From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 00:02:04 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 01:06:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <0C2F46E3-3805-4F36-A69C-A0C98F3FFB53@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F10E2150BCA6B501A0B4D5FA5F60@phx.gbl>
D: You have done your job - very well indeed.
K: Thank you. Just wanted to be sure I hadn't messed up on any of the
steps. Yes, I've done what I can. Also, wasn't sure how you're receiving
mail in California. Don't know if, in all the flying messages, you saw the
one where I offered to help you in any way I could, too. That offer stands.
k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:55:32 -0800
>
>I received Zoe's letter and I have forwarded it to William for his
>comments before I post it to the list. But I have to ask why are you still
>worrying about it? What is your self-perceived role in all this. Zoe has
>done her bit. Why not just let it play out as it needs to.
>You have done your job - very well indeed.
>don
>
>On Nov 11, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>She sent you her statement at 1:53 PM to this address: dfactor@dc.rr.com.
>> If you don't receive it for whatever reason, please let me know, and
>>I'll see that she resends it. Did I give her the right email address?
>>
>>best, k
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Nov 12 02:40:13 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov 13 04:47:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
Message-ID: <20061111.214055.2236.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Anyway, it seems that this phenomenon is wide-spread. And therefore, it
is certainly worth inquiring into. What does it mean? What do such people
hope to achieve? In what way are we implicated? (don)
People are smart like foxes (as well as being smart like people).
They know how to access energy from other people. They (we) can
sense which people are available energy sources. They (we) can "smell"
it." It's not really a "smell" thing necessarily - although it can be,
but it is a "sensing" thing.
I used to have a friend who would have to remember to put on her
"white light" around certain people. For her this was literal. For me it
was
metaphorical for something similar I had learned to "do." Although
it wasn't really something I "did" but something I "understood."
I had another friend who used to say "Don't give it any energy."
Now SHE was one who could actually smell it.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061111/f29a38b4/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Nov 12 03:12:00 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov 13 04:47:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
Message-ID: <20061111.214055.2236.23.ae.dropper@juno.com>
> Do I, perhaps, first and foremost need to "moderate"
> myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
> all were more moderate, as far as both quality and quantity of our
talk are concerned? (J)
That is the ideal state and here on this list people have moderated
themselves very well and within reason. (D)
I am hearing J differently. I am hearing, among other things,
an idea of "suspension" of immediate response. There are lots of times
when this is necessary because of time constraints. During many
of these times, a feeling of "response to the whole" comes
with the delayed posting. It's a nice feeling.
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Nov 12 02:56:35 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov 13 04:47:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
Message-ID: <20061111.214055.2236.22.ae.dropper@juno.com>
> I still don't get the difference between actual "dialogue" and
> talking "in the spirit of dialogue" (J)
>
Neither do I. I think it's just a fancy way of justifying establishing
Dialogue "customs." (F)
I think the way to clarify this is to see if the reasons can be
remembered
and then clearly stated, in the intro, why it should not be called a
dialogue.
Then, the reminder that "this is not a dialogue" could be matched up
with what was said in the intro. If the reasons are not clearly given,
"this is not a dialogue" could be used for reasons that are not clear.
This has happened more than once. That David used the term "spirit of
dialogue" does not automatically clarify how the term applies to this
list.
pat
From donlay at gte.net Sun Nov 12 04:18:28 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Nov 13 05:23:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
References: <20061111.214055.2236.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00a901c70609$3bf78ce0$f945153f@DL01>
Don F: What do such people hope to achieve? In what way are we implicated? -- don F
dbl: Maybe we're implicated in the sense of not knowing exactly what to do, in being uncertain. Is there some way to be certain? Maybe ATTENTION is what they "hope to achieve", and they're getting it.
Pat: ... it is a "sensing" thing.
dbl: I agree. Maybe what is 'sensed' is the subtle. It is a subtle thing that, seems to me, is usually lost when attention is directed to the self. -- dbl
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
Anyway, it seems that this phenomenon is wide-spread. And therefore, it is certainly worth inquiring into. What does it mean? What do such people hope to achieve? In what way are we implicated? (don)
People are smart like foxes (as well as being smart like people).
They know how to access energy from other people. They (we) can
sense which people are available energy sources. They (we) can "smell"
it." It's not really a "smell" thing necessarily - although it can be,
but it is a "sensing" thing.
I used to have a friend who would have to remember to put on her
"white light" around certain people. For her this was literal. For me it was
metaphorical for something similar I had learned to "do." Although
it wasn't really something I "did" but something I "understood."
I had another friend who used to say "Don't give it any energy."
Now SHE was one who could actually smell it.
pat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061111/9956b269/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sun Nov 12 04:25:21 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Nov 13 05:30:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
References: <20061111.214055.2236.22.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00ac01c7060a$321b2d70$f945153f@DL01>
There's the common idea of the "spirit of the law" and "the letter of the
law". Maybe we can extrapolate and say there's dialogue using language and
directing attention to language, etc., and there's dialogue using language
directing attention to the spirit.
Problematic of course is that spirit cannot be seen, cannot be well defined
so that we say it cannot be limited.
Then, what use is it if it cannot be limited? -- Don L
>> I still don't get the difference between actual "dialogue" and
>> talking "in the spirit of dialogue" (J)
>>
> Neither do I. I think it's just a fancy way of justifying establishing
> Dialogue "customs." (F)
>
> I think the way to clarify this is to see if the reasons can be
> remembered
> and then clearly stated, in the intro, why it should not be called a
> dialogue.
> Then, the reminder that "this is not a dialogue" could be matched up
> with what was said in the intro. If the reasons are not clearly given,
> "this is not a dialogue" could be used for reasons that are not clear.
> This has happened more than once. That David used the term "spirit of
> dialogue" does not automatically clarify how the term applies to this
> list.
>
> pat
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sun Nov 12 07:14:40 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Nov 13 08:19:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
In-Reply-To: <20061111.214055.2236.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061111.214055.2236.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <B5B2E45E-5C7B-415F-8EC4-FF023132E2A8@dc.rr.com>
We said that this is not a dialogue because we didn't think it was
possible to have a dialogue in the Bohm sense of the word online. But
now I would say that this has become a dialogue, often clumsy,
sometimes marvelously uplifting, endlessly surprising and always
intriguing. Speaking personally, it makes me think a lot more than is
comfortable. It has the spirit of dialogue much more than it has,
say, the spirit of debate or argument but there is more, and that is
something new. David Bohm had no first-hand experience of the
internet, and this sort of forum had barely emerged by the time he
died. So I think that this is a new phase of the experiment that he
first proposed, and now we are stuck with the job of finding our way
in this new domain.
don
On Nov 11, 2006, at 5:40 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Anyway, it seems that this phenomenon is wide-spread. And
> therefore, it is certainly worth inquiring into. What does it mean?
> What do such people hope to achieve? In what way are we
> implicated? (don)
>
> People are smart like foxes (as well as being smart like people).
> They know how to access energy from other people. They (we) can
> sense which people are available energy sources. They (we) can "smell"
> it." It's not really a "smell" thing necessarily - although it can be,
> but it is a "sensing" thing.
>
> I used to have a friend who would have to remember to put on her
> "white light" around certain people. For her this was literal. For
> me it was
> metaphorical for something similar I had learned to "do." Although
> it wasn't really something I "did" but something I "understood."
>
> I had another friend who used to say "Don't give it any energy."
> Now SHE was one who could actually smell it.
>
> pat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sun Nov 12 07:18:35 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Nov 13 08:23:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderation/mediation/middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061111.214055.2236.23.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061111.214055.2236.23.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <AA21D3DF-7167-4553-B19A-15298534440E@dc.rr.com>
In truth this may be one of the special features of an online
dialogue. In a live group, it is difficult to sit back and reflect,
because the dialogue has moved on and there is no paper trail to hook
onto. But here we can actually take the time to think through this,
to use our imagination and intelligence and then, even it its a day
or two later add something that might unfold from a more subtle level.
don
On Nov 11, 2006, at 6:12 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>> Do I, perhaps, first and foremost need to "moderate"
>> myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
>> all were more moderate, as far as both quality and quantity of our
> talk are concerned? (J)
>
> That is the ideal state and here on this list people have moderated
> themselves very well and within reason. (D)
>
> I am hearing J differently. I am hearing, among other things,
> an idea of "suspension" of immediate response. There are lots of times
> when this is necessary because of time constraints. During many
> of these times, a feeling of "response to the whole" comes
> with the delayed posting. It's a nice feeling.
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com Sun Nov 12 09:24:19 2006
From: stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com (STEPHEN DEVLIN)
Date: Mon Nov 13 10:28:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival(online no-one hears you scream!!!!)
In-Reply-To: <00a901c70609$3bf78ce0$f945153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <20061112082419.80520.qmail@web86501.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
I don't think theres too much subtlety in the people we've mentioned (not giviing them anymore namechecks). It's not too hard to spot someone who's taking the p*##. For them it works because they are playing on the good hearts of certain individuasls, taking advantage of some peoples beliefs that everyone has a right to free speech. And of course they have a right to say whatever they wish, but the odd thing about the internet is knowing when/if you have been listened to.
In a regular dialogue one could cough, laugh or any number of things to get attention or show ones dissatisfaction.Online no-one hears you scream. If you get personal you will probably get attention for a while, but many close their ears (and dont read that persons posts),so that means you then have to get personal about the people who are sure to respond (eventually). Maybe some of these people need help, maybe they use this place as an outlet for frustrations develped elsewhere in their lives.I don't care. I couldnt care less about them. I care about the people here that I've got to know, especially the ones I often disagree with, but I couldnt care less about people who's aim is disruption and pulling things apart. Ask yourself how long some of these people would last behaving in such a way at work.Most companies have a trial period these days where they can legally let you go if you arent quite what they're looking for.They'd be out on their arse (ass) straight away in
most firms.Most circles of friends wouldnt accomodate them either. I think they know just how to treat people in real life but see this place as somewhere they can have a moan at Don and just try to disrupt what has worked successfully and seems to be growing. I think its what has happened here that bugs the crap outa these people.From what ive seen of their pages/groups I'm not surprised they have a small number of readers(if any).When we react they win, thats why I have no issue to the moderator involvement amping up a little. I know the moderator is immensely wise and sage like,handsome beyond compare and probably smells like cookies,so my posts will arrive unedited.
;~)
Have a great day people
Don Lay <donlay@gte.net> wrote: Don F: What do such people hope to achieve? In what way are we implicated? -- don F
dbl: Maybe we're implicated in the sense of not knowing exactly what to do, in being uncertain. Is there some way to be certain? Maybe ATTENTION is what they "hope to achieve", and they're getting it.
Pat: ... it is a "sensing" thing.
dbl: I agree. Maybe what is 'sensed' is the subtle. It is a subtle thing that, seems to me, is usually lost when attention is directed to the self. -- dbl
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
Anyway, it seems that this phenomenon is wide-spread. And therefore, it is certainly worth inquiring into. What does it mean? What do such people hope to achieve? In what way are we implicated? (don)
People are smart like foxes (as well as being smart like people).
They know how to access energy from other people. They (we) can
sense which people are available energy sources. They (we) can "smell"
it." It's not really a "smell" thing necessarily - although it can be,
but it is a "sensing" thing.
I used to have a friend who would have to remember to put on her
"white light" around certain people. For her this was literal. For me it was
metaphorical for something similar I had learned to "do." Although
it wasn't really something I "did" but something I "understood."
I had another friend who used to say "Don't give it any energy."
Now SHE was one who could actually smell it.
pat
---------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/1a28c324/attachment.html
From davidmillions at gmail.com Sun Nov 12 10:19:42 2006
From: davidmillions at gmail.com (David da Costa)
Date: Mon Nov 13 11:24:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
Message-ID: <ed6f2a2c0611120119t23e083bdy76f19f5a205c1d10@mail.gmail.com>
"God is perfect" - God as the primary subject. The pseudo paradoxical energy
that engages all perspectives. An ambiguously perfect existence. Every
single detail is god itself.
"All and Nothing infer" - The concepts are the same. Good is Evil, High is
Low, Everything is Nothing. If faced through a perfect logic. The ultimate
understanding and epitomal insight, were all the forces of existence subdue
by a pure thought that logically and simultaneously connects them all.
"In paradox there is no conflict. It is magic" - Everything is connected by
the same force that sets them appart. This is the logic that enables all
others. The divine symbiose between the substance that crosses our beings.
Those were emotional quotes. At times averse to literal meaning.
I wonder if Arthur C. Clarke would think that technology is more impressive
than biology?
I was lured here by the holographic vision, after knowing it would be
impossible to meet Bohm. Even if I already did.
Love and hapinness for you all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/a895bdc9/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 12:54:07 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 13:58:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
In-Reply-To: <B5B2E45E-5C7B-415F-8EC4-FF023132E2A8@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1601A18A1D360FC27D2C3BA5F50@phx.gbl>
Hear, hear, Don! k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:14:40 -0800
>
>We said that this is not a dialogue because we didn't think it was
>possible to have a dialogue in the Bohm sense of the word online. But now
>I would say that this has become a dialogue, often clumsy, sometimes
>marvelously uplifting, endlessly surprising and always intriguing.
>Speaking personally, it makes me think a lot more than is comfortable. It
>has the spirit of dialogue much more than it has, say, the spirit of
>debate or argument but there is more, and that is something new. David
>Bohm had no first-hand experience of the internet, and this sort of forum
>had barely emerged by the time he died. So I think that this is a new
>phase of the experiment that he first proposed, and now we are stuck with
>the job of finding our way in this new domain.
>
>don
>On Nov 11, 2006, at 5:40 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>>Anyway, it seems that this phenomenon is wide-spread. And therefore, it
>>is certainly worth inquiring into. What does it mean? What do such people
>>hope to achieve? In what way are we implicated? (don)
>>
>>People are smart like foxes (as well as being smart like people).
>>They know how to access energy from other people. They (we) can
>>sense which people are available energy sources. They (we) can "smell"
>>it." It's not really a "smell" thing necessarily - although it can be,
>>but it is a "sensing" thing.
>>
>>I used to have a friend who would have to remember to put on her
>>"white light" around certain people. For her this was literal. For me it
>>was
>>metaphorical for something similar I had learned to "do." Although
>>it wasn't really something I "did" but something I "understood."
>>
>>I had another friend who used to say "Don't give it any energy."
>>Now SHE was one who could actually smell it.
>>
>>pat
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Sun Nov 12 14:56:49 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Mon Nov 13 15:58:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: moderating
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0664@msw2k.msw.local>
I am grateful to the moderator for keeping this group of people going
on. I can only wonder how many goofs I would make. It would explode.
d.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 4:50 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: moderating
Rodger __Are WE really so small, our ego so large, that WE attribute so
much importance to a POSSIBLE mistake, heaven forbid, made by our
moderator?
Is this mistake an invasion of Iraq? Genocide in the Congo? Or maybe
something even more significant and horribly subtle?
Or is it simply an opportunity to fine-tune moderation in a virtual,
internet bohm_dialogue.? _R
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Message-ID: <BAY22-F142406C441F935B8198280A5F70@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
According to William it was NOT because he thought Zoe was Peter or
even
that he felt Zoe was being disruptive, but because he felt that Zoe had
clearly stated that she rejected the idea of being on a list that had
any
kind of moderation or structure of any kind.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/2c9b0f55/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Sun Nov 12 14:58:22 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Mon Nov 13 15:59:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: altered states
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0665@msw2k.msw.local>
Real meaning "the natural state is one that is consantly being altered".
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 4:33 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: altered states
Rodger __thats funny, my father also prefered his so called natural
state of consciousness over altered states. Unfortunately, neither
strong intellect, genuis IQ, or natural state, saved him from dying with
more regret than fulfiment about his life.
Also Chinese medicine and/or nutritionalists can tell us how our natural
state is produced and altered by our diet.
I.e. aluminum in table salt = altzheimers = memory erosion // sugar = x,
wheat = y // minerals or lack of, in water = w // and so on, and so on.
I tend to think the natural state is one that is constantly being
altered._R
.
.
From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering/Consiousness
.
I trust my natural state of consciousness to serve me better than
altered states.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/c6ab9049/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Nov 12 16:50:57 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov 13 17:57:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Chapter 2, On Dialogue, p. 10
Message-ID: <20061112.105121.2144.0.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The point is: thought produces results, but thought says it didn't do it.
And that is a problem. The trouble is that some of those results that
thought produces are considered to be very important and valuable.
Thought produced the nation, and it says that the nation has an extremely
high value, a supreme value, which overrides almost everything else. The
same may be said about religion. Therefore, freedom of thought is
interfered with, because if the nation has high value it is necessary to
continue to think that the nation has high value. Therefore you've got to
create a pressure to think that way. You've got to have an impulse, and
make sure everybody has got the impulse, to go on thinking that way about
his nation, his religion, his family, or whatever it is that he gives
high value. He's got to defend it.
You cannot defend something without first thinking the defense. There are
those thoughts which might question the thing you want to defend, and
you've got to push them aside. That may readily involve self-deception -
you will simply push aside a lot of things you would rather not accept by
saying they are wrong, by distorting the issue, and so on. Thought
defends its basic assumptions against evidence that they may be wrong.
In order to deal with this, we have got to look at thought, because the
problem is originating in thought. Usually when you have a problem, you
say, "I must think about it to solve it." But what I'm trying to say is
that thought is the problem. What, therefore, are we going to do?
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sun Nov 12 17:07:54 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Nov 13 18:12:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Chapter 2, On Dialogue, p. 10
References: <20061112.105121.2144.0.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <000601c70674$bc1c9030$ed78480c@HOME>
I'm really glad you posted this chapter the way you have Pat. This brings
up my thoughts on value. This idea about value that Bohm is clarifying here
is a major one to my point of view. What values are, how we adopt them can
give us clues as to how resolve some of these problems.
Exploring values also ties in with ideas of passion. Our values are at the
heart of our passion. Without strong value there is no passion. But if we
insist that others adopt or hold similar values to our own, then we're
trouble. Learning how to clear up any values I hold that are in conflict
and adopt a system that is congruent without insisting (or needing) anyone
else 'must' adopt the same values has been at the heart of my explorations
this past year or so.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:50 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Chapter 2, On Dialogue, p. 10
> The point is: thought produces results, but thought says it didn't do it.
> And that is a problem. The trouble is that some of those results that
> thought produces are considered to be very important and valuable.
> Thought produced the nation, and it says that the nation has an extremely
> high value, a supreme value, which overrides almost everything else. The
> same may be said about religion. Therefore, freedom of thought is
> interfered with, because if the nation has high value it is necessary to
> continue to think that the nation has high value. Therefore you've got to
> create a pressure to think that way. You've got to have an impulse, and
> make sure everybody has got the impulse, to go on thinking that way about
> his nation, his religion, his family, or whatever it is that he gives
> high value. He's got to defend it.
> You cannot defend something without first thinking the defense. There are
> those thoughts which might question the thing you want to defend, and
> you've got to push them aside. That may readily involve self-deception -
> you will simply push aside a lot of things you would rather not accept by
> saying they are wrong, by distorting the issue, and so on. Thought
> defends its basic assumptions against evidence that they may be wrong.
> In order to deal with this, we have got to look at thought, because the
> problem is originating in thought. Usually when you have a problem, you
> say, "I must think about it to solve it." But what I'm trying to say is
> that thought is the problem. What, therefore, are we going to do?
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Nov 12 17:27:44 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov 13 18:34:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
Message-ID: <20061112.112750.2144.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
We said that this is not a dialogue because we didn't think it was
possible to have a dialogue in the Bohm sense of the word online. But
now I would say that this has become a dialogue, often clumsy,
sometimes marvelously uplifting, endlessly surprising and always
intriguing. Speaking personally, it makes me think a lot more than is
comfortable. It has the spirit of dialogue much more than it has,
say, the spirit of debate or argument but there is more, and that is
something new. David Bohm had no first-hand experience of the
internet, and this sort of forum had barely emerged by the time he
died. So I think that this is a new phase of the experiment that he
first proposed, and now we are stuck with the job of finding our way
in this new domain.
don
I don't find anything about face to face bohm dialogue that is not
'overly
compensated for' by the online version. They are like two breeds of dog,
but still dog. It growls, it barks, its tail wags. What else matters?
And I think there is a disadvantage in not calling this a full blown
Bohmian
Dialogue. It can still be qualified as "Online Bohm Dialogue."
And for those who participate in both, the differences are quite
interesting
to notice, but if I have noticed any fundamental difference it might lean
toward "Online" as being "fundamentally better." Take that with the usual
grain of salt. A completely convincing "case" can be made either way. And
THAT
fact is reason enough for beginning here a total legitimization -
articulating
it in the introduction as well as realizing it - of the process here as a
Bohm
Dialogue process.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/22513f70/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sun Nov 12 17:36:01 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Nov 13 18:40:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
References: <20061112.112750.2144.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <001701c70678$a46f7ac0$ed78480c@HOME>
Here! Here! and Hallelujah!
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
We said that this is not a dialogue because we didn't think it was
possible to have a dialogue in the Bohm sense of the word online. But
now I would say that this has become a dialogue, often clumsy,
sometimes marvelously uplifting, endlessly surprising and always
intriguing. Speaking personally, it makes me think a lot more than is
comfortable. It has the spirit of dialogue much more than it has,
say, the spirit of debate or argument but there is more, and that is
something new. David Bohm had no first-hand experience of the
internet, and this sort of forum had barely emerged by the time he
died. So I think that this is a new phase of the experiment that he
first proposed, and now we are stuck with the job of finding our way
in this new domain.
don
I don't find anything about face to face bohm dialogue that is not 'overly
compensated for' by the online version. They are like two breeds of dog,
but still dog. It growls, it barks, its tail wags. What else matters?
And I think there is a disadvantage in not calling this a full blown Bohmian
Dialogue. It can still be qualified as "Online Bohm Dialogue."
And for those who participate in both, the differences are quite interesting
to notice, but if I have noticed any fundamental difference it might lean
toward "Online" as being "fundamentally better." Take that with the usual
grain of salt. A completely convincing "case" can be made either way. And THAT
fact is reason enough for beginning here a total legitimization - articulating
it in the introduction as well as realizing it - of the process here as a Bohm
Dialogue process.
pat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/730b1b87/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 17:52:55 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 18:57:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D04D8@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F952E5D9D25027EDC78506A5F50@phx.gbl>
Maybe we are asking for too perfect a dialogue? Maybe Peter should be a
part of the group. Would we protect him if someone tried to harm him? D.
This is what got me started on mediating for Zoe! Is she Chinese? Or is
her way of using language, Chinese or not, so shocking and jarring that we
have trouble suspending our immediate reactions to it? I think dialog has a
lot to do with vulnerability, and vulnerability to language. Any other
thinkgs on this? k
>From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:15:47 -0500
>
>I agree they ought to be investigated. I think that is the real issue.
>How do people who come from different "ground" learn to dialogue. I'm
>thinking of killing Hussein. Could there ever be dialogue? I think of
>Bush. I'd like to see him impeached because of the disaster he has
>brought to the world and our country. Could a Republican and I learn to
>dialogue about that? I think we must learn to. My very best friend is
>a Republican. We talk but we are far from dialogue. I tell him and he
>tells me and there we sit on our own ground.
>If we can't, who can. We do remain friends and I wouldn't harm him. So
>maybe that is what we are after. I see a lot of good in him but think
>he is blind. He wouldn't hurt me either and would fight to protect me
>from harm. Maybe we are asking for too perfect a dialogue? Maybe Peter
>should be a part of the group. Would we protect him if someone tried to
>harm him? D.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
>Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 9:56 AM
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>
>
>But there is something else that has occurred to me. Bohm was always
>keen to have the dialogue groups big enough so that the socio-cultural
>levels of the thought process would come out. He also called this level
>"the general" which he pointed out derives from the same root as
>generate, generative. genesis and so on. It has to do with beginnings or
>starting points. He said a number of times that the "pollution was
>generated at this level. The eddies in the stream were not the cause
>but an effect of the flow of the stream. His metaphor was always about
>"the pollution upstream.
>
>Now when I look back at the Peter, Gas. Kirsten, Zoe saga I begin to see
>it in these terms If we here are, as he suggested, a kind of
>microculture than we ought to expect that some of the stuff that causes
>difficulties in the larger culture might be seen and better understood
>here in close-up. Out in the big culture we have political parties that
>are at each other's throats, we have nation states that try to force
>their value systems down the throats of others, or failing that, murder
>them all, especially if those others have something that they want or
>need, There are religions that battle against one another and on and on.
>On the other hand if, along with Bohm, we define a culture as "shared
>meaning" then we must have this too. We know what we mean by western
>culture, and most of us here would consider ourselves a part of it. Thus
>we share enough meaning to know more about one another than we might if
>we were dealing with a Sudanese tribesman for example, or Peter Krauss.
>
>Now, if the above mentioned peter, gas, kirsten, zoe group represented
>something of a sub-culture or more than one sub-culture here we might be
>able to get a greater insight into the whole thing. Although we have
>banned them as dangerous illegal aliens, I think we gave them enough
>time to give us something to work with. Our attempts to get them to
>behave as we wished didn't work, so what have we learned? I mean, not
>only about what happens here in this little micro-culture but about the
>bigger one of which we are, possibly, only a peripheral part?
>
>These are questions to which I have no ready answers, but I do think
>they ought to be investigated.
>
>And I am also curious as to how long it will take for this post of mine
>to make its way back to peter and then back here to us.
>
>don
>
>
>On 5 Nov 2006, at 01:17, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure exactly. It might have been Robyn's second post
>(where I decided that Robyn wasn't peter). I just remember laughing and
>picturing an orange with spores growing on it - don't ask me why - I had
>just gotten up. Maybe I had been dreaming of oranges. But remember this
>in the context of my process that occurs when there is a new voice here
>that doesn't like something about what they have been reading. This
>seems to trigger the "is it or isn't it [peter]" process.
>
> pat
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:10:48 +0000 Don Factor
><donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>
> Pat. what inspired you to writ this post at this particular
>time?
>
> I am asking for a particular reason that I am not yet at liberty
>to revea
>
> don
>
>
> On 4 Nov 2006, at 19:05, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>
> Ever since after peter spent his first incarnation with
>us several years ago, and was with us intensively for a couple of years,
>AS peter (or as pit, etc.), a few of us who have been here long, have
>mentioned that they had thought a certain newcomer was peter again
>(with a new name) and were interested when finding this suspicion either
>wrong or right. This continues. No one has mentioned it for awhile. But
>I brought it up because I noticed it happening with the new voices. With
>each one of them. There seems to be this easy, automatic process that
>occurs in thought, regarding this. It's VERY fun. And it is based on an
>assumption (which could be wrong - or turn wrong at any time) that peter
> REALLY REALLY wants to be involved here.
>
> I remember both Matti [pretty sure it was Matti]
> and I flashed on a possibility that Mr. Frantisek Plessl
><mailto:frantisekplessl@yahoo.com>
> might be peter when he first came on. But it wasn't long
>
> before we were certain that he wasn't.
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 17:54:20 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 18:58:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Chapter 2, On Dialogue, p. 10
In-Reply-To: <000601c70674$bc1c9030$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F183E878E6526D49019E78DA5F50@phx.gbl>
yes to all this. k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Chapter 2, On Dialogue, p. 10
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:07:54 -0700
>
>I'm really glad you posted this chapter the way you have Pat. This brings
>up my thoughts on value. This idea about value that Bohm is clarifying
>here is a major one to my point of view. What values are, how we adopt
>them can give us clues as to how resolve some of these problems.
>
>Exploring values also ties in with ideas of passion. Our values are at the
>heart of our passion. Without strong value there is no passion. But if we
>insist that others adopt or hold similar values to our own, then we're
>trouble. Learning how to clear up any values I hold that are in conflict
>and adopt a system that is congruent without insisting (or needing) anyone
>else 'must' adopt the same values has been at the heart of my explorations
>this past year or so.
>
>Susan
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:50 AM
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Chapter 2, On Dialogue, p. 10
>
>
>>The point is: thought produces results, but thought says it didn't do it.
>>And that is a problem. The trouble is that some of those results that
>>thought produces are considered to be very important and valuable.
>>Thought produced the nation, and it says that the nation has an extremely
>>high value, a supreme value, which overrides almost everything else. The
>>same may be said about religion. Therefore, freedom of thought is
>>interfered with, because if the nation has high value it is necessary to
>>continue to think that the nation has high value. Therefore you've got to
>>create a pressure to think that way. You've got to have an impulse, and
>>make sure everybody has got the impulse, to go on thinking that way about
>>his nation, his religion, his family, or whatever it is that he gives
>>high value. He's got to defend it.
>>You cannot defend something without first thinking the defense. There are
>>those thoughts which might question the thing you want to defend, and
>>you've got to push them aside. That may readily involve self-deception -
>>you will simply push aside a lot of things you would rather not accept by
>>saying they are wrong, by distorting the issue, and so on. Thought
>>defends its basic assumptions against evidence that they may be wrong.
>>In order to deal with this, we have got to look at thought, because the
>>problem is originating in thought. Usually when you have a problem, you
>>say, "I must think about it to solve it." But what I'm trying to say is
>>that thought is the problem. What, therefore, are we going to do?
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 17:56:00 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 19:00:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
In-Reply-To: <20061112.112750.2144.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F9376EEB56A3302021EA5BA5F50@phx.gbl>
And THAT
fact is reason enough for beginning here a total legitimization -
articulating
it in the introduction as well as realizing it - of the process here as a
Bohm
Dialogue process.
Absolutely, Pat. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:27:44 -0500
>
>We said that this is not a dialogue because we didn't think it was
>possible to have a dialogue in the Bohm sense of the word online. But
>now I would say that this has become a dialogue, often clumsy,
>sometimes marvelously uplifting, endlessly surprising and always
>intriguing. Speaking personally, it makes me think a lot more than is
>comfortable. It has the spirit of dialogue much more than it has,
>say, the spirit of debate or argument but there is more, and that is
>something new. David Bohm had no first-hand experience of the
>internet, and this sort of forum had barely emerged by the time he
>died. So I think that this is a new phase of the experiment that he
>first proposed, and now we are stuck with the job of finding our way
>in this new domain.
>
>don
>
>I don't find anything about face to face bohm dialogue that is not
>'overly
>compensated for' by the online version. They are like two breeds of dog,
>but still dog. It growls, it barks, its tail wags. What else matters?
>
>And I think there is a disadvantage in not calling this a full blown
>Bohmian
>Dialogue. It can still be qualified as "Online Bohm Dialogue."
>
>And for those who participate in both, the differences are quite
>interesting
>to notice, but if I have noticed any fundamental difference it might lean
>toward "Online" as being "fundamentally better." Take that with the usual
>grain of salt. A completely convincing "case" can be made either way. And
>THAT
>fact is reason enough for beginning here a total legitimization -
>articulating
>it in the introduction as well as realizing it - of the process here as a
>Bohm
>Dialogue process.
>
>pat
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Nov 12 18:06:44 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Nov 13 19:14:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
Message-ID: <20061112.120654.2144.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Another way that "self - moderation" happens here.
Does anyone else put HUGE amounts to the stuff they
write into the black hole of their "draft file?" Even really
"good" stuff. Very interesting to note the "why" thoughts
with each of these occurrences.
There are the times when the writing feels perfect
but the timing seems not quite right.
Or, when the writing is excellent and very insightful
but it might just hurt someone's feelings at a moment
where that might not be a good idea. Timing again.
Or, the writing is perfect but irrelevant.
Or, maybe mostly, the writing is lousy.
Lousy writing AND irrelevant?
Just plain nasty?
pat
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sun Nov 12 18:14:05 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Nov 13 19:18:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
References: <BAY22-F952E5D9D25027EDC78506A5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <004401c7067d$f8867af0$ed78480c@HOME>
I really don't think whether we would protect someone from harm is enough of
a criteria for deciding whether to keep someone like Peter in a Dialogue
circle. We have discussed the nature of purpose in regards to Dialogue a
number of times. It seems to me that one of the most important aspects of
purposes within Dialogue is to create a new form of communication where
shared meaning emerges from the process.
It seems to me that Peter wants exactly the opposite. He seems only to want
to disrupt the process and ensure that no shared meaning can ever emerge.
I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt and second chances. But
Peter seems to have worn out his second and third chances.
I do feel that we need something in place for cases like Peter and Zoe where
they are given the chance to rejoin the group if they are willing to commit
to the intention of Dialogue. But as we have mentioned before. This
intention needs to be clearly spelled out. And perhaps intention is a
better word than purpose.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
> Maybe we are asking for too perfect a dialogue? Maybe Peter should be a
> part of the group. Would we protect him if someone tried to harm him? D.
>
> This is what got me started on mediating for Zoe! Is she Chinese? Or is
> her way of using language, Chinese or not, so shocking and jarring that we
> have trouble suspending our immediate reactions to it? I think dialog has
> a lot to do with vulnerability, and vulnerability to language. Any other
> thinkgs on this? k
>
>
>>From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] spores?
>>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:15:47 -0500
>>
>>I agree they ought to be investigated. I think that is the real issue.
>>How do people who come from different "ground" learn to dialogue. I'm
>>thinking of killing Hussein. Could there ever be dialogue? I think of
>>Bush. I'd like to see him impeached because of the disaster he has
>>brought to the world and our country. Could a Republican and I learn to
>>dialogue about that? I think we must learn to. My very best friend is
>>a Republican. We talk but we are far from dialogue. I tell him and he
>>tells me and there we sit on our own ground.
>>If we can't, who can. We do remain friends and I wouldn't harm him. So
>>maybe that is what we are after. I see a lot of good in him but think
>>he is blind. He wouldn't hurt me either and would fight to protect me
>>from harm. Maybe we are asking for too perfect a dialogue? Maybe Peter
>>should be a part of the group. Would we protect him if someone tried to
>>harm him? D.
>>
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sun Nov 12 18:25:46 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Nov 13 19:30:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
References: <20061112.120654.2144.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <004701c7067f$9801b350$ed78480c@HOME>
I've been thinking a lot about this and it just doesn't sit well with me. I
personally think we need much less self moderation. To me, the problem with
Peter is not about self moderation but about intentions. Are the intentions
of the post to learn a new form of communication and to create shared
meaning?
The so called "controversial" posts have been the ones that, for me, many
times have helped me to realize something new. And, no, I don't have a file
full of posts that I have never sent. The ability to be spontaneous is one
of the main draws to Dialogue for me. There are occasions when I start a
post and realize that it doesn't really say what I'm feeling or what I want
to say and so I will abort the post. But if there's something I'm feeling
the desire to express, then I allow myself to believe that it's important
enough to post. Doing this has been a major break through for me in
communication. To have that kind of freedom is the most precious gift I can
think of that could come out of Dialogue.
I appreciate the posts like the one to me from Gill saying he felt I was
trying to teach and from Joachim about older white males. They are openly
and honestly expressive of what someone is feeling in the moment. And
making those kinds of posts gives us the opportunity to see our own thoughts
and feelings and see that we can go beyond those thoughts. Too many times
we simply bury those kind of thoughts and never bring them up for
examination. I think it is a treasured gift to have a place where we can
look at all of our thoughts, not just the ones that we approve of.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:06 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
> Another way that "self - moderation" happens here.
> Does anyone else put HUGE amounts to the stuff they
> write into the black hole of their "draft file?" Even really
> "good" stuff. Very interesting to note the "why" thoughts
> with each of these occurrences.
>
> There are the times when the writing feels perfect
> but the timing seems not quite right.
>
> Or, when the writing is excellent and very insightful
> but it might just hurt someone's feelings at a moment
> where that might not be a good idea. Timing again.
>
> Or, the writing is perfect but irrelevant.
>
> Or, maybe mostly, the writing is lousy.
>
> Lousy writing AND irrelevant?
>
> Just plain nasty?
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 18:46:48 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 19:51:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
In-Reply-To: <20061112.120654.2144.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F9A2F9B79DD4BDE95DB3DDA5F50@phx.gbl>
Just plain nasty?
Does our vulnerability decide whether no not it's nasty?
What if the writing that feels nasty to us is percieved by the writer as
honestly expressing his/her feelings, his/her thoughts, hopes, and vision,
with no intent to hurt?
Can we/should we hear beyond the perceived nastiness to the imbedded
content, or do they shut us down?
If so, are we playing with developing/demanding/modeling a language style
that will reflect group rather than individual mind, in order to comminucate
with the rest of the group?
Is that really communication? Particularly BD communication?
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:06:44 -0500
>
>Another way that "self - moderation" happens here.
>Does anyone else put HUGE amounts to the stuff they
>write into the black hole of their "draft file?" Even really
>"good" stuff. Very interesting to note the "why" thoughts
>with each of these occurrences.
>
>There are the times when the writing feels perfect
>but the timing seems not quite right.
>
>Or, when the writing is excellent and very insightful
>but it might just hurt someone's feelings at a moment
>where that might not be a good idea. Timing again.
>
>Or, the writing is perfect but irrelevant.
>
>Or, maybe mostly, the writing is lousy.
>
>Lousy writing AND irrelevant?
>
>Just plain nasty?
>
>pat
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From joachimfaust at earthlink.net Sun Nov 12 18:47:24 2006
From: joachimfaust at earthlink.net (Joachim Faust)
Date: Mon Nov 13 19:52:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061113110002.7CE6C24882@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
References: <20061113110002.7CE6C24882@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <F7145103-4825-4B1C-8FF4-7A536A45C98A@earthlink.net>
Hi Pat,
Thanks for arranging the statements below in this specific sequence.
It reveals an interesting layer of meaning.
I think you are right, "suspension of immediate response" is a very
important factor, since
this is/seems to be a necessary condition for "awareness" to unfold.
Great question: is
"delay of response" closely associated with "responsibility
("response-ability") for/to the whole"?
In my experience, the dominant response style here on this list
reminds a bit of
knee-jerk reactions: quick, apodictic ("this is the way it is...")
without showing much care to
reveal awareness of possible cultural and personal assumptions (I
think Gill has said
something similar a few days ago, if I recall correctly.)
I think the essence of what I have been trying to say in my recent
posts is: aren't we all trolls in some
form or fashion, at least some of the time? I am sure I am, at least
right now, in that I am being critical
of what others do, and I am repeating myself, insisting on trying to
get heard, etc. The difference between
me and Peter or Kirsten is only quantitative. Deep down, I am doing
the same thing:
trying to get a response by pushing some buttons; trying to be
understood; to feel connected...
All right, enough of this. Time to go back to the periphery... :)
Joachim
On 13.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
>> Do I, perhaps, first and foremost need to "moderate"
>> myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
>> all were more moderate, as far as both quality and quantity of our
> talk are concerned? (J)
>
> That is the ideal state and here on this list people have moderated
> themselves very well and within reason. (D)
>
> I am hearing J differently. I am hearing, among other things,
> an idea of "suspension" of immediate response. There are lots of times
> when this is necessary because of time constraints. During many
> of these times, a feeling of "response to the whole" comes
> with the delayed posting. It's a nice feeling.
>
> pat
>
Joachim Faust
joachimfaust@earthlink.net
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sun Nov 12 18:53:03 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Nov 13 19:57:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
References: <BAY22-F9A2F9B79DD4BDE95DB3DDA5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <005001c70683$679f8b20$ed78480c@HOME>
Well, this is exactly my point. Whether something is "nasty" or not is in
the eyes of the beholder as well as beauty. And yes, sometimes someone is
going to say something that is nasty to both the poster and to others on the
list. But so what? Are these kinds of thoughts to be ignored? Can we
really look at thought as a system if only allow the "nice" thoughts to come
out? I don't think moderating ourselves to being "nice" is necessarily in
the spirit of Bohm at all. Bohm was about exploring thoughts and thinking
as a whole.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
> Just plain nasty?
>
> Does our vulnerability decide whether no not it's nasty?
>
> What if the writing that feels nasty to us is percieved by the writer as
> honestly expressing his/her feelings, his/her thoughts, hopes, and vision,
> with no intent to hurt?
> Can we/should we hear beyond the perceived nastiness to the imbedded
> content, or do they shut us down?
> If so, are we playing with developing/demanding/modeling a language style
> that will reflect group rather than individual mind, in order to
> comminucate with the rest of the group?
> Is that really communication? Particularly BD communication?
>
>
>
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:06:44 -0500
>>
>>Another way that "self - moderation" happens here.
>>Does anyone else put HUGE amounts to the stuff they
>>write into the black hole of their "draft file?" Even really
>>"good" stuff. Very interesting to note the "why" thoughts
>>with each of these occurrences.
>>
>>There are the times when the writing feels perfect
>>but the timing seems not quite right.
>>
>>Or, when the writing is excellent and very insightful
>>but it might just hurt someone's feelings at a moment
>>where that might not be a good idea. Timing again.
>>
>>Or, the writing is perfect but irrelevant.
>>
>>Or, maybe mostly, the writing is lousy.
>>
>>Lousy writing AND irrelevant?
>>
>>Just plain nasty?
>>
>>pat
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more.then map the best
> route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 18:53:52 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 19:58:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
In-Reply-To: <F7145103-4825-4B1C-8FF4-7A536A45C98A@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F649A15891F1786889AB17A5F50@phx.gbl>
Deep down, I am doing the same thing: trying to get a response by pushing
some buttons
So we connect with vulnerability through language! And once someone has
responded with the knee jerk instead of the imbedded meaning, we know that's
the hook.
Sounds like this whole idea of suspension is more important than I realized.
Keep it coming, y'all.
Sounds like I'll learn more on the periphery than at the core. On the other
hand, I'll learn even more if I can integrate the two in myself. k
>From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:47:24 -0600
>
>Hi Pat,
>
>Thanks for arranging the statements below in this specific sequence.
>It reveals an interesting layer of meaning.
>I think you are right, "suspension of immediate response" is a very
>important factor, since
>this is/seems to be a necessary condition for "awareness" to unfold. Great
>question: is
>"delay of response" closely associated with "responsibility
>("response-ability") for/to the whole"?
>
>In my experience, the dominant response style here on this list reminds a
>bit of
>knee-jerk reactions: quick, apodictic ("this is the way it is...") without
>showing much care to
>reveal awareness of possible cultural and personal assumptions (I think
>Gill has said
>something similar a few days ago, if I recall correctly.)
>
>I think the essence of what I have been trying to say in my recent posts
>is: aren't we all trolls in some
>form or fashion, at least some of the time? I am sure I am, at least right
>now, in that I am being critical
>of what others do, and I am repeating myself, insisting on trying to get
>heard, etc. The difference between
>me and Peter or Kirsten is only quantitative. Deep down, I am doing the
>same thing:
>trying to get a response by pushing some buttons; trying to be understood;
>to feel connected...
>
>All right, enough of this. Time to go back to the periphery... :)
>
>Joachim
>
>
>
>On 13.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
>>
>>>Do I, perhaps, first and foremost need to "moderate"
>>>myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
>>>all were more moderate, as far as both quality and quantity of our
>>talk are concerned? (J)
>>
>>That is the ideal state and here on this list people have moderated
>>themselves very well and within reason. (D)
>>
>>I am hearing J differently. I am hearing, among other things,
>>an idea of "suspension" of immediate response. There are lots of times
>>when this is necessary because of time constraints. During many
>>of these times, a feeling of "response to the whole" comes
>>with the delayed posting. It's a nice feeling.
>>
>>pat
>>
>
>Joachim Faust
>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sun Nov 12 18:59:26 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:04:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
References: <20061113110002.7CE6C24882@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
<F7145103-4825-4B1C-8FF4-7A536A45C98A@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <005501c70684$4b97ae70$ed78480c@HOME>
I don't think responding in an open and honest fashion in a spontaneous
manner has anything to will being a troll, spamming or flaming. I think it
has to do will allowing our thoughts to come up and be exposed for
examination. Again, I think being a troll, etc. has to do with intentions.
Are your intentions in being a member of this list to look at thought and
allow new meaning to emerge through this new process, are you willing to
look at your own communication to see what style you are using (debate,
defending, etc.) for the purpose of creating dialogue ? That is the
difference to me.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joachim Faust" <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
> Hi Pat,
>
> Thanks for arranging the statements below in this specific sequence.
> It reveals an interesting layer of meaning.
> I think you are right, "suspension of immediate response" is a very
> important factor, since
> this is/seems to be a necessary condition for "awareness" to unfold.
> Great question: is
> "delay of response" closely associated with "responsibility
> ("response-ability") for/to the whole"?
>
> In my experience, the dominant response style here on this list reminds a
> bit of
> knee-jerk reactions: quick, apodictic ("this is the way it is...")
> without showing much care to
> reveal awareness of possible cultural and personal assumptions (I think
> Gill has said
> something similar a few days ago, if I recall correctly.)
>
> I think the essence of what I have been trying to say in my recent posts
> is: aren't we all trolls in some
> form or fashion, at least some of the time? I am sure I am, at least
> right now, in that I am being critical
> of what others do, and I am repeating myself, insisting on trying to get
> heard, etc. The difference between
> me and Peter or Kirsten is only quantitative. Deep down, I am doing the
> same thing:
> trying to get a response by pushing some buttons; trying to be
> understood; to feel connected...
>
> All right, enough of this. Time to go back to the periphery... :)
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
> On 13.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
>>
>>> Do I, perhaps, first and foremost need to "moderate"
>>> myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
>>> all were more moderate, as far as both quality and quantity of our
>> talk are concerned? (J)
>>
>> That is the ideal state and here on this list people have moderated
>> themselves very well and within reason. (D)
>>
>> I am hearing J differently. I am hearing, among other things,
>> an idea of "suspension" of immediate response. There are lots of times
>> when this is necessary because of time constraints. During many
>> of these times, a feeling of "response to the whole" comes
>> with the delayed posting. It's a nice feeling.
>>
>> pat
>>
>
> Joachim Faust
> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sun Nov 12 19:08:28 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:13:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
References: <BAY22-F9A2F9B79DD4BDE95DB3DDA5F50@phx.gbl>
<005001c70683$679f8b20$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <006001c70685$8ed13200$ed78480c@HOME>
I think what I'm trying to talk about here is the idea that self moderation
means that you are keeping your "thoughts as a whole" to yourself and not
allowing the group to participate. How are we going to look at thought as a
whole if the individuals are not willing to share them "as a whole" with the
group? If the thoughts aren't shared (because they're designated, mean,
nasty, ugly, etc.) but only looked at by the individual and self moderated
where some are thrown out and only the "acceptable" ones are shared, then
it's no longer group (Bohm) Dialogue but personal Dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
> Well, this is exactly my point. Whether something is "nasty" or not is in
> the eyes of the beholder as well as beauty. And yes, sometimes someone is
> going to say something that is nasty to both the poster and to others on
> the list. But so what? Are these kinds of thoughts to be ignored? Can
> we really look at thought as a system if only allow the "nice" thoughts to
> come out? I don't think moderating ourselves to being "nice" is
> necessarily in the spirit of Bohm at all. Bohm was about exploring
> thoughts and thinking as a whole.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:46 AM
> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
>
>
>> Just plain nasty?
>>
>> Does our vulnerability decide whether no not it's nasty?
>>
>> What if the writing that feels nasty to us is percieved by the writer as
>> honestly expressing his/her feelings, his/her thoughts, hopes, and
>> vision, with no intent to hurt?
>> Can we/should we hear beyond the perceived nastiness to the imbedded
>> content, or do they shut us down?
>> If so, are we playing with developing/demanding/modeling a language style
>> that will reflect group rather than individual mind, in order to
>> comminucate with the rest of the group?
>> Is that really communication? Particularly BD communication?
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
>>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:06:44 -0500
>>>
>>>Another way that "self - moderation" happens here.
>>>Does anyone else put HUGE amounts to the stuff they
>>>write into the black hole of their "draft file?" Even really
>>>"good" stuff. Very interesting to note the "why" thoughts
>>>with each of these occurrences.
>>>
>>>There are the times when the writing feels perfect
>>>but the timing seems not quite right.
>>>
>>>Or, when the writing is excellent and very insightful
>>>but it might just hurt someone's feelings at a moment
>>>where that might not be a good idea. Timing again.
>>>
>>>Or, the writing is perfect but irrelevant.
>>>
>>>Or, maybe mostly, the writing is lousy.
>>>
>>>Lousy writing AND irrelevant?
>>>
>>>Just plain nasty?
>>>
>>>pat
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sun Nov 12 19:15:07 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:19:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <44923C45-98E0-4F8B-BB66-1FF455D02E68@dc.rr.com>
This a note from Zoe requesting that she be re-subscribed to the
list. Following this letter is some further relevant communication
so please scroll down, if you are interested.
Don -
Let me be very simple, clear, and speak only to the point I
understand is the issue. I do not reject moderation and structure.
It is very necessary to protect our process, as my present situation
shows. I do reject unlimited power invested in and wielded by a
single person, or any combination thereof, that isn?t empowered by
the thinkgs of the entire group. I will not go back and rehash all
the things K has already posted. I will underscore that I was
unsubscribed without any warning, and without the list being
informed, immediately after asking who had unsubscribed Kirsten (also
without warning, and without notifying the list). I was absolutely
stunned when I tried to post, and it bounced. I literally didn?t
know at first, what was wrong. The information got back to you only
because K contacted me, then spoke up. I respect and appreciate
that, as I do the fact that you, the Bohm group, have expressed your
desire to hear directly from me.
If I had truly done anything that indicated to the entire group that
I refused to accept membership with a moderator, this should have
been brought to my attention which I first subscribed. If later on,
as I participated, it seemed that I refused to accept a moderator,
that should have been brought up to me and the group, rather than
suddenly, without a word even to me, making it impossible for me to
post.
I see/saw exciting, wonderful things happening in a group that has
great potential. I feel that the members and I have a great deal to
offer each other in this beautiful process of working together
towards a larger, deeper understanding as Bohm envisioned it. In
that spirit, I request to be reinstated so that I may become once
again an active participant in the dialogue process that holds so
much promise.
If you feel I have left questions unanswered, please ask them. I
will be happy to respond.
From: donald factor
Date: 11.11.2006 20:55:36
To: william
Subject: Fwd: Bohm Dialogue
Willliam, I am about to forward this to the list and then, let her
back on. If you have any objections please let me know quickly.
don
No, I have no principle objections to take her back if her request is
genuine. Would it be too much to talk to it on the phone first just
to make sure it's not a male voice with a German accent?
admin
--- Zoe
HI Zoe,
I'm afraid I have to send you this. Since this is not a one man
band. Please let me have your phone number or give it directly to
William at:
W@david-bohm.net
If I had his phone number I would have given it to you. But I don't.
When I hear from him and find that you are not a male with a
German accent, I will re-subscribe you.
regards
don
And now these two from Zoe
The first is a graphic of two drug sniffer dogs her comment is:
One could be called "Don", the other "William". But which one would
be which? Could we tell? Talk to you later --- Zoe
This is the second, followed by my reply
Don Factor - I am not inclined to provide you with my
phone-number. But, as it appears, you want to hear my voice
so badly, let us do it this way: you give me your number,
and I shall ring you - at my convenience. But do not expect
any chit-chat or lengthy conversation, since whatever I
have to say and want to say is meant for the group, not
some old men feeling they need to sniff up on me via phone.
It is, by the way, rather interesting and revealing that I
am obviously by far not the only one who considered remarks
and thinking by you as sexist. It is also amazing that you
"need" to check the identity of a person keen to
particiapte in a dialogue group. Is that in the "spirit of
David Bohm"? I read a fair amount by Bohm, yet never ever
did I encounter something even remotely as, how can I say:
creepy, controlling. What a profoundly embarrassing and
shameful situation, I at least feel that way. But, alright,
if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
Zoe, so far as I can see from this and some of your other posts, your
participation in this group would be pretty useless and detrimental
to what some of us are trying to do here. But that's just my opinion.
This dialogue is about fellowship and shared meaning. It is about the
possibility that a new and creative kind of mind might emerge from
this shared meaning. It is not about attitude, accusations, name
calling or winning points.
So, so far as I am concerned, I've got better things to do than mess
with you. So I will forward this to the list and see how others feel.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/71e62b4b/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sun Nov 12 19:16:00 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:20:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd:
References: <93758.96853.qm@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <352C6C10-E10B-40A0-9B64-1D778BA5F40A@dc.rr.com>
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
> Date: November 12, 2006 6:27:14 AM PST
> To: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>
> One could be called "Don", the other "William". But which one would
> be which? Could we tell? Talk to you later --- Zoe
>
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.?
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/mixed
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sun Nov 12 19:21:09 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:25:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <ed6f2a2c0611120119t23e083bdy76f19f5a205c1d10@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ed6f2a2c0611120119t23e083bdy76f19f5a205c1d10@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <12CD591E-A722-42AB-95CB-313054F5CF4A@dc.rr.com>
Very interesting post. Welcome.
While reading it I wanted to add this
"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law"
so I did.
Don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 1:19 AM, David da Costa wrote:
> "God is perfect" - God as the primary subject. The pseudo
> paradoxical energy that engages all perspectives. An ambiguously
> perfect existence. Every single detail is god itself.
>
> "All and Nothing infer" - The concepts are the same. Good is Evil,
> High is Low, Everything is Nothing. If faced through a perfect
> logic. The ultimate understanding and epitomal insight, were all
> the forces of existence subdue by a pure thought that logically and
> simultaneously connects them all.
>
> "In paradox there is no conflict. It is magic" - Everything is
> connected by the same force that sets them appart. This is the
> logic that enables all others. The divine symbiose between the
> substance that crosses our beings.
>
> Those were emotional quotes. At times averse to literal meaning.
>
> I wonder if Arthur C. Clarke would think that technology is more
> impressive than biology?
>
> I was lured here by the holographic vision, after knowing it would
> be impossible to meet Bohm. Even if I already did.
>
> Love and hapinness for you all.
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/b39855a6/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sun Nov 12 19:33:28 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:38:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <44923C45-98E0-4F8B-BB66-1FF455D02E68@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <009a01c70689$0cbce260$ed78480c@HOME>
I have to say Don, if I was Zoe I think I probably would have felt fairly unhappy also. There was nothing in your message to her saying that there were concerns about her identity and apologizing for the inconvenience if you're wrong. You and William sound every bit as combative as some of Zoe's posts have sounded in the past. You do sound like the Gestapo in your posts to her. PROVE who you are and then we might consider you for Dialogue. Is that going to be a requirement for every new comer to Dialogue or everyone who meets with disapproval over some of their posts?
Are people to be allowed into Dialogue based on whether some people like them or not? Are you and William THAT frightened that Peter might sneak back into Dialogue again?
Is this a Dialogue to look at "thought as a whole" including people who might have values that are in conflict with our own, or simply a new cult of "like minded people"?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
This a note from Zoe requesting that she be re-subscribed to the list. Following this letter is some further relevant communication so please scroll down, if you are interested.
Don -
Let me be very simple, clear, and speak only to the point I understand is the issue. I do not reject moderation and structure. It is very necessary to protect our process, as my present situation shows. I do reject unlimited power invested in and wielded by a single person, or any combination thereof, that isn?t empowered by the thinkgs of the entire group. I will not go back and rehash all the things K has already posted. I will underscore that I was unsubscribed without any warning, and without the list being informed, immediately after asking who had unsubscribed Kirsten (also without warning, and without notifying the list). I was absolutely stunned when I tried to post, and it bounced. I literally didn?t know at first, what was wrong. The information got back to you only because K contacted me, then spoke up. I respect and appreciate that, as I do the fact that you, the Bohm group, have expressed your desire to hear directly from me.
If I had truly done anything that indicated to the entire group that I refused to accept membership with a moderator, this should have been brought to my attention which I first subscribed. If later on, as I participated, it seemed that I refused to accept a moderator, that should have been brought up to me and the group, rather than suddenly, without a word even to me, making it impossible for me to post.
I see/saw exciting, wonderful things happening in a group that has great potential. I feel that the members and I have a great deal to offer each other in this beautiful process of working together towards a larger, deeper understanding as Bohm envisioned it. In that spirit, I request to be reinstated so that I may become once again an active participant in the dialogue process that holds so much promise.
If you feel I have left questions unanswered, please ask them. I will be happy to respond.
From: donald factor
Date: 11.11.2006 20:55:36
To: william
Subject: Fwd: Bohm Dialogue
Willliam, I am about to forward this to the list and then, let her back on. If you have any objections please let me know quickly.
don
No, I have no principle objections to take her back if her request is genuine. Would it be too much to talk to it on the phone first just to make sure it's not a male voice with a German accent?
admin
--- Zoe
HI Zoe,
I'm afraid I have to send you this. Since this is not a one man band. Please let me have your phone number or give it directly to William at:
W@david-bohm.net
If I had his phone number I would have given it to you. But I don't.
When I hear from him and find that you are not a male with a
German accent, I will re-subscribe you.
regards
don
And now these two from Zoe
The first is a graphic of two drug sniffer dogs her comment is:
One could be called "Don", the other "William". But which one would be which? Could we tell? Talk to you later --- Zoe
This is the second, followed by my reply
Don Factor - I am not inclined to provide you with my
phone-number. But, as it appears, you want to hear my voice
so badly, let us do it this way: you give me your number,
and I shall ring you - at my convenience. But do not expect
any chit-chat or lengthy conversation, since whatever I
have to say and want to say is meant for the group, not
some old men feeling they need to sniff up on me via phone.
It is, by the way, rather interesting and revealing that I
am obviously by far not the only one who considered remarks
and thinking by you as sexist. It is also amazing that you
"need" to check the identity of a person keen to
particiapte in a dialogue group. Is that in the "spirit of
David Bohm"? I read a fair amount by Bohm, yet never ever
did I encounter something even remotely as, how can I say:
creepy, controlling. What a profoundly embarrassing and
shameful situation, I at least feel that way. But, alright,
if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
Zoe, so far as I can see from this and some of your other posts, your participation in this group would be pretty useless and detrimental to what some of us are trying to do here. But that's just my opinion.
This dialogue is about fellowship and shared meaning. It is about the possibility that a new and creative kind of mind might emerge from this shared meaning. It is not about attitude, accusations, name calling or winning points.
So, so far as I am concerned, I've got better things to do than mess with you. So I will forward this to the list and see how others feel.
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/cd49e71d/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sun Nov 12 19:37:32 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:42:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F9A2F9B79DD4BDE95DB3DDA5F50@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F9A2F9B79DD4BDE95DB3DDA5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ECFAF202-F082-4E8D-BEB8-270D20FB056E@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 12, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> If so, are we playing with developing/demanding/modeling a language
> style that will reflect group rather than individual mind, in order
> to comminucate with the rest of the group?
Yes. More or less. The intent is not so much about communicating with
the rest of group but to see the source of the blocks to such
communication. It is how this effects communication beyond the
boundaries of the group that is what is being called for.
> Is that really communication? Particularly BD communication?
Yes.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/6eb50c18/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 19:37:42 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:42:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
In-Reply-To: <005501c70684$4b97ae70$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F81F28E0D2F4348B450BFAA5F50@phx.gbl>
I absolutely agree. But how do we determine that simply from the writing
style? What "pushes" my buttons isn't what pushes everybody else's. And I
think button pushing has to do with vulnerability. How do we progress
through these stages into being able to accept that we're in a difficult
transitional spot, then move beyond it? That often really hurts. k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:59:26 -0700
>
>I don't think responding in an open and honest fashion in a spontaneous
>manner has anything to will being a troll, spamming or flaming. I think it
>has to do will allowing our thoughts to come up and be exposed for
>examination. Again, I think being a troll, etc. has to do with intentions.
>Are your intentions in being a member of this list to look at thought and
>allow new meaning to emerge through this new process, are you willing to
>look at your own communication to see what style you are using (debate,
>defending, etc.) for the purpose of creating dialogue ? That is the
>difference to me.
>
>Susan
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Joachim Faust"
><joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:47 AM
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
>
>
>>Hi Pat,
>>
>>Thanks for arranging the statements below in this specific sequence.
>>It reveals an interesting layer of meaning.
>>I think you are right, "suspension of immediate response" is a very
>>important factor, since
>>this is/seems to be a necessary condition for "awareness" to unfold. Great
>>question: is
>>"delay of response" closely associated with "responsibility
>>("response-ability") for/to the whole"?
>>
>>In my experience, the dominant response style here on this list reminds a
>>bit of
>>knee-jerk reactions: quick, apodictic ("this is the way it is...") without
>>showing much care to
>>reveal awareness of possible cultural and personal assumptions (I think
>>Gill has said
>>something similar a few days ago, if I recall correctly.)
>>
>>I think the essence of what I have been trying to say in my recent posts
>>is: aren't we all trolls in some
>>form or fashion, at least some of the time? I am sure I am, at least right
>>now, in that I am being critical
>>of what others do, and I am repeating myself, insisting on trying to get
>>heard, etc. The difference between
>>me and Peter or Kirsten is only quantitative. Deep down, I am doing the
>>same thing:
>>trying to get a response by pushing some buttons; trying to be understood;
>>to feel connected...
>>
>>All right, enough of this. Time to go back to the periphery... :)
>>
>>Joachim
>>
>>
>>
>>On 13.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Do I, perhaps, first and foremost need to "moderate"
>>>>myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
>>>>all were more moderate, as far as both quality and quantity of our
>>>talk are concerned? (J)
>>>
>>>That is the ideal state and here on this list people have moderated
>>>themselves very well and within reason. (D)
>>>
>>>I am hearing J differently. I am hearing, among other things,
>>>an idea of "suspension" of immediate response. There are lots of times
>>>when this is necessary because of time constraints. During many
>>>of these times, a feeling of "response to the whole" comes
>>>with the delayed posting. It's a nice feeling.
>>>
>>>pat
>>>
>>
>>Joachim Faust
>>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 19:41:42 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:46:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
In-Reply-To: <ECFAF202-F082-4E8D-BEB8-270D20FB056E@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F33DA25274F99F396DD705A5F50@phx.gbl>
Thanks for hearing me, Don. k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:37:32 -0800
>
>
>On Nov 12, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>If so, are we playing with developing/demanding/modeling a language style
>>that will reflect group rather than individual mind, in order to
>>comminucate with the rest of the group?
>
>Yes. More or less. The intent is not so much about communicating with the
>rest of group but to see the source of the blocks to such communication.
>It is how this effects communication beyond the boundaries of the group
>that is what is being called for.
>
>>Is that really communication? Particularly BD communication?
>
>Yes.
>
>don
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 19:45:24 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:50:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <44923C45-98E0-4F8B-BB66-1FF455D02E68@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F16105E7496B55F0A5BF520A5F50@phx.gbl>
Thanks, Don. k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:15:07 -0800
>
>This a note from Zoe requesting that she be re-subscribed to the list.
>Following this letter is some further relevant communication so please
>scroll down, if you are interested.
>Don -
>
>Let me be very simple, clear, and speak only to the point I understand is
>the issue. I do not reject moderation and structure. It is very necessary
>to protect our process, as my present situation shows. I do reject
>unlimited power invested in and wielded by a single person, or any
>combination thereof, that isn’t empowered by the thinkgs of the entire
>group. I will not go back and rehash all the things K has already posted.
> I will underscore that I was unsubscribed without any warning, and
>without the list being informed, immediately after asking who had
>unsubscribed Kirsten (also without warning, and without notifying the
>list). I was absolutely stunned when I tried to post, and it bounced. I
>literally didn’t know at first, what was wrong. The information got back
>to you only because K contacted me, then spoke up. I respect and
>appreciate that, as I do the fact that you, the Bohm group, have expressed
>your desire to hear directly from me.
>
>If I had truly done anything that indicated to the entire group that I
>refused to accept membership with a moderator, this should have been
>brought to my attention which I first subscribed. If later on, as I
>participated, it seemed that I refused to accept a moderator, that should
>have been brought up to me and the group, rather than suddenly, without a
>word even to me, making it impossible for me to post.
>
>I see/saw exciting, wonderful things happening in a group that has great
>potential. I feel that the members and I have a great deal to offer each
>other in this beautiful process of working together towards a larger,
>deeper understanding as Bohm envisioned it. In that spirit, I request to
>be reinstated so that I may become once again an active participant in the
>dialogue process that holds so much promise.
>
>If you feel I have left questions unanswered, please ask them. I will be
>happy to respond.
>
>
>
>From: donald factor
>Date: 11.11.2006 20:55:36
>To: william
>Subject: Fwd: Bohm Dialogue
>
>Willliam, I am about to forward this to the list and then, let her back
>on. If you have any objections please let me know quickly.
>don
>
>
>
>No, I have no principle objections to take her back if her request is
>genuine. Would it be too much to talk to it on the phone first just to
>make sure it's not a male voice with a German accent?
>
>
>admin
>
>
>--- Zoe
>
>HI Zoe,
>
> I'm afraid I have to send you this. Since this is not a one man band.
>Please let me have your phone number or give it directly to William at:
>
>W@david-bohm.net
>
>If I had his phone number I would have given it to you. But I don't.
>When I hear from him and find that you are not a male with a
>German accent, I will re-subscribe you.
>
>regards
>
>don
>
>
>And now these two from Zoe
>
>The first is a graphic of two drug sniffer dogs her comment is:
>
>One could be called "Don", the other "William". But which one would be
>which? Could we tell? Talk to you later --- Zoe
>
>This is the second, followed by my reply
>
>Don Factor - I am not inclined to provide you with my
>phone-number. But, as it appears, you want to hear my voice
>so badly, let us do it this way: you give me your number,
>and I shall ring you - at my convenience. But do not expect
>any chit-chat or lengthy conversation, since whatever I
>have to say and want to say is meant for the group, not
>some old men feeling they need to sniff up on me via phone.
>It is, by the way, rather interesting and revealing that I
>am obviously by far not the only one who considered remarks
>and thinking by you as sexist. It is also amazing that you
>"need" to check the identity of a person keen to
>particiapte in a dialogue group. Is that in the "spirit of
>David Bohm"? I read a fair amount by Bohm, yet never ever
>did I encounter something even remotely as, how can I say:
>creepy, controlling. What a profoundly embarrassing and
>shameful situation, I at least feel that way. But, alright,
>if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>
>
>Zoe, so far as I can see from this and some of your other posts, your
>participation in this group would be pretty useless and detrimental to
>what some of us are trying to do here. But that's just my opinion.
>
>This dialogue is about fellowship and shared meaning. It is about the
>possibility that a new and creative kind of mind might emerge from this
>shared meaning. It is not about attitude, accusations, name calling or
>winning points.
>
>So, so far as I am concerned, I've got better things to do than mess with
>you. So I will forward this to the list and see how others feel.
>
>don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sun Nov 12 19:46:17 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:50:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
References: <BAY22-F81F28E0D2F4348B450BFAA5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <00a901c7068a$d6e23170$ed78480c@HOME>
But isn't vulnerability about allowing ourselves feel hurt and allowing the
group to know that and allowing ourselves to see that by sharing it with the
group we can get beyond it? At least that's been my experience with this
group. I have learned that every single time I have felt hurt that I could
get over it and found that it was ok to feel hurt and get over it. I don't
think Dialogue is about eliminating every single instance of feeling hurt.
Feeling hurt is part of the nature of being human. Learning how to deal
with that without disconnecting is the goal in my opinion.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
>I absolutely agree. But how do we determine that simply from the writing
>style? What "pushes" my buttons isn't what pushes everybody else's. And I
>think button pushing has to do with vulnerability. How do we progress
>through these stages into being able to accept that we're in a difficult
>transitional spot, then move beyond it? That often really hurts. k
>
>
>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:59:26 -0700
>>
>>I don't think responding in an open and honest fashion in a spontaneous
>>manner has anything to will being a troll, spamming or flaming. I think
>>it has to do will allowing our thoughts to come up and be exposed for
>>examination. Again, I think being a troll, etc. has to do with
>>intentions. Are your intentions in being a member of this list to look at
>>thought and allow new meaning to emerge through this new process, are you
>>willing to look at your own communication to see what style you are using
>>(debate, defending, etc.) for the purpose of creating dialogue ? That is
>>the difference to me.
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Joachim Faust"
>><joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:47 AM
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
>>
>>
>>>Hi Pat,
>>>
>>>Thanks for arranging the statements below in this specific sequence.
>>>It reveals an interesting layer of meaning.
>>>I think you are right, "suspension of immediate response" is a very
>>>important factor, since
>>>this is/seems to be a necessary condition for "awareness" to unfold.
>>>Great question: is
>>>"delay of response" closely associated with "responsibility
>>>("response-ability") for/to the whole"?
>>>
>>>In my experience, the dominant response style here on this list reminds
>>>a bit of
>>>knee-jerk reactions: quick, apodictic ("this is the way it is...")
>>>without showing much care to
>>>reveal awareness of possible cultural and personal assumptions (I think
>>>Gill has said
>>>something similar a few days ago, if I recall correctly.)
>>>
>>>I think the essence of what I have been trying to say in my recent posts
>>>is: aren't we all trolls in some
>>>form or fashion, at least some of the time? I am sure I am, at least
>>>right now, in that I am being critical
>>>of what others do, and I am repeating myself, insisting on trying to get
>>>heard, etc. The difference between
>>>me and Peter or Kirsten is only quantitative. Deep down, I am doing the
>>>same thing:
>>>trying to get a response by pushing some buttons; trying to be
>>>understood; to feel connected...
>>>
>>>All right, enough of this. Time to go back to the periphery... :)
>>>
>>>Joachim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 13.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Do I, perhaps, first and foremost need to "moderate"
>>>>>myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
>>>>>all were more moderate, as far as both quality and quantity of our
>>>>talk are concerned? (J)
>>>>
>>>>That is the ideal state and here on this list people have moderated
>>>>themselves very well and within reason. (D)
>>>>
>>>>I am hearing J differently. I am hearing, among other things,
>>>>an idea of "suspension" of immediate response. There are lots of times
>>>>when this is necessary because of time constraints. During many
>>>>of these times, a feeling of "response to the whole" comes
>>>>with the delayed posting. It's a nice feeling.
>>>>
>>>>pat
>>>>
>>>
>>>Joachim Faust
>>>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Sun Nov 12 19:50:42 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:55:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
In-Reply-To: <F7145103-4825-4B1C-8FF4-7A536A45C98A@earthlink.net>
References: <20061113110002.7CE6C24882@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
<F7145103-4825-4B1C-8FF4-7A536A45C98A@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <E3330A25-EE54-4866-AB24-3995316BF11A@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 12, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Joachim Faust wrote:
> The difference between
> me and Peter or Kirsten is only quantitative. Deep down, I am doing
> the same thing:
> trying to get a response by pushing some buttons; trying to be
> understood; to feel connected...
Bohm wrote some interesting stuff about similarities and differences.
If memory serves me it was in Science, Order and Creativity. One
thing specifically about this topic is, I remember Bohm saying that
it is worth suspending our impulse to speak in the dialogue to see
what might lie behind it. So, the thought that we are all trying to
be understood, to feel connected and to be noticed is what we all do.
Mikhael Bakhtin wrote that the fundamental necessity of
communiciation lies in the process of utterance and response. Not one
or the other but both. However, trolling has a quite specific sort of
intent and that, using, a British expression, is to put a spanner in
the works. Peter was rather successful at accomplishing this purpose.
But it seems to me that the primary difference between what the troll
or spammer does and what you or I might do is that the troll has a
fixed purpose and ours tend to be fluid. The troll wants the dialogue
to end, but we want it to continue. In Bakhtin's words, the dialogue
must never end. If the dialogue ends, everything ends.
(not a direct quote)
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/1e0725ad/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 19:54:14 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Mon Nov 13 20:58:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
In-Reply-To: <00a901c7068a$d6e23170$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F18E36FF2543D342E02DBDDA5F50@phx.gbl>
I have learned that every single time I have felt hurt that I could get over
it and found that it was ok to feel hurt and get over it. I don't think
Dialogue is about eliminating every single instance of feeling hurt. Feeling
hurt is part of the nature of being human. Learning how to deal with that
without disconnecting is the goal in my opinion.
Again, we're on the same page. k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:46:17 -0700
>
>But isn't vulnerability about allowing ourselves feel hurt and allowing the
>group to know that and allowing ourselves to see that by sharing it with
>the group we can get beyond it? At least that's been my experience with
>this group. I have learned that every single time I have felt hurt that I
>could get over it and found that it was ok to feel hurt and get over it. I
>don't think Dialogue is about eliminating every single instance of feeling
>hurt. Feeling hurt is part of the nature of being human. Learning how to
>deal with that without disconnecting is the goal in my opinion.
>
>Susan
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:37 AM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
>
>
>>I absolutely agree. But how do we determine that simply from the writing
>>style? What "pushes" my buttons isn't what pushes everybody else's. And
>>I think button pushing has to do with vulnerability. How do we progress
>>through these stages into being able to accept that we're in a difficult
>>transitional spot, then move beyond it? That often really hurts. k
>>
>>
>>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
>>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:59:26 -0700
>>>
>>>I don't think responding in an open and honest fashion in a spontaneous
>>>manner has anything to will being a troll, spamming or flaming. I think
>>>it has to do will allowing our thoughts to come up and be exposed for
>>>examination. Again, I think being a troll, etc. has to do with
>>>intentions. Are your intentions in being a member of this list to look at
>>>thought and allow new meaning to emerge through this new process, are you
>>>willing to look at your own communication to see what style you are using
>>>(debate, defending, etc.) for the purpose of creating dialogue ? That is
>>>the difference to me.
>>>
>>>Susan
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Joachim Faust"
>>><joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:47 AM
>>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Pat,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for arranging the statements below in this specific sequence.
>>>>It reveals an interesting layer of meaning.
>>>>I think you are right, "suspension of immediate response" is a very
>>>>important factor, since
>>>>this is/seems to be a necessary condition for "awareness" to unfold.
>>>>Great question: is
>>>>"delay of response" closely associated with "responsibility
>>>>("response-ability") for/to the whole"?
>>>>
>>>>In my experience, the dominant response style here on this list reminds
>>>>a bit of
>>>>knee-jerk reactions: quick, apodictic ("this is the way it is...")
>>>>without showing much care to
>>>>reveal awareness of possible cultural and personal assumptions (I think
>>>>Gill has said
>>>>something similar a few days ago, if I recall correctly.)
>>>>
>>>>I think the essence of what I have been trying to say in my recent
>>>>posts is: aren't we all trolls in some
>>>>form or fashion, at least some of the time? I am sure I am, at least
>>>>right now, in that I am being critical
>>>>of what others do, and I am repeating myself, insisting on trying to
>>>>get heard, etc. The difference between
>>>>me and Peter or Kirsten is only quantitative. Deep down, I am doing the
>>>>same thing:
>>>>trying to get a response by pushing some buttons; trying to be
>>>>understood; to feel connected...
>>>>
>>>>All right, enough of this. Time to go back to the periphery... :)
>>>>
>>>>Joachim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 13.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Do I, perhaps, first and foremost need to "moderate"
>>>>>>myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If we
>>>>>>all were more moderate, as far as both quality and quantity of our
>>>>>talk are concerned? (J)
>>>>>
>>>>>That is the ideal state and here on this list people have moderated
>>>>>themselves very well and within reason. (D)
>>>>>
>>>>>I am hearing J differently. I am hearing, among other things,
>>>>>an idea of "suspension" of immediate response. There are lots of times
>>>>>when this is necessary because of time constraints. During many
>>>>>of these times, a feeling of "response to the whole" comes
>>>>>with the delayed posting. It's a nice feeling.
>>>>>
>>>>>pat
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Joachim Faust
>>>>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>>
>>>>
&g