.
From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
Subject: RE: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] intelligence
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
I understand that the assumption that men and women's brains process
information differently has no substance. There is more difference
among men and among women than between men and women. So happens I'm in
a course at University of Tennessee and what I'm finding is that
although there is a lot of good science there is a lot of bad. Seems as
if there has always been a social bias that has encouaged a finding that
women do some things more poorly than men and that they are more
inclined to nurture because of a biological difference. Seems there is
no objective evidence of that in the "good" science. D.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060911/0cf3688c/attachment.html