From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Wed Dec 12 00:24:52 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Wed Dec 12 00:29:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
In-Reply-To: <500691.48418.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W94793AFF470E7BD4B8979DC640@phx.gbl>
<500691.48418.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W587CA6A549E4D5EA73CF8DC640@phx.gbl>
tell me about 'we'?
-- Alan 'n' me
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:35:56 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Zero point two-five would not do, Rob? :--9
Alanrob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Penelope,sometimes this place is more thready than others, when some topic entrains attention. other times it's just smart arses riffing and tweets twattin' about. If I follow half of what gets said I start to become concerned.Rob
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:06:05 -0800From: pennyduby@yahoo.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Everything in one place? All new Windows Live! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/626928b5/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 01:36:47 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Wed Dec 12 01:41:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <281342.91413.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <B0543A06-78D2-4B96-8962-6969934D52CE@dc.rr.com>
<281342.91413.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712111636o6753ff32u23b4b39915d0ac06@mail.gmail.com>
I: Thanks for the sites, and the work. The role of will, intent,
motivation, and change in connection with plasticity and related to quantum
theory has caught my cerebral grooves. But atm, Papa Leopold Mozart is
awing me with his specially composed pieces - beginner's level - for his
daughter Nannerl which he also used with Leopold. He was a master teacher,
and understood cognition before "scientists" moved in with imaging and
theories. Despite the mythology around Wolfgang, without Papa, he wouldn't
have been nearly as great.
Let's talk more after my endorphins have calmed down over Papa M. and I've
read some of your references.
On Dec 11, 2007 2:40 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi I, since you are not really forthcoming with some dialogue on
> plasticity --- hope that is not a sign of your brain being brittle or such
> ;=*
> --- I did some homework:
> So what are we talking about:
> What has caught your cerebral grooves:
>
>
> Property of freshly mixed concrete, cement paste or mortar which
> determines its ease of molding or resistance to deformation.
> www.moxie-intl.com/glossary.htm
> Plasticity is the ability of an adult stem cell from one tissue to
> generate the specialized cell type (s) of another tissue.
> www.ebioinfogen.com/stem_gloss.htm<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://www.ebioinfogen.com/stem_gloss.htm&usg=AFQjCNEtSLRqzGXsNvgRReTVOE5vg3sUUg>
> the ability of the brain to change or adapt in response to experience
> www.fcs.uga.edu/ext/bbb/info/glossary.htm<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=1&oi=define&q=http://www.fcs.uga.edu/ext/bbb/info/glossary.htm&usg=AFQjCNEAGhg9alI_skvSc--TCkUXwKqiug>
> The properties of a material that allow it to be shaped and to retain its
> shape. The plastic properties of clay are principally determined by the size
> of the platelets. The smaller the platelets the more plastic the clay is.
> ...
> www.turnerpottery.com/glossary_of_ceramic_terms.htm<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://www.turnerpottery.com/glossary_of_ceramic_terms.htm&usg=AFQjCNEYmsvG3Dqu7xI0Kx0T109baT4svQ>
> ability of the brain to adapt to deficits and injury.
> www.weitzlux.com/traumaticbraininjury_672.html<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://www.weitzlux.com/traumaticbraininjury_672.html&usg=AFQjCNG49UQjHFpV_xgYeSHQ58X7sJKdxw>
> The ability of the brain to change through the formation or strengthening
> of connections between neurons in the brain.
> science-education.nih.gov/supplements/nih4/self/other/glossary.htm<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=4&oi=define&q=http://science-education.nih.gov/supplements/nih4/self/other/glossary.htm&usg=AFQjCNGL8LzNDd-W1Q1YAWgZIo0g4iZ4sA>
> The ability to be molded or shaped; in plastic fats, both solid crystals
> and liquid oil are present
> webexhibits.org/butter/glossary-pr.html<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=5&oi=define&q=http://webexhibits.org/butter/glossary-pr.html&usg=AFQjCNFBqsa3T6sVlu95zZhC8hCrYrN48Q>
> The ability of a cell to differentiate into a cell type beyond the tissue
> in which it normally resides.
> www.ssscr.org/glossary<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=6&oi=define&q=http://www.ssscr.org/glossary&usg=AFQjCNGqHOE0yCljyBiOz21UQsmQR7ivVw>
> The tendency of a material to remain deformed after reduction of the
> deforming stress to or below its yield stress.
> www.elastoproxy.com/pages/support/rubber_dictionary.aspx<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=7&oi=define&q=http://www.elastoproxy.com/pages/support/rubber_dictionary.aspx%3FLANG%3DEN-CA%26letter%3DP&usg=AFQjCNFvgh1-6sV5QR0VWqeFhbeSWpkQDA>
> It is adaptation of the nervous system to new connection patterns.
> www.backpain-guide.com/Glossary_Files/Glossary_Pages/Glossary_P.html<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=8&oi=define&q=http://www.backpain-guide.com/Glossary_Files/Glossary_Pages/Glossary_P.html&usg=AFQjCNGccCzhF8DaU93MIHJh-CkKyJ1CDw>
> The ability to retain a shape attained by pressure deformation.
> www.unistates.com/rmt/explained/glossary/rmtglossarypq.html<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=9&oi=define&q=http://www.unistates.com/rmt/explained/glossary/rmtglossarypq.html&usg=AFQjCNE1WuEEGCDgWponD27lBba8wcA45A>
> the property of being physically changeable and workable
> www.gradesaver.com/classicnotes/titles/drmoreau/terms.html<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=10&oi=define&q=http://www.gradesaver.com/classicnotes/titles/drmoreau/terms.html&usg=AFQjCNHq3qGuR3uU7R8wYWoSXicEFjMMnw>
> The property of a material enabling it to be shaped and to hold its form.
> www.zimmerworks.com/ceramics.htm<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=11&oi=define&q=http://www.zimmerworks.com/ceramics.htm&usg=AFQjCNGXmbnqUgL4I4jx4wBA1EEfVMNYUQ>
> Quality of a painting, sometimes referred to as plastic values, when the
> figures depicted appear to be exceptionally three dimensional.
> www.wildlifeart.com/glossery.html<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=12&oi=define&q=http://www.wildlifeart.com/glossery.html&usg=AFQjCNFq7Ejpzbf6swTBcvtLK-AunnYvYw>
> Long-term adaptive mechanism by which the nervous system restores or
> modifies itself toward normal levels of function.
> members.tripod.com/~cripkorner/glossary.html<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=13&oi=define&q=http://members.tripod.com/%7Ecripkorner/glossary.html&usg=AFQjCNFgYokwj5qr-plkoEnElVycpy_EAQ>
> The ability of an amorphus solid to flow or change shape
> www.mlms.logan.k12.ut.us/~mlowe/LAHStandard8-3.htm<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=14&oi=define&q=http://www.mlms.logan.k12.ut.us/%7Emlowe/LAHStandard8-3.htm&usg=AFQjCNGJxYxkiGXnzV4_TxRcuf2zCR0LCw>
> A 3D appearance provided in a painting or drawing.
> www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A779448<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=15&oi=define&q=http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A779448&usg=AFQjCNH4fwvQvYcW-iZE67hr2vTxvculBg>
> malleability: the property of being physically malleable; the property of
> something that can be worked or hammered or shaped without breaking
> wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=16&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dplasticity&usg=AFQjCNF-JJ7DcPxLCyz1GTZ9HFTXMLl7XQ>
> Neuroplasticity (variously referred to as brain plasticity or cortical
> plasticity) refers to the changes that occur in the organization of the
> brain, and in particular changes that occur to the location of specific
> information processing functions, as a result of the effect of experience
> during ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity (brain)<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=17&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity+%28brain%29&usg=AFQjCNGo0bID1T64vMPsrJgd9FLFCJRu5A>
> In physics and materials science, plasticity is a property of a material
> to undergo a non-reversible change of shape in response to an applied force.
> Plastic deformation occurs under shear stress, as opposed to brittle
> fractures which occur under normal stress. ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity (physics)<http://216.239.59.104/url?sa=X&start=18&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity+%28physics%29&usg=AFQjCNHndk-C7TcesXnolDtX5IFVlGKAoQ>
> <http://www.moxie-intl.com/glossary.htm>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> *donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
>
> And what's so wrong with flippant? Is serious really better? Can we only
> learn with our noses to the grindstone? I don't think so.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 11, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> I: If you're really interested, you can Google. The flippant remarks you
> make make me think it would be a waste of time.
>
> On Dec 11, 2007 12:08 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I you never have come around with telling us about it. I asked?
> > Remember? Is that plastic thing the latest fashion? '[--)
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
> > can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
> >
> > I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain
> > plasticity?
> >
> >
> > On Dec 11, 2007 9:59 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's over. True tired is true rest. They are inseparable.
> > > Whatever needed affirming is no longer there. It was never there.
> > > Not substantially. It was static. Static affirming static.
> > >
> > > Clarity is just that. Clarity.
> > > It's only edge is its flowing
> > > crystalline expression of itself
> > > about itself. It's expression
> > > is how it knows its beauty.
> > > It's expression *is * its beauty*.*
> > >
> > > Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
> > > can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
> > >
> > > -- funny
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <
> > > irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
> > >
> > > I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to do
> > > something about it, I share the following with you.
> > >
> > > I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain:
> > > Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD and
> > > Sharon Begley. I normally don't like psychiatrists et al, but I read their
> > > ideas so I won't be ignorant on the topics. This one has a couple of things
> > > I think are valuable. About him personally, he says that at 15, he was
> > > convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only mystery worth
> > > pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And amazingly, some of
> > > his writing reads like the 'excitation - inhibition' work we do in
> > > Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear chapter on The Quantum Brain, and has
> > > managed to explain 'observer & observed' so it makes sense to me. Actually,
> > > it's something I've always been aware of, and used. But the fancy words in
> > > books made it seem like something esoteric and unfamiliar.
> > >
> > > Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used
> > > variations of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to incorporate and
> > > add something to the TAS process.
> > >
> > > Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our
> > > 'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they arise
> > > and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's presence, then
> > > saying your own specific version of "that is a false message due to a jammed
> > > transmission in the brain". The author makes me laugh. He says "The
> > > brain's gonna do what the brain's gonna do, but you don't have to let it
> > > push you around." I agree.
> > >
> > > In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with "Every
> > > day in every way, I'm getting better and better." Affirmations are the core
> > > of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the lines "Now I walk in Beauty" have
> > > been passed down as 'poetry'.
> > >
> > > Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.
> > >
> > > (The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four
> > > corners.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation
> > > > - not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had
> > > > written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
> > > >
> > > > There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing.
> > > > For those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity
> > > > came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about
> > > > clarity - "getting to" clarity.
> > > >
> > > > The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
> > > > evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self) which
> > > > correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each level though
> > > > - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness is in the bodily
> > > > sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations of static. The
> > > > initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a static sensation
> > > > and a non satisfaction.
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are
> > > > the words that *I* say. The words that others say, are never
> > > > hurtful. They are music. But that's another story. So it is these "words
> > > > that *I* say" that interest me. I am really very tired of saying
> > > > words that are hurtful to me.
> > > >
> > > > It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even
> > > > remotely [seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image]
> > > > maintain confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered"
> > > > too. One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I
> > > > said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure" turns
> > > > to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
> > > >
> > > > But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity.
> > > > There is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no
> > > > defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom the
> > > > response is being written.
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily
> > > > a response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is its
> > > > own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if I
> > > > understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
> > > >
> > > > -- funny
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> > > >
> > > > Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of
> > > > course, where this is leading up to. (wm)
> > > >
> > > > Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative
> > > > for all of it though.
> > > >
> > > > -- funny
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
> > > > "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > > I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to
> > > > cope with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered"
> > > > suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word).
> > > > You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are
> > > > always suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore.
> > > > Usually the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a
> > > > response. This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to
> > > > hurt you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and
> > > > they want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are
> > > > always in suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there
> > > > is no reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing
> > > > because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there
> > > > is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be
> > > > regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. If
> > > > you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are
> > > > effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to
> > > > communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. The
> > > > point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is
> > > > invited.
> > > > So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not
> > > > actually your intention to deny communication. You are probably in
> > > > compassion mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to
> > > > touch you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending
> > > > suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having
> > > > touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of
> > > > course, where this is leading up to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *-------Original Message-------*
> > > >
> > > > *From:* ae.dropper@juno.com
> > > > *Date:* 07.12.2007 21:00:44
> > > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending -
> > > > was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
> > > >
> > > > But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
> > > >
> > > > There are times when I experience what you might be calling
> > > > "detachment" or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there
> > > > are many childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially
> > > > when I was in school.
> > > >
> > > > This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
> > > > comfortable; the other is not.
> > > > The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not
> > > > feeling like a participant.
> > > > How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as
> > > > saying something. Anything.
> > > > But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable
> > > > for its rarity. And there is a
> > > > preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort
> > > > but to just observe
> > > > what is going on beneath the discomfort.
> > > >
> > > > -- funny
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> > > > To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
> > > > 'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but
> > > > indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a
> > > > "something" that actually *does* the "detaching." This is possible
> > > > - this imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral
> > > > experience.
> > > >
> > > > I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
> > > >
> > > > -- funny
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
> > > > "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
> > > > Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint.
> > > > Yes, i think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed
> > > > that I need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of
> > > > the world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead
> > > > of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are
> > > > you coping with this?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *-------Original Message-------*
> > > >
> > > > *From:* ae.dropper@juno.com
> > > > *Date:* 06.12.2007 17:34:58
> > > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
> > > > Language,Map, and Email Identities
> > > >
> > > > "The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner
> > > > when he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be
> > > > ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which
> > > > may point to an *entirely fresh approach* to their material."
> > > > from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
> > > > This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared
> > > > plan " again and again.
> > > > The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more
> > > > of what the group
> > > > is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see
> > > > the "sacrifices"
> > > > [of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising
> > > > surprises. Or, one
> > > > could say that one is "* spending*" the satisfaction of the response
> > > > on what further
> > > > "*suspending*" might yield in terms of an even more surprising
> > > > response.
> > > >
> > > > Simple suspension alone though has yielded
> > > > surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
> > > > [the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
> > > > interested in "suspension."
> > > > Not recommending; just reporting.
> > > > -- funny
> > > >
> > > > >"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
> > > > "suspension" are
> > > > >appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its
> > > > appeal. The fruits of
> > > > >suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what
> > > > is read or heard] are
> > > > >that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very
> > > > satisfying to respond
> > > > >with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to
> > > > be able to do this
> > > > >because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very
> > > > long story short, with
> > > > >each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
> > > > >Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
> > > > investment'. This is the
> > > > >logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple
> > > > proposal of "suspension'.
> > > > >Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
> > > > yourself responding with
> > > > >things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not
> > > > fun. And there is no
> > > > >rush for the "completion."
> > > > >-- funny
> > > >
> > > > Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
> > > > "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
> > > > could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
> > > > some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
> > > > there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
> > > > nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
> > > > please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/4bfd4149/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 01:38:55 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Wed Dec 12 01:43:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <B0543A06-78D2-4B96-8962-6969934D52CE@dc.rr.com>
References: <c47283890712110754k1d83f2e9xe5a944224349c1d6@mail.gmail.com>
<153310.21228.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<c47283890712111010g1e6acdadl2e783ac085c2b79f@mail.gmail.com>
<B0543A06-78D2-4B96-8962-6969934D52CE@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712111638h71f4e845x5c998301bfb1fea9@mail.gmail.com>
I: Do you really find learning so painful? That's too bad. I don't.
On Dec 11, 2007 1:23 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> And what's so wrong with flippant? Is serious really better? Can we only
> learn with our noses to the grindstone?I don't think so.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 11, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> I: If you're really interested, you can Google. The flippant remarks you
> make make me think it would be a waste of time.
>
> On Dec 11, 2007 12:08 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I you never have come around with telling us about it. I asked?
> > Remember? Is that plastic thing the latest fashion? '[--)
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
> > can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
> >
> > I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain
> > plasticity?
> >
> >
> > On Dec 11, 2007 9:59 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's over. True tired is true rest. They are inseparable.
> > > Whatever needed affirming is no longer there. It was never there.
> > > Not substantially. It was static. Static affirming static.
> > >
> > > Clarity is just that. Clarity.
> > > It's only edge is its flowing
> > > crystalline expression of itself
> > > about itself. It's expression
> > > is how it knows its beauty.
> > > It's expression *is * its beauty*.*
> > >
> > > Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
> > > can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
> > >
> > > -- funny
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <
> > > irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
> > >
> > > I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to do
> > > something about it, I share the following with you.
> > >
> > > I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain:
> > > Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD and
> > > Sharon Begley. I normally don't like psychiatrists et al, but I read their
> > > ideas so I won't be ignorant on the topics. This one has a couple of things
> > > I think are valuable. About him personally, he says that at 15, he was
> > > convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only mystery worth
> > > pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And amazingly, some of
> > > his writing reads like the 'excitation - inhibition' work we do in
> > > Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear chapter on The Quantum Brain, and has
> > > managed to explain 'observer & observed' so it makes sense to me. Actually,
> > > it's something I've always been aware of, and used. But the fancy words in
> > > books made it seem like something esoteric and unfamiliar.
> > >
> > > Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used
> > > variations of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to incorporate and
> > > add something to the TAS process.
> > >
> > > Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our
> > > 'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they arise
> > > and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's presence, then
> > > saying your own specific version of "that is a false message due to a jammed
> > > transmission in the brain". The author makes me laugh. He says "The
> > > brain's gonna do what the brain's gonna do, but you don't have to let it
> > > push you around." I agree.
> > >
> > > In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with "Every
> > > day in every way, I'm getting better and better." Affirmations are the core
> > > of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the lines "Now I walk in Beauty" have
> > > been passed down as 'poetry'.
> > >
> > > Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.
> > >
> > > (The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four
> > > corners.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation
> > > > - not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had
> > > > written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
> > > >
> > > > There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing.
> > > > For those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity
> > > > came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about
> > > > clarity - "getting to" clarity.
> > > >
> > > > The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
> > > > evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self) which
> > > > correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each level though
> > > > - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness is in the bodily
> > > > sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations of static. The
> > > > initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a static sensation
> > > > and a non satisfaction.
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are
> > > > the words that *I* say. The words that others say, are never
> > > > hurtful. They are music. But that's another story. So it is these "words
> > > > that *I* say" that interest me. I am really very tired of saying
> > > > words that are hurtful to me.
> > > >
> > > > It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even
> > > > remotely [seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image]
> > > > maintain confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered"
> > > > too. One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I
> > > > said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure" turns
> > > > to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
> > > >
> > > > But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity.
> > > > There is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no
> > > > defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom the
> > > > response is being written.
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily
> > > > a response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is its
> > > > own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if I
> > > > understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
> > > >
> > > > -- funny
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> > > >
> > > > Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of
> > > > course, where this is leading up to. (wm)
> > > >
> > > > Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative
> > > > for all of it though.
> > > >
> > > > -- funny
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
> > > > "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > > I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to
> > > > cope with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered"
> > > > suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word).
> > > > You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are
> > > > always suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore.
> > > > Usually the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a
> > > > response. This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to
> > > > hurt you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and
> > > > they want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are
> > > > always in suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there
> > > > is no reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing
> > > > because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there
> > > > is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be
> > > > regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. If
> > > > you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are
> > > > effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to
> > > > communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. The
> > > > point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is
> > > > invited.
> > > > So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not
> > > > actually your intention to deny communication. You are probably in
> > > > compassion mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to
> > > > touch you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending
> > > > suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having
> > > > touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of
> > > > course, where this is leading up to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *-------Original Message-------*
> > > >
> > > > *From:* ae.dropper@juno.com
> > > > *Date:* 07.12.2007 21:00:44
> > > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending -
> > > > was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
> > > >
> > > > But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
> > > >
> > > > There are times when I experience what you might be calling
> > > > "detachment" or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there
> > > > are many childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially
> > > > when I was in school.
> > > >
> > > > This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
> > > > comfortable; the other is not.
> > > > The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not
> > > > feeling like a participant.
> > > > How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as
> > > > saying something. Anything.
> > > > But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable
> > > > for its rarity. And there is a
> > > > preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort
> > > > but to just observe
> > > > what is going on beneath the discomfort.
> > > >
> > > > -- funny
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> > > > To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
> > > > 'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but
> > > > indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a
> > > > "something" that actually *does* the "detaching." This is possible
> > > > - this imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral
> > > > experience.
> > > >
> > > > I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
> > > >
> > > > -- funny
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
> > > > "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
> > > > Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint.
> > > > Yes, i think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed
> > > > that I need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of
> > > > the world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead
> > > > of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are
> > > > you coping with this?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *-------Original Message-------*
> > > >
> > > > *From:* ae.dropper@juno.com
> > > > *Date:* 06.12.2007 17:34:58
> > > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
> > > > Language,Map, and Email Identities
> > > >
> > > > "The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner
> > > > when he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be
> > > > ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which
> > > > may point to an *entirely fresh approach* to their material."
> > > > from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
> > > > This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared
> > > > plan " again and again.
> > > > The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more
> > > > of what the group
> > > > is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see
> > > > the "sacrifices"
> > > > [of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising
> > > > surprises. Or, one
> > > > could say that one is "* spending*" the satisfaction of the response
> > > > on what further
> > > > "*suspending*" might yield in terms of an even more surprising
> > > > response.
> > > >
> > > > Simple suspension alone though has yielded
> > > > surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
> > > > [the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
> > > > interested in "suspension."
> > > > Not recommending; just reporting.
> > > > -- funny
> > > >
> > > > >"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
> > > > "suspension" are
> > > > >appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its
> > > > appeal. The fruits of
> > > > >suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what
> > > > is read or heard] are
> > > > >that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very
> > > > satisfying to respond
> > > > >with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to
> > > > be able to do this
> > > > >because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very
> > > > long story short, with
> > > > >each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
> > > > >Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
> > > > investment'. This is the
> > > > >logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple
> > > > proposal of "suspension'.
> > > > >Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
> > > > yourself responding with
> > > > >things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not
> > > > fun. And there is no
> > > > >rush for the "completion."
> > > > >-- funny
> > > >
> > > > Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
> > > > "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
> > > > could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
> > > > some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
> > > > there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
> > > > nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
> > > > please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/5fd5a372/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Wed Dec 12 02:04:26 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Dec 12 02:09:20 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712111638h71f4e845x5c998301bfb1fea9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c47283890712110754k1d83f2e9xe5a944224349c1d6@mail.gmail.com>
<153310.21228.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<c47283890712111010g1e6acdadl2e783ac085c2b79f@mail.gmail.com>
<B0543A06-78D2-4B96-8962-6969934D52CE@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712111638h71f4e845x5c998301bfb1fea9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54CF85FD-7162-4AFC-8CCB-952532BBE943@dc.rr.com>
Not at all. I was beginning to think that you did
don
On Dec 11, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> I: Do you really find learning so painful? That's too bad. I don't.
>
> On Dec 11, 2007 1:23 PM, donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> And what's so wrong with flippant? Is serious really better? Can we
> only learn with our noses to the grindstone?
> I don't think so.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 11, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
>> I: If you're really interested, you can Google. The flippant
>> remarks you make make me think it would be a waste of time.
>>
>> On Dec 11, 2007 12:08 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> I you never have come around with telling us about it. I asked?
>> Remember? Is that plastic thing the latest fashion? '[--)
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
>> can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
>>
>> I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of
>> brain plasticity?
>>
>>
>> On Dec 11, 2007 9:59 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>> It's over. True tired is true rest. They are inseparable.
>> Whatever needed affirming is no longer there. It was never there.
>> Not substantially. It was static. Static affirming static.
>>
>> Clarity is just that. Clarity.
>> It's only edge is its flowing
>> crystalline expression of itself
>> about itself. It's expression
>> is how it knows its beauty.
>> It's expression is its beauty.
>>
>> Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
>> can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
>>
>> -- funny
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <
>> irenedarcy@gmail.com > writes:
>> I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
>>
>> I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to
>> do something about it, I share the following with you.
>>
>> I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain:
>> Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M.
>> Schwartz, MD and Sharon Begley. I normally don't like
>> psychiatrists et al, but I read their ideas so I won't be ignorant
>> on the topics. This one has a couple of things I think are
>> valuable. About him personally, he says that at 15, he was
>> convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only mystery
>> worth pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And
>> amazingly, some of his writing reads like the 'excitation -
>> inhibition' work we do in Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear
>> chapter on The Quantum Brain, and has managed to explain 'observer
>> & observed' so it makes sense to me. Actually, it's something
>> I've always been aware of, and used. But the fancy words in books
>> made it seem like something esoteric and unfamiliar.
>>
>> Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used
>> variations of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to
>> incorporate and add something to the TAS process.
>>
>> Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our
>> 'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as
>> they arise and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the
>> thought's presence, then saying your own specific version of "that
>> is a false message due to a jammed transmission in the brain".
>> The author makes me laugh. He says "The brain's gonna do what the
>> brain's gonna do, but you don't have to let it push you around."
>> I agree.
>>
>> In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with
>> "Every day in every way, I'm getting better and better."
>> Affirmations are the core of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the
>> lines "Now I walk in Beauty" have been passed down as 'poetry'.
>>
>> Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.
>>
>> (The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four
>> corners.)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>> Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation
>> - not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene
>> had written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
>>
>> There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing.
>> For those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before
>> the clarity came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5).
>> And it's all about clarity - "getting to" clarity.
>>
>> The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
>> evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about
>> self) which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety
>> at each level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness.
>> The obviousness is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of
>> clarity - like sensations of static. The initial satisfying
>> feelings in the response evolve into a static sensation and a non
>> satisfaction.
>>
>> Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are
>> the words that I say. The words that others say, are never
>> hurtful. They are music. But that's another story. So it is these
>> "words that I say" that interest me. I am really very tired of
>> saying words that are hurtful to me.
>>
>> It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even
>> remotely [seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world
>> image] maintain confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
>>
>> Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered"
>> too. One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND,
>> initially (as I said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable.
>> Then the "pleasure" turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing
>> just FLOPS, upon suspension.
>>
>> But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity.
>> There is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These
>> is no defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or
>> group to whom the response is being written.
>>
>> Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is
>> primarily a response from me to me - sort of "written on the
>> wind." And that it is its own reward and complete satisfaction. It
>> is perhaps like a quanta (if I understand such - complete in
>> itself, a little piece of wholeness).
>>
>> -- funny
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
>> Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of
>> course, where this is leading up to. (wm)
>>
>> Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading.
>> Appreciative for all of it though.
>>
>> -- funny
>>
>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>> "william" < w@david-bohm.net> writes:
>> I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to
>> cope with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call
>> "layered" suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for
>> lack of a better word). You see, at some point it starts getting a
>> bit anti-social. When you are always suspending, people are not
>> getting their expected responses anymore. Usually the reason for
>> someone to say something or do something is to get a response.
>> This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to
>> hurt you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or
>> angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have touched you.
>> Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted hurt
>> doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first
>> glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents
>> the situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect
>> to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a
>> form of communication; they are trying to say something. If you
>> don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you
>> are effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be
>> willing to communicate on a different level but that channel is
>> not open both ways. The point is, you are denying communication on
>> the channel on which it is invited.
>> So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not
>> actually your intention to deny communication. You are probably in
>> compassion mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever
>> wants to touch you. Have you reached a point where you would
>> consider suspending suspension, out of compassion, and give the
>> person the feeling of having touched you? Would you like to
>> comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is
>> leading up to.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------Original Message-------
>>
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending -
>> was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
>>
>> But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
>>
>> There are times when I experience what you might be calling
>> "detachment" or something I might legitimately call "detachment."
>> And there are many childhood memories of something I can call
>> "detachment," especially when I was in school.
>>
>> This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
>> comfortable; the other is not.
>> The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or
>> not feeling like a participant.
>> How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as
>> saying something. Anything.
>> But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable
>> for its rarity. And there is a
>> preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort
>> but to just observe
>> what is going on beneath the discomfort.
>>
>> -- funny
>>
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
>> To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
>> 'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally
>> all but indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires
>> imagining a "something" that actually does the "detaching." This
>> is possible - this imagining. But it is clearly an isolated
>> imagining and not a visceral experience.
>>
>> I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
>>
>> -- funny
>>
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit)
>> "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
>> Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint.
>> Yes, i think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also
>> noticed that I need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached
>> from the rest of the world, like preferring to quietly watch the
>> game from a distance instead of playing it. Is this tendency also
>> the case with you, and if so how are you coping with this?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------Original Message-------
>>
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
>> Language,Map, and Email Identities
>>
>> "The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner
>> when he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly
>> and then be ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of
>> circumstances which may point to an entirely fresh approach to
>> their material."
>> from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
>> This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared
>> plan " again and again.
>> The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on
>> more of what the group
>> is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to
>> see the "sacrifices"
>> [of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising
>> surprises. Or, one
>> could say that one is " spending" the satisfaction of the response
>> on what further
>> "suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising
>> response.
>>
>> Simple suspension alone though has yielded
>> surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
>> [the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
>> interested in "suspension."
>> Not recommending; just reporting.
>> -- funny
>>
>> >"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
>> "suspension" are
>> >appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its
>> appeal. The fruits of
>> >suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what
>> is read or heard] are
>> >that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very
>> satisfying to respond
>> >with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile
>> to be able to do this
>> >because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested."
>> Very long story short, with
>> >each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>> >Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
>> investment'. This is the
>> >logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple
>> proposal of "suspension'.
>> >Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
>> yourself responding with
>> >things you have never heard of before. So the process is never
>> not fun. And there is no
>> >rush for the "completion."
>> >-- funny
>>
>> Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am
>> sorry "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or
>> demented. Or could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an
>> unrecognized artist, or some brilliant genious ahead of his time,
>> or what else could this be? Is there anyway this could be
>> understood as something other than sheer nonsense? Or if you are
>> talking from some higher intelligence could you please come down
>> and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/8a102b8f/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 12 02:16:02 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Wed Dec 12 02:20:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712111636o6753ff32u23b4b39915d0ac06@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <284269.93078.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Thanks for the sites, and the work. The role of will, intent, motivation, and change in connection with plasticity and related to quantum theory has caught my cerebral grooves. But atm, Papa
Hi I, tas is funny, is she not. Every time you stick your head in a new book it is all-of-a-sudden a whole new world out there. Did I say world? Make it a universe :;:;:-----)0)
Alan
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/28597e20/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 12 02:21:08 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Wed Dec 12 02:26:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Message-ID: <338225.31964.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Resend. Maybe the server is not --getting into-- "them" ;-) ?
Alan
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Next we could get some into "them" ;-\
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } tell me about 'we'?
-- Alan 'n' me
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:35:56 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Zero point two-five would not do, Rob? :--9
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} Hi Penelope,
sometimes this place is more thready than others, when some topic entrains attention. other times it's just smart arses riffing and tweets twattin' about. If I follow half of what gets said I start to become concerned.
Rob
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:06:05 -0800
From: pennyduby@yahoo.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Everything in one place
All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/a78096c3/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 03:05:17 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Wed Dec 12 03:10:10 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
In-Reply-To: <691927.13441.qm@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <691927.13441.qm@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712111805l4838fda9ke97abaf62fc76c6c@mail.gmail.com>
I: Hello Penny, I mean Penelope. I did a double take this morning when I
saw your name because I have a friend here in NYC also named Penelope who
has had considerable experience with BD. For a moment, I thought she had
joined.
What did your political discussion say about BD? What kind of information
do you want? It's not always this difficult to follow a thread. Maybe go
to the archives and read - match subject with content. At least for the
past six months or so. You could start a thread here, and see what happens.
My name is Irene, that is my subscriber name. My birth certificate name is
Kathryn. One dialoguer humorously made it Kathirene.
If you're in or near NYC, let me know. We can meet for coffee.
On Dec 11, 2007 7:06 AM, Penelope Duby <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online
> conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The
> comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a
> thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or
> website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political
> discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't
> manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help.
> Penelope Duby
>
>
> "There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing
> them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden
> turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that
> moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading
> who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of
> losing forever everything that is familiar."
> Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/42089c52/attachment.html
From facilitator at david-bohm.net Wed Dec 12 03:59:06 2007
From: facilitator at david-bohm.net (facilitator)
Date: Wed Dec 12 04:04:00 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: evolution and funniness
References: <F344D29D-F949-4030-AFF3-C9F0098314F9@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7E368F6D-8123-4212-9C29-79D4469F28D9@david-bohm.net>
Don't know how this ended up on the administrator account.
Strange days.
don
Begin forwarded message:
> From: donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
> Date: December 11, 2007 5:09:22 PM PST
> To: bohm_dialogue-owner@david-bohm.org
> Subject: evolution and funniness
>
> This link
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution
>
> Seems to say that all is not lost, all we need to do is hang out a
> little while longer
> and evolution might take care of the whole mess.
>
> Don't worry be happy
>
> don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/c9029bf2/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 12 04:12:35 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Wed Dec 12 05:00:50 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: evolution and funniness
In-Reply-To: <7E368F6D-8123-4212-9C29-79D4469F28D9@david-bohm.net>
Message-ID: <660275.21287.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
If I had to put my life-savings on a dog in this race, it would still be global-warming, Don ''',,,:::
Alan
facilitator <facilitator@david-bohm.net> wrote:
Don't know how this ended up on the administrator account. Strange days.
don
Begin forwarded message:
From: donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
Date: December 11, 2007 5:09:22 PM PST
To: bohm_dialogue-owner@david-bohm.org
Subject: evolution and funniness
This link
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution
Seems to say that all is not lost, all we need to do is hang out a little while longer
and evolution might take care of the whole mess.
Don't worry be happy
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071211/b9413190/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Wed Dec 12 11:08:19 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Wed Dec 12 11:13:15 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
In-Reply-To: <691927.13441.qm@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <418891.98507.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Penelope Duby. We have with thought set forth a law of causality, the determining principle of which is set above all the conditions of the sensible world; we have it conceived how the will, as belonging to the intelligible world, is determinable, and therefore we have its subject, which is us, not merely conceived as belonging to a world of pure understanding, and in this respect unknown, which the critique of speculative reason enabled us to do, but also defined as regards his casuality by means of a law which cannot be reduced to any physical law of the sensible world; and therefore our knowledge is extended beyond the limits of that world - a pretension which the critique of the hope of meaning, life, declared to be futile in all speculation. AL
Penelope Duby <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote: Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/f919581b/attachment-0001.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Wed Dec 12 16:01:50 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Wed Dec 12 16:06:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
In-Reply-To: <418891.98507.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <358014.53345.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Jesus Christ Alfred, what are you talking about?? You haven't been doing a bit too much of that magic powder S of late, have you? Okay, back to reading some O tone Bohm. This Amazon produced on dialogue yesterday at our foot-steps. Hope not to many had to die for it. ;\/
Alan
Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Penelope Duby. We have with thought set forth a law of causality, the determining principle of which is set above all the conditions of the sensible world; we have it conceived how the will, as belonging to the intelligible world, is determinable, and therefore we have its subject, which is us, not merely conceived as belonging to a world of pure understanding, and in this respect unknown, which the critique of speculative reason enabled us to do, but also defined as regards his casuality by means of a law which cannot be reduced to any physical law of the sensible world; and therefore our knowledge is extended beyond the limits of that world - a pretension which the critique of the hope of meaning, life, declared to be futile in all speculation. AL
Penelope Duby <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote: Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/1d2d0061/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 12 19:44:43 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:49:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Message-ID: <20071212.134822.2428.374.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Funny, pregnant question. Got any fitting answers, too }+o
Alan
Very nice. And good "timing" work. And reminiscent of earlier
"pregnancies."
There's always "something more and something different" - in everything.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:57:31 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's all improv comedy. Just read carefully. You still won't catch them
all but let "this one" pass or you will miss the "next five." Explaining
works
sometimes but not very often and not really, and only when timing remains
the priority.
Timing is everything. And keep enough of the context to conveniently
reread. LOTS can get missed in the first reading and even in the first
few readings. And like they say about Driving in Massachusetts -
Understanding is not a right; it is a privilege. But why am I telling you
all of this.
Funny, pregnant question. Got any fitting answers, too }+o
Alan
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/266cb120/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 12 19:46:53 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:49:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
Message-ID: <20071212.134822.2428.376.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Two years from now there will be a terrible sponge shortage.
And people who have had surgery will be "mined" for sponges.
Those who have had many surgeries will be either wealthy
or in great danger, depending on their luck. Sponge "donation"
centers will open up in the back room of every dunkin donuts
and White Castle shop. Yes, White Castle is coming back.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:19:12 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Hey funny. I not kidding. You must be God. That was news from a few days
back. I sure will go nowhere. This is fun funny. Tell us more about the
future. Funny you rule.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I know. I gave you that information myself 3 or 4 years ago.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:33:31 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman
<landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Ae.Dropper. Every year, in the United States about 1,500 people have
surgical objects accidentally left inside them after surgery, according
to medical studies. About two-thirds of the surgical objects left behind
are sponges. AL
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Then there was that lunch with Germaine Greer.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:19:10 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
It actually refers to something I wrote mentioning Dennis Hopper, an old
friend.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
The what, "hopper"? And where does that one come in here now? More
scrolling to do for me? O-boy --gender!--, this list is a wild ride.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's [the question] is in "the hopper." It seems a stretch but that's
not new. Connections LOVE to make themselves.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Almost time for eggs and ham. That's for certain. But does that count,
too, Funny?
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"We can seldom go erect. Almost every man we meet requires some civility,
requires to be humored; -- he has some fame, some talent, some whim of
religion or philanthropy in his head that is not to be questioned, and so
spoils all conversation with him." -- Emerson
"Almost"
It's always the "almost" that promises faithfully the
alternative that delivers the tiniest exception that changes
e v e r y t h i n g.
-- funny
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/39b911e8/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 12 19:48:04 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:49:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The Strata-gistic Suspension of evermore subtle
defensive responses - was "Layered Suspension"
Message-ID: <20071212.134822.2428.377.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Layered suspension? Like a brick-wall? (alan)
Yes. Great metaphor. But it's not meant in the sense of building the wall
but of removing the wall. And it's done layer by layer. And the bricks
are made of gold. Very attractive. But fools gold. So the suspension is a
kind of unlayering rather than a layering.
But I need a whole new word. "Layering" is not precise. "Strata?"
Strategic Suspension? I'll call it the "Strategic Suspension" of
defensive responses. Or the "Strategic Suspension" of ever more subtle
defensive responses. Or "the Strategic Suspension of ever more subtle
defensive responses, to the point of clarity." Or maybe I'll call it
Stratagesic. Strata-gesic Suspension. Strata-gistic Suspension? No.
Yes. The Strata-gistic Suspension of ever more subtle defensive
responses. Yes.
The Strata-gistic Suspension of ever more subtle defensive responses, to
the point of clarity.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:25:43 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Funny, sometimes in, sometimes out.
Layered suspension? Like a brick-wall?
But you are right, it is hard for you to get through ||=]]
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Is it those animals outdoors by any chance?
Incidentally - a clue about "chewing" me . . . . I always say the same
thing.
At least for months at a time. It's currently all about this "layered
suspension."
The languaging and the experiencing are equal partners. It's like the
soma and
the significance. Or the implicate and the explicate. One turns into the
other -
is the other. There is a "dialogue" occurring between the 'two'.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:02:39 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
This I will chew on some, later, another steak. I sense you require a lot
of chewing funny. But I love bloody raw stuff. Mom says I eat too much
red meat. But Mom was wrong before.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"Getting even" is fun for awhile. Even a long while. But the thrill
is always the same thrill - and it's too easy. Suspiciously so. And the
thrill is not
clarity. It's a pain/pleasure thing. And the pleasure is not clarity. And
the clarity is
just a question of suspending the thrilling response long enough for it
to fall and flop
open. And then the next one. And maybe the next. The "clarity" is nothing
if not clear.
It is unmistakably itself. And clarity is way way beyond "even." And
"even" remains an
option. But it's too easy. The opponent is minor league. (How's that for
an example?)
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:47:06 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
writes:
"Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
I recognise this. the observation releases them from your expectations of
them and then you can release yourself from your own expectation. then
you are detached enough to get even (just kidding)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:18:10 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sounds like straight from some Self-help-book. Who's the author? You like
that kind of stuff, don't you, funny.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
"Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
Marcus Aurelius
Such a bohm - like quote [not that such is uncommon in perennial wisdom
literature]
that I ran the author down the page a bit for effect.
-- funny
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:48 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:10 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Not sure who you are quoting here... (df)
check the original
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/4607efd7/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 12 19:41:58 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:49:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
Message-ID: <20071212.134822.2428.370.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed? (funny)
I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain
plasticity?
More interesting than the stuff about clarity.
Something that is understood after its having been so
elusive for so long catches my interest in terms of how it might
be newly worded
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:54:50 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain
plasticity?
On Dec 11, 2007 9:59 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
It's over. True tired is true rest. They are inseparable.
Whatever needed affirming is no longer there. It was never there.
Not substantially. It was static. Static affirming static.
Clarity is just that. Clarity.
It's only edge is its flowing
crystalline expression of itself
about itself. It's expression
is how it knows its beauty.
It's expression is its beauty.
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to do
something about it, I share the following with you.
I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain:
Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD
and Sharon Begley. I normally don't like psychiatrists et al, but I read
their ideas so I won't be ignorant on the topics. This one has a couple
of things I think are valuable. About him personally, he says that at
15, he was convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only
mystery worth pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And
amazingly, some of his writing reads like the 'excitation - inhibition'
work we do in Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear chapter on The
Quantum Brain, and has managed to explain 'observer & observed' so it
makes sense to me. Actually, it's something I've always been aware of,
and used. But the fancy words in books made it seem like something
esoteric and unfamiliar.
Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used variations
of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to incorporate and add
something to the TAS process.
Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our
'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they arise
and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's presence,
then saying your own specific version of "that is a false message due to
a jammed transmission in the brain". The author makes me laugh. He says
"The brain's gonna do what the brain's gonna do, but you don't have to
let it push you around." I agree.
In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with "Every day
in every way, I'm getting better and better." Affirmations are the core
of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the lines "Now I walk in Beauty"
have been passed down as 'poetry'.
Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.
(The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four
corners.)
On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not
a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written:
"How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For
those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity
came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about
clarity - "getting to" clarity.
The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self)
which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each
level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness
is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations
of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a
static sensation and a non satisfaction.
Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the
words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are
music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that I say" that
interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to
me.
It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely
[seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain
confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too.
One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I
said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure"
turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There
is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no
defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom
the response is being written.
Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily a
response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is
its own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if
I understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course,
where this is leading up to. (wm)
Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative for
all of it though.
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope
with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered"
suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better
word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When
you are always suspending, people are not getting their expected
responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to say something or do
something is to get a response. This is also the case when someone utters
an insult, or attempt to hurt you: they usually do this because they are
disappointed or angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have
touched you. Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted
hurt doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first
glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the
situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this,
which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a form of
communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't respond,
don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are effectively refusing
to communicate on this level. You may be willing to communicate on a
different level but that channel is not open both ways. The point is, you
are denying communication on the channel on which it is invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually
your intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion
mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch
you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending
suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having
touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize,
of course, where this is leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment"
or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many
childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when
I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not
feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying
something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for
its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to
just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but
indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a
"something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this
imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral
experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i
think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I
need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the
world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead
of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are
you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when
he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be
ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances
which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of
what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
"sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises.
Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what
further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
"suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal.
The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is
read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be
able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
"suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun.
And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
"funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/af3a8c49/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 12 19:48:14 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:49:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Message-ID: <20071212.134822.2428.378.ae.dropper@juno.com>
That's a relief. At least Kant is easier to read than De Mare.
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:08:19 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman
<landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Penelope Duby. We have with thought set forth a law of causality, the
determining principle of which is set above all the conditions of the
sensible world; we have it conceived how the will, as belonging to the
intelligible world, is determinable, and therefore we have its subject,
which is us, not merely conceived as belonging to a world of pure
understanding, and in this respect unknown, which the critique of
speculative reason enabled us to do, but also defined as regards his
casuality by means of a law which cannot be reduced to any physical law
of the sensible world; and therefore our knowledge is extended beyond the
limits of that world - a pretension which the critique of the hope of
meaning, life, declared to be futile in all speculation. AL
Penelope Duby <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online
conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing?
The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and
follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting
service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a
political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue,
but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for
your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams;
believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by
some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it.
For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along
a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new
challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/6d4c287f/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 12 19:46:20 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:49:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Message-ID: <20071212.134822.2428.375.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Truth is not in thought. It is not to be found in the memory;
in past/future. Thought tells us differently. Thought tells us that it is
the truth. But it is not. It can be an expression of
the truth, but it is not the truth.
Thought is an abstraction from the truth [from what is]. The content
of the abstraction is of the content of the beliefs and assumptions,
explicit
and implicit. Only accidently and rarely does the content of thought AS
truth
"apply" to immediate circumstance.
Thought though, as an expression of truth [in its service] always
applies,
but never beyond the immediate circumstance. This is because it is OF the
immediate circumstance. And the "immediacy" of circumstance is in its
lack of
limitation.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:59:59 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
All fiction. All? Good Lord Funny <=))
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
They already have. All of them. All fiction. And it's a gift that keeps
on giving. Endless hilarity.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:08:57 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Funny! Just imagine, all or big chunks of what you come to think in your
life will in the end turn out not so. Hilarious!!
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
'Everything existing "is already disintegrating and changing...
everything is by nature made but to die." -- DF quoting Aurelius.
Good find. I'm always on the lookout for different ways of
saying "the continuous and simultaneous unfolding/enfolding."
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:00:22 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Ah, way down. Thanks. So it was a kind of early self help book, wasn't
it? Except they are the words of an emperor sitting on his thrown
conducting one of many wars. He also wrote: 'Everything existing "is
already disintegrating and changing... everything is by nature made but
to die."
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:34 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Who's the author? (Alan)
Is this a "guy thing?"
-- funny
p.s. scroll
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:18:10 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Sounds like straight from some Self-help-book. Who's the author? You like
that kind of stuff, don't you, funny.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
"Observe how much more pain is brought on by your anger
and frustration over their actions, than by the actions themselves."
Marcus Aurelius
Such a bohm - like quote [not that such is uncommon in perennial wisdom
literature]
that I ran the author down the page a bit for effect.
-- funny
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:48 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:10 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Not sure who you are quoting here... (df)
check the original
Can you point me to the original? I can't find it.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/cae9b148/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 12 19:41:28 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:49:46 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Message-ID: <20071212.134822.2428.369.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I died for it. But what's one funny tree among so many.
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:01:50 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Jesus Christ Alfred, what are you talking about?? You haven't been doing
a bit too much of that magic powder S of late, have you? Okay, back to
reading some O tone Bohm. This Amazon produced on dialogue yesterday at
our foot-steps. Hope not to many had to die for it. ;\/
Alan
Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Penelope Duby. We have with thought set forth a law of causality, the
determining principle of which is set above all the conditions of the
sensible world; we have it conceived how the will, as belonging to the
intelligible world, is determinable, and therefore we have its subject,
which is us, not merely conceived as belonging to a world of pure
understanding, and in this respect unknown, which the critique of
speculative reason enabled us to do, but also defined as regards his
casuality by means of a law which cannot be reduced to any physical law
of the sensible world; and therefore our knowledge is extended beyond the
limits of that world - a pretension which the critique of the hope of
meaning, life, declared to be futile in all speculation. AL
Penelope Duby <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online
conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing?
The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and
follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting
service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a
political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue,
but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for
your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams;
believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by
some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it.
For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along
a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new
challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/479bf937/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 12 19:42:40 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:49:48 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Message-ID: <20071212.134822.2428.372.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Alas, the Times did not tell the poet to not take wine with fruit.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:26:54 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Good morning list, and welcome Penlope! I thought I would send this
little poem before I go out and help Mom feed the animals. How is
everybody this fine morning? Later,
Alan
I had thought the tumors
on my spine would kill me but
the tumors on my head seem to be
extraordinary competitive this week.
For the past twenty or thirty years
I have eaten the freshest most
organic and colorful fruits and
vegetables I did not drink I
did drink one small glass of red
wine with dinner nearly every day
as suggested by The New York Times
I should have taken longer walks but
obviously I have done something wrong
I don't mean morally or ethically or
geographically I did not live near
a nuclear graveyard or under a coal
stack nor did I allow my children
to do so I lived in a city no worse
than any other great and famous city I
lived one story above a street that led
cabs and ambulances to the local hospital
that didn't seem so bad and was
often convenient
In any event I am
already old and therefore a little ashamed
to have written this poem full
of complaints against mortality which
biological fact I have been constructed for
to hand on to my children and grand?
children as I received it from my
dear mother and father and beloved
grandmother who all
ah if I remember it
were in great pain at leaving
and were furiously saying goodbye
Penelope Duby <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online
conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing?
The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and
follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting
service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a
political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue,
but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for
your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams;
believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by
some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it.
For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along
a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new
challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/a6a8e34c/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 12 19:44:23 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:49:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
Message-ID: <20071212.134822.2428.373.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Expect no corrections. Beg not. Whatever you say is right.
Rereading is the only possible "corrector." And one might have to wait 10
years
for even that to work.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:54:27 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Funny, and I thought memory drives on fuel, like the rest of our bodies.
And what you see as reps is just the daily commute. Please CORRECT me if
I am wrong, Funny-))
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Memory thrives on repetition.
"Dave," by the way, has actually
worn out 3 metaphorical sofas.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:18:57 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
How did that get into Hopper Dropper?
Good memory though. Your TAS must be well tuned
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:11 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Then there was that lunch with Germaine Greer.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:19:10 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
It actually refers to something I wrote mentioning Dennis Hopper, an old
friend.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
The what, "hopper"? And where does that one come in here now? More
scrolling to do for me? O-boy --gender!--, this list is a wild ride.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's [the question] is in "the hopper." It seems a stretch but that's
not new. Connections LOVE to make themselves.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Almost time for eggs and ham. That's for certain. But does that count,
too, Funny?
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"We can seldom go erect. Almost every man we meet requires some civility,
requires to be humored; -- he has some fame, some talent, some whim of
religion or philanthropy in his head that is not to be questioned, and so
spoils all conversation with him." -- Emerson
"Almost"
It's always the "almost" that promises faithfully the
alternative that delivers the tiniest exception that changes
e v e r y t h i n g.
-- funny
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071212/9c554ac3/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 12 19:42:19 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 12 19:49:51 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending
Message-ID: <20071212.134822.2428.371.ae.dropper@juno.com>
This continues to pulsate with potential. Something about it
is tacitly stirring. I invite you to add another piece when you get a
moment.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:59:51 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
I hope this makes some sense... (wm)
I'm so intrigued by all this; so bereft of understanding the paradigm in
application.
I've got that there are two channels. Channel A is one way and Channel B
is two way
or potentially so. But Channel B in terms of Paradigm A, translates
viscerally,
as a sewer pipe. Can't override the reflex to close my mouth and get out
of the way! Maybe this process could include at some point, an example
from this list of how Channel B works or has worked as a two way channel.
Also "worked" presumes the purpose of Paradigm B, which seems so far
to be "communication." Do I have this right? And this would perhaps be
a "communication" of having been "touched?" Or would you say that it is
a "communication" of having been successfully "hurt?"
Lots of loose pieces floating around about this.
Do you use this "method" on this list?
Did you "use it" with me? Don't want to get to far afield
with these questions but is "I am sorry "funny" but to me it
sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented." an example
of the method? Except that wouldn't work as an example because
what you were responding to couldn't possible have made you
feel "hurt." It certainly wasn't directed at "hurting" you. It
wasn't directed at you at all.
So, you can see, how far off I am in understanding. No need to
feel like I am asking you to address specifics. Whatever more you
have to say will go into the mix. I'm especially interested in
experiencing
the first example of practical application.
"When we define the terms of one journey in terms of a totally different
journey the results can only be invalid and confusing. We cannot lift
terms out of their original experiential context and redefine them
according to a totally different paradigm and set of experiences."
Roberts
-- funny
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:33:10 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
So far, we seem to be talking about quite different things. But I almost
don't want to say this
because it might inhibit the complimentary development in each of our
directions, which development
is totally fascinating to me. But I feel a need to say just this much.
The parallel development though, of these two renderings of recent and
current
experience will hopefully continue along their parallel paths. I truly
want to see this development
continue; yours reads like a real page turner novel - but I have to wait
for the next chapter.
Mine, to me, reads like poetry (because it captures better than I could
have imagined
possible, the actual breakthrough experience. And because of the feedback
there is
confidence that the pointy nose of the clarifying process will continue
its
"breaking through").
And I'll just add that the mutual and back and forth praxis of experience
and
development of the language of the experience has been really in the
forefront
of awareness during the breakthrough process. "Which comes first?"
[Language. Experience]. Can't say at all.
-- funny
>Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation -
>not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had
>written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
I am a bit busy at the moment, Pat, but I'll pick it up again later. For
the time being, let me just say that this is leading up to passion. But
not exactly the same kind of passion that we have talked about a few
years ago. This "new" passion is a further development of the earlier
version. It's more like a second order of passion corresponding with the
equally "new" second order of suspension. But more later...
>
>Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the
words that I say.
>The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are music. But that's
another story.
>So it is these "words that I say" that interest me. I am really very
tired of saying words
>that are hurtful to me.
But it's the hearing that works, not the saying. Whether words are spoken
by yourself or by someone else doesn't really matter. In both cases you
hear the words, and that is what is causing the reactions. You can
misunderstand what somebody is saying and hear something else. In such a
case, the reaction is to what you mistakenly think the person is saying.
Thus, suspension is suspending the reaction to what you hear. What you
hear is of your own making.
The "second order suspension" is suspending suspension. This is like
taking yourself out of suspension mode and allow the reaction to unfold
with all its consequences. This is almost the same as if there never was
suspension, like ging back to square one, but with a subtle difference.
This also gives rise to a new kind of passion because suspension and
passion are very closely related. Ordinary passion (first order passion)
means allowing the hurt, let it happen without resistence, but also
without reaction. However, this means the attempted hurt is not working
as intended. The reaction is missing. The passion has the effect of
making you kind of "transparent" and this can be frustrating to anyone
who wanted to hurt you: it's not working. This is where the second order
passion comes in; you move into second order suspension and let the
reaction react, and the hurt hurt. This second order passion is almost
the same as a mechanical reaction (at least that's what it looks like on
the surface). The reason for doing this is to avoid the frustration of
the other person. A mechanical reaction can quickly escalate the
situation, but frustration with a "transparent" person doesn't help much
either; chances are that the frustration finds someone else. I hope this
makes some sense... (wm)
Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not
a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written:
"How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For
those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity
came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about
clarity - "getting to" clarity.
The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self)
which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each
level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness
is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations
of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a
static sensation and a non satisfaction.
Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the
words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are
music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that I say" that
interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to
me.
It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely
[seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain
confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too.
One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I
said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure"
turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There
i