From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 00:41:17 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 01:58:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
Message-ID: <20060911.190535.1608.21.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Pat, I wonder if there is a better way to talk about this. Generally, it
seems people are afraid to not play whatever role got them this far
(dbl).
Yes. The fear is palpable if attention is drawn there. It can be like
a 'silent terror' which can perhaps only be "faced" initially by its
evidence
or trail. For me the terror first appeared as a hugely thick but simple
wall
[the prospect of being without the most prominent role -
the role that had, I felt very deeply, literally saved
my life, on countless occasions over a period of decades. It was
the representation of a person that "I had worked to become
against great odds, with experiences entirely unique and
valuable to the world in a historical sense." This image
represented everything I was. Living beyond the
limits and thrills of this image seemed to have to
proceed in baby steps into unknown territory.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060911/119cdd3e/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 00:53:02 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 01:58:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060911.190535.1608.22.ae.dropper@juno.com>
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:45:49 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest
destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of"destructiveness" of
that which does not exist, i.e., the "me" fixation in thought, the
persona idem. -- pat
This is really hard to talk about. [Thankyou for taking it on - pat]
It is helpful perhaps to simplify, simplify. Some of the early Greeks
held that existence was what emerges, stands out. Seeing this, then
perhaps we say existence means the imagery that emerges, stands out in
the imagination ... as does the imagination of a tree when you experience
that word. Another example, BEACH may now stand when experiencing that
word. One more: SNOWMAN with pieces of coal for eyes, a carrot nose,
etc., on a cold winter day. If snowman stands out in imagination, that's
existence. [Good. I can work with that - pat]
Socrates holds up a glob, says this is being: then points to the mirror
image of the glob and says that is existence. It stands out as and in
vision, or maybe feeling or felts, and may be contrasted with what is
insensate. [Good - pat]
One interpretation of existence/being says that existence stands out
while also standing in, that something must first stand in being before
it can stand out of being (as a very tall man with red hat may stand out
of a crowd of short, hatless men). Part of the benefit of looking at
this is to experience being prior to the split between the East and the
West. Also perhaps to begin having a way to explicate that which is
prior to the subject/object split, the SOS. [OK - pat]
IF existence is understood as imagination we might see how the fixedness
of an image would be very troublesome. Or, if we held a fixed image of
our significant other which they did not measure up to, that could be
very troublemsome. If we held opposing images, conflicting images, we
might be paralysed with confusion: the fusion of conflicting subsystems.
[Yes - pat]
If we held self imagery, imagination of our self (our existence) which
was almost purely based on other imagination rather than a mirror view,
we might be in sad shape, might even get a trip or two to the crises
center or nut house.
This make sense? -- don L
So far, so good
pat
~~
These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way
the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and
'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation
in a domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations'
bang into each other and it hurts if one of them is "me." -- Pat
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest
destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of
"destructiveness" of that which does not exist, i.e.,
the "me" fixation in thought, the persona idem.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060911/53a5ba45/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 00:13:34 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 01:58:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060911.190535.1608.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Rephrasing this question (perhaps for both contexts) ..., What is
destroyed
when we tolerate fixations that bang into each other, that "make no
sense"
and create confusion? (dbl)
How would this "non - toleration" differ from a "banging fixation?"
There is a kind of "non - toleration" [retrospective] that is a response
of "giving no energy" to the nonsense. This does not imply passivity
though.
It implies non - participation in the confusion and action based on
non confusion [clarity]. (pat)
Is anything destroyed when conflicting thoughts,
systems of thoughts, occur and are somehow fused in a persona life? Is
anything destroyed when the large scale persona is conflicted, confused,
by
small scale systems of thought? (questions unclear - pat)
Is anything destructive about teaching a child to hate? to lie? to ignore
reason, ratio, etc? -- (question unclear - pat)
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 00:58:37 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 01:58:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060911.190535.1608.23.ae.dropper@juno.com>
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:46:09 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
PAT: Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of"destructiveness"
of that which does not exist, i.e., the "me" fixation in thought, the
persona idem.
DON L: Do we say the self image, the personal identity emerges, stands
out, and therefore exists? That is, maybe it is coherent to say the
persona idem has existence, but may be shy on Being,
[I can work with this - pat]
actuality. I believe this would be consistent with what db says re the
self in TAS, that we do not know what we are but that what we are is
being revealed.
PAT: These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way
the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and
'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation in a
domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations' bang into each
other and it hurts if one of them is "me."
DON L: If we see the "unlimited" in terms of the Greek teloi, the telos
or inner aim of being then perhaps we can say that what Bohm calls the
"common pool of meaning". We may also then have a way to judge the
limited. I believe if we look at what scientists, (db) says re beauty,
elegance, dignity, by which theories are judged, we are considering the
telos or inner aim of the whole.
[This all seems clear - pat]
Pat, I have several of your posts marked for answering and will get to
them as I can. -- Don L
I know what you mean.
pat
~~
From: Don Lay
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:45 PM
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest
destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of"destructiveness" of
that which does not exist, i.e., the "me" fixation in thought, the
persona idem. -- pat
This is really hard to talk about. It is helpful perhaps to simplify,
simplify. Some of the early Greeks held that existence was what emerges,
stands out. Seeing this, then perhaps we say existence means the imagery
that emerges, stands out in the imagination ... as does the imagination
of a tree when you experience that word. Another example, BEACH may now
stand when experiencing that word. One more: SNOWMAN with pieces of coal
for eyes, a carrot nose, etc., on a cold winter day. If snowman stands
out in imagination, that's existence. Socrates holds up a glob, says this
is being: then points to the mirror image of the glob and says that is
existence. It stands out as and in vision, or maybe feeling or felts,
and may be contrasted with what is insensate.
One interpretation of existence/being says that existence stands out
while also standing in, that something must first stand in being before
it can stand out of being (as a very tall man with red hat may stand out
of a crowd of short, hatless men). Part of the benefit of looking at
this is to experience being prior to the split between the East and the
West. Also perhaps to begin having a way to explicate that which is
prior to the subject/object split, the SOS.
IF existence is understood as imagination we might see how the fixedness
of an image would be very troublesome. Or, if we held a fixed image of
our significant other which they did not measure up to, that could be
very troublemsome. If we held opposing images, conflicting images, we
might be paralysed with confusion: the fusion of conflicting subsystems.
If we held self imagery, imagination of our self (our existence) which
was almost purely based on other imagination rather than a mirror view,
we might be in sad shape, might even get a trip or two to the crises
center or nut house.
This make sense? -- don L
These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way
the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and
'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation
in a domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations'
bang into each other and it hurts if one of them is "me." -- Pat
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest
destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of
"destructiveness" of that which does not exist, i.e.,
the "me" fixation in thought, the persona idem.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060911/e170e9cd/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 03:08:59 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 13 04:00:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Necessitiestiesties
In-Reply-To: <74FF6B90-4DFB-4F4B-9BEB-590A636A00CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F20CDBEADF73CE651BA63A3A82B0@phx.gbl>
Pat, I have several of your posts marked for answering and will get to them
as I can. -- Don L
I know what you mean. -- pat
I go to bed now, please turn off all lights later, dear. -- Kirsten
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 12 03:18:54 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 13 04:12:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <BAY107-F1954EFED7CEDC02E21C77CA8350@phx.gbl>
<525C11B3-B6F0-4BCA-B46E-3153E926A4DD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000901c6d609$a13172e0$9b05153f@DL01>
What's the differnece between the idea of the Whole determining the parts
(TD) and the idea of a god determining its creation? Is it more than lack
of dogmatic nonsense? -- Don L
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:52 AM
>>> Also, it may be worth your noticing that the argument that the
>>> complexity is a product
>>> of the relationship between the parts or subsystems is, itself a
>>> product of the dominant
>>> assumptions within that reductionist paradigm, so one could say that
>>> it becomes
>>> hopelessly illogical once you step outside of those defining limits.
>> ____________________________
> Okay, to say that "complexity is a product of the relationship between
> the parts or subsystems" is
> to treat the subject within a mechanistic paradigm. It is what is known
> in the trade as a bottom up
> description. But complexity theory tells a different story, especially
> when we also look at it from a
> system's perspective that uses more of a top down perspective. From this
> latter point of view, it
> makes no sense to think of the parts of a complex whole as simply adding
> up to that whole. They
> are, when considered in this way, internally connected, or as physicists
> like to put it, entangled.
> Bohm described this as "the whole organises the parts.
>
> Look up the work of H.R. Maturana and Francisco Varela for starters, if
> you would like to learn
> more. > don
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 12 03:39:25 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 13 04:31:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as the Common Pool of Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, logic, necessity in thought
References: <BAY107-F20CDBEADF73CE651BA63A3A82B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <001201c6d60c$50e8e630$9b05153f@DL01>
Does meaninglessness come with a price tag? Is there a cost for
tolerating, participating in meaningless nonsense? Is the "common pool of
meaning" to be ignored? Has it no meaning? Are we to act and pretend that
meaning has no value? - dbl
From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
> Pat, I have several of your posts marked for answering and will get to
> them as I can. -- Don L
>
> I know what you mean. -- pat
>
> I go to bed now, please turn off all lights later, dear. -- Kirsten
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 04:08:29 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 05:02:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as the Common Pool of Meaning, Ratio, Reason,
logic, necessity in thought
Message-ID: <20060911.220851.1524.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Is participation in meaninglessness necessary?
Consider the "monkeymind" meaningless thoughts that
rather silently arise throughout the day. Is the "weight" of them
even close to coming up to the weight of a feather? If they 'take on'
"weight" what is it that "gives" them weight?
(Do I continue to miss your point?)
pat
Does meaninglessness come with a price tag? Is there a cost for
tolerating, participating in meaningless nonsense? Is the "common pool
of
meaning" to be ignored? Has it no meaning? Are we to act and pretend
that
meaning has no value? - dbl
From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
> Pat, I have several of your posts marked for answering and will get to
> them as I can. -- Don L
>
> I know what you mean. -- pat
>
> I go to bed now, please turn off all lights later, dear. -- Kirsten
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 12 04:22:24 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 13 05:14:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]
Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio, Reason, Logic,
necessity in thought ...
References: <20060907.093908.15224.43.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<001b01c6d293$73523270$3664153f@DL01>
<31946072-BAB6-4654-A93A-B3F8D1F42551@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00c901c6d2a4$f92d1a70$3664153f@DL01> <004701c6d360$c5e68d60$1378153f@DL01>
<7F43A285-0162-44ED-BEA6-45C80199F59E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<8175E78A-7C52-48B9-B337-AF882C5D5FBA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<706324E0-7213-48F4-9B48-C1D9919ACA89@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005f01c6d3b3$ac167f00$630a153f@DL01>
<003701c6d544$14faf000$db2c153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <002501c6d612$5d74f820$9b05153f@DL01>
It is written and therefore author-i-tative:
"Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason." Early Greek Thinking, Martin Heidegger, p 60. Gainsay anyone?
What is the meaning? The above quote may be the earliest mention of meaning in Western Civilization.
Could it be helpful, useful in trying to understand Bohm Dialogue to consider Heraclitus' notion of Logos as meaning, Ratio, Reason, as what is logical, necessity in thought ...?
Is it foolish to imagine the scientist, Bohm was unaware of this, did not read this, was not influenced by this even though he quotes Heraclitus re ontic flux?
Is it wise for us to ignore this, not address this? Harmful?
Locally, some questions have pointed in the direction of meaning:
Where is the common pool of meaning? Where is the common pool of reason, logic, ratio, etc? Is the place of the common pool of meaning the same as the place for the common pool of air we all breathe?
Resonance? Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060911/ae8c5d9b/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 12 04:35:46 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 13 05:27:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as the Common Pool of Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, logic, necessity in thought
References: <20060911.220851.1524.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <003101c6d614$29cf4fa0$9b05153f@DL01>
Do I continue to miss your point? -- Pat
I am unsure because. Sometimes the point is unsure, unclear. I suspect the
point, the ultimate (the ground and aim) is meaning itself, reason, ratio,
necessity, logic, etc. It seems sometimes you have to put up with a lot of
trash to get there though. -- Don L
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as the Common Pool of Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, logic, necessity in thought
> Is participation in meaninglessness necessary?
> Consider the "monkeymind" meaningless thoughts that
> rather silently arise throughout the day. Is the "weight" of them
> even close to coming up to the weight of a feather? If they 'take on'
> "weight" what is it that "gives" them weight?
>
> (Do I continue to miss your point?)
>
> pat
>
> Does meaninglessness come with a price tag? Is there a cost for
> tolerating, participating in meaningless nonsense? Is the "common pool
> of
> meaning" to be ignored? Has it no meaning? Are we to act and pretend
> that
> meaning has no value? - dbl
>
>
> From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>
>> Pat, I have several of your posts marked for answering and will get to
>> them as I can. -- Don L
>>
>> I know what you mean. -- pat
>>
>> I go to bed now, please turn off all lights later, dear. -- Kirsten
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 11:16:06 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 13 12:07:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] RE: Necessitiestiesties
Message-ID: <BAY107-F697A10F8620F19B1CC610A82B0@phx.gbl>
ROD (Religion of Dialog) Subscriber L : "Are we to act and pretend
that
meaning has no value?"
Subscriber S: Am I to act & pretend that "meaning" has "value"
LoKi
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Does meaninglessness come with a price tag? Is there a cost for
tolerating, participating in meaningless nonsense? Is the "common pool
of
meaning" to be ignored? Has it no meaning? Are we to act and pretend
that
meaning has no value? - dbl
From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>Pat, I have several of your posts marked for answering and will get
to
>them as I can. -- Don L
>
>I know what you mean. -- pat
>
>I go to bed now, please turn off all lights later, dear. -- Kirsten
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 11:17:23 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 13 12:09:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] RE: Necessitiestiesties
Message-ID: <BAY107-F15B8383301793BB2E139ADA82B0@phx.gbl>
ROD (Religion of Dialog) Subscriber L : "Are we to act and pretend
that
meaning has no value?"
Subscriber S: Am I to act & pretend that "meaning" has "value"
LoKi
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Does meaninglessness come with a price tag? Is there a cost for
tolerating, participating in meaningless nonsense? Is the "common pool
of
meaning" to be ignored? Has it no meaning? Are we to act and pretend
that
meaning has no value? - dbl
From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>Pat, I have several of your posts marked for answering and will get
to
>them as I can. -- Don L
>
>I know what you mean. -- pat
>
>I go to bed now, please turn off all lights later, dear. -- Kirsten
_________________________________________________________________
Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=42.336065~-109.392273&style=r&lvl=4&scene=3712634&trfc=1
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 11:24:03 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 13 12:15:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177E@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F766E91D90904EAFB44CA5A82B0@phx.gbl>
Subscriber Dropper:
Is participation in meaninglessness necessary?
Consider the "monkeymind" meaningless thoughts that
rather silently arise throughout the day. Is the "weight" of them
even close to coming up to the weight of a feather? If they 'take on'
"weight" what is it that "gives" them weight?
(Do I continue to miss your point?)
Dear Dropper,
You under the
I'm-pression
You 'run' (ride)
Your 'own'
Monkey (merrygoround)
Mind ;-?
...... where didoes that one come from?
LoKb
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 11:36:14 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 13 12:27:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "the point" (More & Less clear)
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177C@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F219B46A503FD0840F7D8EDA82B0@phx.gbl>
Donl:
Sometimes the point is unsure, unclear.
Dear Lay,
Which implies:
'Sometimes'
"THE" point 'is'
"Clear".....
So then
What un&clear
"the point"?
Prostitute, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 11:40:41 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 13 12:32:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] advertised
In-Reply-To: <20060906.084059.2076.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F4EDA8C2135DF57F20F676A82B0@phx.gbl>
Subscriber Franis, who advertises
That she is looking
For "work"
= $$
I have lived out my melancholy youth. No sorrows, no regrets.
No past, no future. The present is enough for me. It is not
difficult to be alone if you are poor and a failure. An
artist is always alone --- if he is an artist. No, what the
artist needs is loneliness. Boardingpass, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>Kirsten/Peter whoever you are,
>You might wonder why so many of your posts go unanswered, and unresponded
>to.
>Most other posters here seem to ignore you when you are particularly
>insipid, and reply occaisionally when you say something remotely
>interesting.
>
>I'm not even interested enough to cite the multitude of them all
>together, but
>so very often you've posted your objections to everyone else's post and
>in what ways exactly that they are wrong.
>etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
>Them are debate tactics. We all know how to do that, but perhaps the
>particular activity has slipped by your definition of debating. The
>activity of "poking a hole" in someone's balloon, etc. pointing out where
>their fallacy lies, seeing the hole in their logic - those sort of things
>are debate tactics.
>
>Bohm didn't want anyone to have that role; he wanted it gone. Debating
>has little point here because debating defines the "proof" to bea dead
>end to whatever anyone says. What is the point on this list in "proving"
>someone wrong? Why not build on what they say to go somewhere new and
>different instead of shooting it down?
>
>You seem to think your job/role here is to tear it up, because you
>somehow know better what is the "real" whatever. It's your internet
>classic declaration in over 80% of your posts that shows you are the
>"gate-keeper of the TRUTH" attitude that sucks. Every list seems to have
>one on the internet, and somehow you've appeared to be the one for this
>list, whoop de doop
>
>repetitive, and thus, boring and tiresome
>
>probably it is also the repetitive advertisment that gets added on
>whenever you use it that you have a Blackberry handheld, but what that
>mans to me that you're paying by the downloaded kilobyte to read our
>posts, so you're probably skimming them as fast as possible and spilling
>out your objections as thoughtlessly as possible.
>
>Franis
>
>
>
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:43:44 -0400 "kirsten schneide"
><kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > >>The "I" [thought] blocks [shrinks awareness of] Intelligence.
> > >>
> > >>pat
> > >
> > >I'm not sure why, but reading statements like the above really
> > pisses me
> > >off.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Don
> >
> > Look, Look
> >
> > I am with you :-!
> >
> > Stuff like what Dropper pushes above
> >
> > Is like advertisment.
> >
> > (Besides: Makes no 'sense'
> >
> > What Pat is saying there
> >
> > Since it boild down to
> >
> > That "I" is actually in the Power/Position
> >
> > To block
> >
> > "Big"Brother"
> >
> > Intelligence .....
> >
> >
> > Pat, Dear, you are contradicting yourselves here
> >
> > Can you see that
> >
> > Much
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Love, Kirsti
> > --------------------------
> > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
> > http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 11:56:58 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 12:49:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, Logic, necessity in thought ...
In-Reply-To: <002501c6d612$5d74f820$9b05153f@DL01>
References: <20060907.093908.15224.43.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<001b01c6d293$73523270$3664153f@DL01>
<31946072-BAB6-4654-A93A-B3F8D1F42551@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00c901c6d2a4$f92d1a70$3664153f@DL01> <004701c6d360$c5e68d60$1378153f@DL01>
<7F43A285-0162-44ED-BEA6-45C80199F59E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<8175E78A-7C52-48B9-B337-AF882C5D5FBA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<706324E0-7213-48F4-9B48-C1D9919ACA89@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005f01c6d3b3$ac167f00$630a153f@DL01>
<003701c6d544$14faf000$db2c153f@DL01>
<002501c6d612$5d74f820$9b05153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <C608BFA0-E2FC-4E57-9EC5-A542F9256F9F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
What the word means now, to you and to your readers is what is
important. To sit and parse the earlier meanings just gives the
memory something to do. It is a distraction. We do know that
"meaning" is a word that cannot be defined by strict definitions. It
is one of the marvels of language that we cannot define certain
words but we all know what they mean. We don't use "logos" in our
general conversations, we use meaning. Bohm called attention to logos
in the context of dialogue simply as a way of making clear that he
was using the word in a particular way, which may not have been the
way a lot of people us it. In other words, it is not about fiction
or theatre, it is about a flow of meaning between people. Simple.
Most of us somewhere along the line have come across Hericlitus and a
lot of others. But so what? If some fragment of one of them,or some
exegesis of another's writings can deepen our understanding a little
that's fine, but is it really important? I think not. I tend to use
quotes when they say what I mean but do it better than me and I like
to give credit where I think credit is due. Or if someone like
Kirsten doesn't believe what I say, then I give a reference to some
authority that might give it more substance. But basically, the
authority of the ancients is no better than those of our
contemporaries and all any of them can do for any of us is to provide
doors which we may or may not choose to open and pass through. I
would say, that nobody has ever achieved a state of intelligence and/
or coherence or enlightenment by reading Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche,
George W Bush, Bohm or the Bible. Not on their own. Each of these,
along with all the other great texts and thinkers might help us feel
enriched. and the acquired knowledge may provide our self-images with
a fresh coat of glossy paint but all by themselves they don't mean much.
Remember that Bohm's idea was that thought is active. It has an
effect beyond the thinker regardless of what heor she might do with
it. And if he was correct ,then whatever thoughts are out there, are
already a part of us, even if we don't know where they come from or
what others thought of them. We'll find out soon enough.
What interests me most is to hear what comes out of the minds and
hearts of the people I am talking with or dialoguing with and also to
discover what surprises come pouring out of mouth - or more
accurately fingertips. After all, we are the ones who might make a
difference.
I mean also, that when I started this post I had no idea that it
would be this.
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 03:22, Don Lay wrote:
> It is written and therefore author-i-tative:
>
> "Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in
> various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as
> necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason." Early Greek
> Thinking, Martin Heidegger, p 60. Gainsay anyone?
>
> What is the meaning? The above quote may be the earliest mention
> of meaning in Western Civilization.
> Could it be helpful, useful in trying to understand Bohm Dialogue
> to consider Heraclitus' notion of Logos as meaning, Ratio, Reason,
> as what is logical, necessity in thought ...?
>
> Is it foolish to imagine the scientist, Bohm was unaware of this,
> did not read this, was not influenced by this even though he quotes
> Heraclitus re ontic flux?
>
> Is it wise for us to ignore this, not address this? Harmful?
>
> Locally, some questions have pointed in the direction of meaning:
>
> Where is the common pool of meaning? Where is the common pool of
> reason, logic, ratio, etc? Is the place of the common pool of
> meaning the same as the place for the common pool of air we all
> breathe?
>
> Resonance? Don L
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060912/179caaaa/attachment.html
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 13:53:26 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Wed Sep 13 14:45:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, Logic, necessity in thought ...
In-Reply-To: <C608BFA0-E2FC-4E57-9EC5-A542F9256F9F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20060912115326.82532.qmail@web61015.mail.yahoo.com>
Remember that Bohm's idea was that thought is active.
It has an effect beyond the thinker regardless of what
heor she might do with it. And if he was correct ,then
whatever thoughts are out there, are already a part of
us, even if we don't know where they come from or what
others thought of them. We'll find out soon enough.
Yes, thought as a system is very active and ever
changing in all directions. It does exist due to this
constant movement within itself with constant
reflection in what is in and out there. I would also
say that it does control the observer in very powerful
way even though I may not admit to it. I may think, I
am in control but nevertheless when powerful emotions
come in, I am not able to control it, it takes total
hold of me and it consumes me. If, I am able to
observe such forces of the nature taking over me in
any given moment, I am then able to perceive it is own
movement due to a many different examples but
nevertheless I can feel the effect in me, and it is up
to me if I can observe it without act upon it. Maybe
then I am able let go so do speak, and move out of it.
It is therefore possible for one to have this quality
of insight into the movement of thought itself. I may
be not able to dissolve this fundamental movement of
thought process but nevertheless I do not have to be a
slave to it.
The difficulty lies in that thought acts within
memory, and it is for this memory that I am able to
put a label to anything and everything. What does it
mean? Well, I have to be able recognize my feelings
where are they coming from, which means to search in
my memory telling me that I had this feelings before
somewhere in the past then if, I have a emotions,
which I cannot put label on, I am in constant search
for this meaning of it all. Maybe later I am able to
put some sort of a meaning to my emotions but
nevertheless they may be totally wrong or
misunderstood.
The next question would be am I able to act without
this interference of thought in my daily life and
living in a sense being free from the past, and use
the thought where is it necessary or I would say
rather not letting thought interfere in my direct
perception. Thought maybe inform me about the things
themselves, and let me know what is necessary and what
is not with putting things together so do speak but I
have to have this quality to observe this movement and
be able to change it when is necessary.
I have been conditioning myself in many ways when I
cannot thing so do speak but rather react with speed
and example would be driving a car. When I see a red
light, I know to stop or to step on brakes when I want
to prevent collision. This acting and reacting works
similar way in the psyche, which is most important not
to let the thought take over.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 14:14:10 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 15:05:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, Logic, necessity in thought ...
In-Reply-To: <20060912115326.82532.qmail@web61015.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060912115326.82532.qmail@web61015.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8BAAB68D-50B6-4B27-B84B-36983C15EABF@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I think Bohm would have called the red light action a reflex and
therefore still a part of the mechanical level of thought - the
valuable side of it.
But the question occurs to me in reading what you have written here,
What would an Islamic would-be suicide bomber make of these ideas?
Could he or she possibly suspend the belief system that leads him or
her to want to do this? What conditions would make it possible to see
that particular kind of necessity for what it actually means, and
thus be able to reconsider it through the medium of new insight?
The only thing that come to mind is that it would be impossible for
an individual to do it. It would require, at the very least, a group
of people to consider the questions that we, here, might think to
ask. And even then, I am not certain that it would work.
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 12:53, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
> Remember that Bohm's idea was that thought is active.
> It has an effect beyond the thinker regardless of what
> heor she might do with it. And if he was correct ,then
> whatever thoughts are out there, are already a part of
> us, even if we don't know where they come from or what
> others thought of them. We'll find out soon enough.
>
> Yes, thought as a system is very active and ever
> changing in all directions. It does exist due to this
> constant movement within itself with constant
> reflection in what is in and out there. I would also
> say that it does control the observer in very powerful
> way even though I may not admit to it. I may think, I
> am in control but nevertheless when powerful emotions
> come in, I am not able to control it, it takes total
> hold of me and it consumes me. If, I am able to
> observe such forces of the nature taking over me in
> any given moment, I am then able to perceive it is own
> movement due to a many different examples but
> nevertheless I can feel the effect in me, and it is up
> to me if I can observe it without act upon it. Maybe
> then I am able let go so do speak, and move out of it.
> It is therefore possible for one to have this quality
> of insight into the movement of thought itself. I may
> be not able to dissolve this fundamental movement of
> thought process but nevertheless I do not have to be a
> slave to it.
>
> The difficulty lies in that thought acts within
> memory, and it is for this memory that I am able to
> put a label to anything and everything. What does it
> mean? Well, I have to be able recognize my feelings
> where are they coming from, which means to search in
> my memory telling me that I had this feelings before
> somewhere in the past then if, I have a emotions,
> which I cannot put label on, I am in constant search
> for this meaning of it all. Maybe later I am able to
> put some sort of a meaning to my emotions but
> nevertheless they may be totally wrong or
> misunderstood.
>
> The next question would be am I able to act without
> this interference of thought in my daily life and
> living in a sense being free from the past, and use
> the thought where is it necessary or I would say
> rather not letting thought interfere in my direct
> perception. Thought maybe inform me about the things
> themselves, and let me know what is necessary and what
> is not with putting things together so do speak but I
> have to have this quality to observe this movement and
> be able to change it when is necessary.
>
> I have been conditioning myself in many ways when I
> cannot thing so do speak but rather react with speed
> and example would be driving a car. When I see a red
> light, I know to stop or to step on brakes when I want
> to prevent collision. This acting and reacting works
> similar way in the psyche, which is most important not
> to let the thought take over.
> Fanda
>
> Fanda Plessl
> e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 12 15:34:47 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:26:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
Message-ID: <005001c6d670$42f791c0$701e153f@DL01>
What's the meaning ... that Bohm references Parmenides and Heraclitus? Was Bohm a name dropper? Or did Bohm see that according to Parmenides and Heraclitus the English word dialog is connected to the English word, MEANING? Why did Bohm think it had MEANING to reference P&H?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "dia logos IS meaning"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "Ratio"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "cosmic law"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "the logical"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "necessity in thought"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "meaning ... reason"?
"Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason."
Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/82795bb3/attachment.html
From gregoire at mindspring.com Tue Sep 12 15:39:48 2006
From: gregoire at mindspring.com (Rogier Gregoire)
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:31:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Holographic or holistic Universes
Message-ID: <CE4B4529-C6F2-4C20-911D-2A451A195428@mindspring.com>
>> In recent exchange there was a mention or effort to allude to a
>> type of collective entity or state of wholeness in which hologram
>> was used as a metaphor.
>> Here is a definition universe which I have posted on previous
>> occasions with little real notice.
>>
>> The paradigm is:
>>
>> It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with
>> others which alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of
>> the universe.
>>
>> and the corollary is:
>>
>> We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of
>> individuals, who have no existence except as manifestations of the
>> whole; as the whole, on the other hand, has no existence except as
>> manifested in them.
>>
>> stated by: Meher Baba
>>
>> I hope this makes some contribution to the discussion. I would
>> like to hear reactions to this different perception of universe
>> and hos it meets or conflicts with other notions of universe. I
>> recognize that the term "love" is ambiguous, but taken within an
>> individual perception it might still be valid as a premise to
>> consider in dialogue.
>>
>> Rogier Gregoire
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 15:42:01 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:33:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F766E91D90904EAFB44CA5A82B0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F766E91D90904EAFB44CA5A82B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <2A0881FE-0C46-4C55-A3FE-1BC792C22485@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 12 Sep 2006, at 10:24, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
> ...... where didoes that one come from?
Or did she? Has pit finally slipped up and revealed himself ?
don
"don't wrestle with pigs
you get dirty
and they enjoy it."
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 15:44:37 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:36:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
In-Reply-To: <005001c6d670$42f791c0$701e153f@DL01>
References: <005001c6d670$42f791c0$701e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <6253C020-BA1F-4BD6-91AC-3BB5FB575805@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
My first impulse was to say, Who cares. But then I realised that you
care. Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you?
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 14:34, Don Lay wrote:
> What's the meaning ... that Bohm references Parmenides and
> Heraclitus? Was Bohm a name dropper? Or did Bohm see that
> according to Parmenides and Heraclitus the English word dialog is
> connected to the English word, MEANING? Why did Bohm think it had
> MEANING to reference P&H?
>
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "dia logos IS meaning"?
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "Ratio"?
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "cosmic law"?
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "the logical"?
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "necessity in thought"?
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "meaning ... reason"?
>
> "Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in
> various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as
> necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason."
>
> Don L
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060912/253456b5/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 06:06:15 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:54:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, Logic, necessity in thought ...
Message-ID: <20060912.100144.1524.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
If "the common pool of meaning" is accessible "everywhere" can "location"
regarding it be said to be meaningful? Could "the common pool of meaning
be said to be "non - local?" It would seem to be "non - local."
pat
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:22:24 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
It is written and therefore author-i-tative:
"Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in
various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as
necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason." Early Greek Thinking,
Martin Heidegger, p 60. Gainsay anyone?
What is the meaning? The above quote may be the earliest mention of
meaning in Western Civilization.
Could it be helpful, useful in trying to understand Bohm Dialogue to
consider Heraclitus' notion of Logos as meaning, Ratio, Reason, as what
is logical, necessity in thought ...?
Is it foolish to imagine the scientist, Bohm was unaware of this, did not
read this, was not influenced by this even though he quotes Heraclitus re
ontic flux?
Is it wise for us to ignore this, not address this? Harmful?
Locally, some questions have pointed in the direction of meaning:
Where is the common pool of meaning? Where is the common pool of reason,
logic, ratio, etc? Is the place of the common pool of meaning the same
as the place for the common pool of air we all breathe?
Resonance? Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/12e4e304/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 16:01:37 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:54:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060912.100144.1524.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
It seems that for each of us, when speaking of things that really matter
to us, there is a way of using words that is preferred. The meanings of
the key words need to be arranged according to the meanings of other key
words, and for the real word lovers among us a lot of thought and
research has gone into etymologies and usages of each key word and the
reasons why our respected mentors used certain words certain ways. This
process is absolutely recognizable. And it can be recognized in another
person.
So two "word lover" people who want to dialogue about something in
particular may need to clarify certain meanings before proceeding.
I do remember your having gone on at length in the past regarding
"existence" and "being" but had no reason to remember for general
purposes, the relation of "existence" to "being" for instance.
Appreciate the distinction between "existence" and "actuality."
pat
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:45:49 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest
destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of"destructiveness" of
that which does not exist, i.e., the "me" fixation in thought, the
persona idem. -- pat
This is really hard to talk about. It is helpful perhaps to simplify,
simplify. Some of the early Greeks held that existence was what emerges,
stands out. Seeing this, then perhaps we say existence means the imagery
that emerges, stands out in the imagination ... as does the imagination
of a tree when you experience that word. Another example, BEACH may now
stand when experiencing that word. One more: SNOWMAN with pieces of coal
for eyes, a carrot nose, etc., on a cold winter day. If snowman stands
out in imagination, that's existence. Socrates holds up a glob, says this
is being: then points to the mirror image of the glob and says that is
existence. It stands out as and in vision, or maybe feeling or felts,
and may be contrasted with what is insensate.
One interpretation of existence/being says that existence stands out
while also standing in, that something must first stand in being before
it can stand out of being (as a very tall man with red hat may stand out
of a crowd of short, hatless men). Part of the benefit of looking at
this is to experience being prior to the split between the East and the
West. Also perhaps to begin having a way to explicate that which is
prior to the subject/object split, the SOS.
IF existence is understood as imagination we might see how the fixedness
of an image would be very troublesome. Or, if we held a fixed image of
our significant other which they did not measure up to, that could be
very troublemsome. If we held opposing images, conflicting images, we
might be paralysed with confusion: the fusion of conflicting subsystems.
If we held self imagery, imagination of our self (our existence) which
was almost purely based on other imagination rather than a mirror view,
we might be in sad shape, might even get a trip or two to the crises
center or nut house.
This make sense? -- don L
These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way
the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and
'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation
in a domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations'
bang into each other and it hurts if one of them is "me." -- Pat
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest
destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of
"destructiveness" of that which does not exist, i.e.,
the "me" fixation in thought, the persona idem.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/eea13b15/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 12 16:37:06 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 13 17:29:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
References: <005001c6d670$42f791c0$701e153f@DL01>
<6253C020-BA1F-4BD6-91AC-3BB5FB575805@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <008101c6d678$ff176260$701e153f@DL01>
Don F: My first impulse was to say, Who cares. But then I realized that you care. Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you?
Pat: If "the common pool of meaning" is accessible "everywhere" can "location"
regarding it be said to be meaningful? Could "the common pool of meaning
be said to be "non - local?" It would seem to be "non - local."
dbl: Parmenides and Heraclitus may be the way explain db's connection with meaning, with the non local. Pat is suggesting the answer to the question -- Where is the local of the logos, of reason. of ratio? -- Pat's answer by way of Bohm physics is that Ratio, Reason, Logos is NON LOCAL. Is Reason local? Ratio ... local?
The local means fixed, doesn't it? Is the ratio, reason, logic, necessity ... of Heraclitus fixed? No, Pat is saying in agreement with Bohm, ratio, reason, logic, necessity ... is NON LOCAL.
What's the connection with DBD, with db dialogue ON LINE, this right here/now, etc? Maybe the connection is NON LOCAL. Maybe it's Spiritual connection instead of fragmented, disjoint imaginary parts.
Why do I care? Understanding is more precious than gold and silver, than precious gems, etc. That saying has been around for millennia. I believe it. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
My first impulse was to say, Who cares. But then I realised that you care. Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you?
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 14:34, Don Lay wrote:
What's the meaning ... that Bohm references Parmenides and Heraclitus? Was Bohm a name dropper? Or did Bohm see that according to Parmenides and Heraclitus the English word dialog is connected to the English word, MEANING? Why did Bohm think it had MEANING to reference P&H?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "dia logos IS meaning"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "Ratio"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "cosmic law"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "the logical"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "necessity in thought"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "meaning ... reason"?
"Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason."
Don L
_______________________________________________
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/20060912/f1318013/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 12 16:47:57 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 13 17:39:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060912.100144.1524.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <009001c6d67a$722158a0$701e153f@DL01>
regarding "existence" and "being" but had no reason to remember for general purposes, the relation of "existence" to "being" for instance. Appreciate the distinction between "existence" and "actuality." -- pat
Me too. Maybe the meaning of actuality is close to the meaning of the Greek being. Maybe the reasoning for attention to the Greek is that the Greek is the origin of Western thought. Looking closely, perhaps we see the Greek sophistication with language is the beginning of differentiating East and West.
Also of great significance is the Greek explanation of being/non being because language is a use of being and non being. -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
It seems that for each of us, when speaking of things that really matter to us, there is a way of using words that is preferred. The meanings of the key words need to be arranged according to the meanings of other key words, and for the real word lovers among us a lot of thought and research has gone into etymologies and usages of each key word and the reasons why our respected mentors used certain words certain ways. This process is absolutely recognizable. And it can be recognized in another person.
So two "word lover" people who want to dialogue about something in particular may need to clarify certain meanings before proceeding.
I do remember your having gone on at length in the past regarding "existence" and "being" but had no reason to remember for general purposes, the relation of "existence" to "being" for instance.
Appreciate the distinction between "existence" and "actuality."
pat
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:45:49 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest destructiveness? -- Don L
Well, maybe, if it makes sense to think in terms of"destructiveness" of that which does not exist, i.e., the "me" fixation in thought, the persona idem. -- pat
This is really hard to talk about. It is helpful perhaps to simplify, simplify. Some of the early Greeks held that existence was what emerges, stands out. Seeing this, then perhaps we say existence means the imagery that emerges, stands out in the imagination ... as does the imagination of a tree when you experience that word. Another example, BEACH may now stand when experiencing that word. One more: SNOWMAN with pieces of coal for eyes, a carrot nose, etc., on a cold winter day. If snowman stands out in imagination, that's existence. Socrates holds up a glob, says this is being: then points to the mirror image of the glob and says that is existence. It stands out as and in vision, or maybe feeling or felts, and may be contrasted with what is insensate.
One interpretation of existence/being says that existence stands out while also standing in, that something must first stand in being before it can stand out of being (as a very tall man with red hat may stand out of a crowd of short, hatless men). Part of the benefit of looking at this is to experience being prior to the split between the East and the West. Also perhaps to begin having a way to explicate that which is prior to the subject/object split, the SOS.
IF existence is understood as imagination we might see how the fixedness of an image would be very troublesome. Or, if we held a fixed image of our significant other which they did not measure up to, that could be very troublemsome. If we held opposing images, conflicting images, we might be paralysed with confusion: the fusion of conflicting subsystems.
If we held self imagery, imagination of our self (our existence) which was almost purely based on other imagination rather than a mirror view, we might be in sad shape, might even get a trip or two to the crises center or nut house.
This make sense? -- don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/a383b347/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 16:58:01 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 17:51:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
Message-ID: <20060912.105805.1524.9.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Bohm always emphasized, when breaking down his intended meaning of the
word dia logos, that dia was "through' or "by means of," and especially,
that logos referred, not to "the word" but to "the meaning of the word."
We end up with "by means of the meaning of the word."
By means of meaning?
(For those who are not aware of this, Bohm suggested a "Meaning
Principle"
because both the "Reality Principle" and the "Pleasure/Pain Principle"
did not seem to be "working").
Also, "Necessity (and contingency) in thought were important basic
concepts for Bohm. He uses and develops these terms quite a lot.
"Absolute Necessity" in thought was an especially useful concept for him
(and for me). Actually, the concept of Absolute Necessity is what links
his work, at its most basic level, to Byron Katie's work. Absolute
Necessity in thought is revealed by terms like "Always" and "Never"
which can be found when searching for thoughts bolstering anger for
instance. ("You always do this to me." "You never listen to me."
These are thoughts of "absolute necessity").
Also, most helpful (for me) when observing thought was Bohm's
idea that "For any action based on thought there needs to be two
things, a thought of necessity and a thought of possibility. When
either a "thought of necessity" or a "thought of possibility" is
missing, there is no resultant action. So there can be a "thought
of necessity" and no action. And there can be a "thought of
possibility" and no action. Interesting to watch this while
walking down various streets.
Also, any "thought of necessity" that is not "absolute"
is also, in the right circumstance, a "thought of contingency."
Thoughts of necessity that are not absolute, will yield
to another thought in another situation. Thoughts of Absolute Necessity
"are more powerful than the survival instinct." And even though they
are obviously operative in Suicide Bombers, they are much much
more common than would be imagined initially.
"Absolute Necessity" as a thought in terms of dialogue is
suggested to be the singular necessity [in thought] for dialogue to
reach its potentials. "If it is seen as absolutely necessary, we will
just be doing it."
pat
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:34:47 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
What's the meaning ... that Bohm references Parmenides and Heraclitus?
Was Bohm a name dropper? Or did Bohm see that according to Parmenides
and Heraclitus the English word dialog is connected to the English word,
MEANING? Why did Bohm think it had MEANING to reference P&H?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "dia logos IS meaning"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "Ratio"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "cosmic law"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "the logical"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "necessity in thought"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "meaning ... reason"?
"Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in
various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as
necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason."
Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/50e3622e/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 12 17:01:36 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 13 17:53:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
References: <005001c6d670$42f791c0$701e153f@DL01>
<6253C020-BA1F-4BD6-91AC-3BB5FB575805@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <00af01c6d67c$5a8b3880$701e153f@DL01>
Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you? -- don F
I believe it means participation in the non local whole instead of just limited participation in the limited, local social identity system, the PIS. Don, maybe it is a way to address, relate the non local with the fixed, identified local.
I do not know exactly why I care about dialogue other than the notion relating to the whole, the non local? Union, unity? Wholeness? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
My first impulse was to say, Who cares. But then I realised that you care. Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you?
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 14:34, Don Lay wrote:
What's the meaning ... that Bohm references Parmenides and Heraclitus? Was Bohm a name dropper? Or did Bohm see that according to Parmenides and Heraclitus the English word dialog is connected to the English word, MEANING? Why did Bohm think it had MEANING to reference P&H?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "dia logos IS meaning"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "Ratio"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "cosmic law"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "the logical"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "necessity in thought"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "meaning ... reason"?
"Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason."
Don L
_______________________________________________
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/20060912/9adcba6f/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 17:37:38 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 18:29:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos - and non locality
Message-ID: <20060912.113752.1524.11.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The applications of the term "non - local" are worthy
of much focus and exploration.
It seems that the thought that rationality or reason
is a purely "local" phenomenon could get homo saps
into a LOT of trouble. And it seems that it is a habit
[reflex] of thought to think this.
Does it make more sense to say that
reason, rationality is localized in the
homo sap, or that homo saps participate
in reason and rationality?
At what point, in 'each of us', does
the rational seem to "localize" itself?
And what are the similarities of such
"localization" [among us] and what are the
differences of such "localization" {between
us}?
pat
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:37:06 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
Don F: My first impulse was to say, Who cares. But then I realized that
you care. Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you?
Pat: If "the common pool of meaning" is accessible "everywhere" can
"location"
regarding it be said to be meaningful? Could "the common pool of meaning
be said to be "non - local?" It would seem to be "non - local."
dbl: Parmenides and Heraclitus may be the way explain db's connection
with meaning, with the non local. Pat is suggesting the answer to the
question -- Where is the local of the logos, of reason. of ratio? --
Pat's answer by way of Bohm physics is that Ratio, Reason, Logos is NON
LOCAL. Is Reason local? Ratio ... local?
The local means fixed, doesn't it? Is the ratio, reason, logic,
necessity ... of Heraclitus fixed? No, Pat is saying in agreement with
Bohm, ratio, reason, logic, necessity ... is NON LOCAL.
What's the connection with DBD, with db dialogue ON LINE, this right
here/now, etc? Maybe the connection is NON LOCAL. Maybe it's Spiritual
connection instead of fragmented, disjoint imaginary parts.
Why do I care? Understanding is more precious than gold and silver, than
precious gems, etc. That saying has been around for millennia. I
believe it. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
My first impulse was to say, Who cares. But then I realised that you
care. Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you?
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 14:34, Don Lay wrote:
What's the meaning ... that Bohm references Parmenides and Heraclitus?
Was Bohm a name dropper? Or did Bohm see that according to Parmenides
and Heraclitus the English word dialog is connected to the English word,
MEANING? Why did Bohm think it had MEANING to reference P&H?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "dia logos IS meaning"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "Ratio"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "cosmic law"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "the logical"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "necessity in thought"?
Did Bohm see that P&H say = "meaning ... reason"?
"Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in
various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as
necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason."
Don L
_______________________________________________
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/20060912/d85cd329/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 17:58:58 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 18:51:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
Message-ID: <20060912.115900.1524.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Has pit finally slipped up and revealed himself ? (don)
pit schneide "slipped up" in her post to Dear alpha male
William calling him the smartest one here
pat
From tubakari at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 18:20:27 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Wed Sep 13 19:12:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, Logic, necessity in thought ...
In-Reply-To: <20060912.100144.1524.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20060912162027.11516.qmail@web52910.mail.yahoo.com>
Yes, we could say that!
Thanks,
kari
Can we accept whatever it is, and just hold it, in whatever you do, relax into, eagerly knowing that it is perfect and quite possibly a miracle?
http://kari.zaadz.com
----- Original Message ----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:06:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio, Reason, Logic, necessity in thought ...
If "the common pool of meaning" is accessible "everywhere" can "location"
regarding it be said to be meaningful? Could "the common pool of meaning
be said to be "non - local?" It would seem to be "non - local."
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/848541f2/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 18:29:46 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 13 19:21:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Featherlessmess
In-Reply-To: <525C11B3-B6F0-4BCA-B46E-3153E926A4DD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F25158003A9FA1CE558514CA82B0@phx.gbl>
Dear Subscribers
What is the role of paranioa in TAS?
'Better" yet:
What is the role of paranoia in (Bohm)Dialog?
PS: That Peter-thinkg is rather interesting ;-!
Love, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Has pit finally slipped up and revealed himself ? (don)
pit schneide "slipped up" in her post to Dear alpha male
William calling him the smartest one here
pat
_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 19:05:43 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 19:57:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060912.100144.1524.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060912.100144.1524.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <6FD437FF-113A-489A-93D5-3B2FAE1AD30F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 12 Sep 2006, at 15:01, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Appreciate the distinction between "existence" and "actuality."
I think it was "reality" and "actuality".
Or "being" and "existence".
I still worry about some of these distinctions, a lot of them sound too
persnickety for me. Bohm did it largely because he was thinking
about his stuff being published and he wanted to be perfectly clear.
But here we have the opportunity to explain ourselves, to in fact,
dilogue.
I have told the story of getting into big argument in Ojai over my
using
the word concentration when one of the K-ites interrupted me to tell me
that I meant attention. Well, to me concentration was the appropriate
word and its meaning was accurate in the particular context for all
except those who were conditioned to use K's lingo.
So, I'm a plain English sort of person, and although I sometimes cite
authority or quote old masters I don't do it for pedantic reasons. If
I am
misunderstood, it will become clear enough. If it doesn't it may mean
that I am being taken for an authority, but that is not a part of my
self
imagery, at least not conciously.
I am going on at length here because the points you raise are
meaningful.
My view is that, if we are to be able to communicate these ideas we have
to be able to make them understandable to people who have never heard
of Bohm, Krishnamurti or Martin Heis
When we consider Bohm,. I did have the unique opportunity to have
spent a lot time with him informally. And he was only picky about
language use if he thought it would cause confusion in the conversation.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/225ee399/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 19:05:52 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 19:57:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
In-Reply-To: <005001c6d670$42f791c0$701e153f@DL01>
References: <005001c6d670$42f791c0$701e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <D0CC9F8D-10D3-45CA-BED3-D07AE49F3F5C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 12 Sep 2006, at 14:34, Don Lay wrote:
> Was Bohm a name dropper?
Of course. Just like all academics.
He used the word dialogue in the same way that anyone else would have
done. It is the only English word that
describes people talking together. He would always, though, make
clear that he was using it in a special way. Then he would
bring in the etymology in order to make this clear. As I mentioned
before, because the word was so common and had different meanings
we tried together to come up with some other name for what we were
doing. But we didn't succeed. All the other suggestions sounded
too contrived, like circulog for instance. The best we could ever do
was to speak of "group dialogue".
>
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "dia logos IS meaning"? He may have,
> but this would have been post-hoc. and anyway I never heard say
> exactly that.
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "Ratio"? I don't know if the did but
> he was a mathematician. And ratio sounds good to mathematicians.
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "cosmic law"? I don't know. And I
> don't recall Bohm referring to iit except to say that such a law is
> probably unknowable.
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "the logical"? Possibly but just about
> everybody talks about this and that as "logical"
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "necessity in thought"? Not that I can
> recall, but Bohm did speak of the thought of necessity.
> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "meaning ... reason"? I say meaning
> and reason a lot. But that doesn't mean that I learned this from
> some Pre-Platonic philosophers
nor would such
an attribution give it any greater validity.
>
> "Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in
> various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as
> necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason."
Since a few fragments of clay tablets were discovered in, I believe,
the 19th century, which had these words - in ancient Greek -
inscribed on them. Before that people and philosophers seemed to get
along very well and some of them, even Roman Catholics, seemed to
understand their meaning.
Maybe what I am objecting to is what sounds to me like a kind of
idolatry where some figure is imagined as matching some image of what
a great thinker should be like. And he would have hated that. Maybe
that's what bothers me. And for that matter, Bohm's ideas can also be
found in the Buddhist sutras and I doubt that their authors were
familar with P and H, but of course he did know the Dali Lama.
>
> Don L
>
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/010d31ee/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 19:12:48 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 20:04:27 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, Logic, necessity in thought ...
In-Reply-To: <20060912.100144.1524.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060912.100144.1524.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <D04BCEC1-EF9A-4F73-B323-9A05F787A070@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I somehow don't think that the common pool of meaning was meant to be
non-local the way Bohm used it.
It seemed that it referred to a group of people engaged in dialogue
who had moved to a koinoniac state
where such a common meaning or "shared content of consciousness" was
realised. But the notion of a
non-local common pool is intriguing since, it would seem that there
is no law prohibiting everyone from
dipping their toe into such a pool wherever they might be, especially
in this age of the internet.
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 05:06, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> If "the common pool of meaning" is accessible "everywhere" can
> "location"
> regarding it be said to be meaningful? Could "the common pool of
> meaning
> be said to be "non - local?" It would seem to be "non - local."
>
> pat
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:22:24 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
> It is written and therefore author-i-tative:
>
> "Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in
> various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as
> necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason." Early Greek
> Thinking, Martin Heidegger, p 60. Gainsay anyone?
>
> What is the meaning? The above quote may be the earliest mention
> of meaning in Western Civilization.
> Could it be helpful, useful in trying to understand Bohm Dialogue
> to consider Heraclitus' notion of Logos as meaning, Ratio, Reason,
> as what is logical, necessity in thought ...?
>
> Is it foolish to imagine the scientist, Bohm was unaware of this,
> did not read this, was not influenced by this even though he quotes
> Heraclitus re ontic flux?
>
> Is it wise for us to ignore this, not address this? Harmful?
>
> Locally, some questions have pointed in the direction of meaning:
>
> Where is the common pool of meaning? Where is the common pool of
> reason, logic, ratio, etc? Is the place of the common pool of
> meaning the same as the place for the common pool of air we all
> breathe?
>
> Resonance? Don L
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060912/deb1edb6/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 12 19:36:49 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 20:30:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060912.133701.1524.14.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Appreciation for this particular distinction is stated because it
helps clarify a question I asked Lay about "non existence" of
something in a recent post. The distinction promises to add
clarity to something we are talking about. Just a couple
of monkeys engaged in tool making (for increased understanding).
pat
On 12 Sep 2006, at 15:01, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Appreciate the distinction between "existence" and "actuality."
I think it was "reality" and "actuality".
Or "being" and "existence".
I still worry about some of these distinctions, a lot of them sound too
persnickety for me. Bohm did it largely because he was thinking
about his stuff being published and he wanted to be perfectly clear.
But here we have the opportunity to explain ourselves, to in fact,
dilogue.
I have told the story of getting into big argument in Ojai over my using
the word concentration when one of the K-ites interrupted me to tell me
that I meant attention. Well, to me concentration was the appropriate
word and its meaning was accurate in the particular context for all
except those who were conditioned to use K's lingo.
So, I'm a plain English sort of person, and although I sometimes cite
authority or quote old masters I don't do it for pedantic reasons. If I
am
misunderstood, it will become clear enough. If it doesn't it may mean
that I am being taken for an authority, but that is not a part of my self
imagery, at least not conciously.
I am going on at length here because the points you raise are meaningful.
My view is that, if we are to be able to communicate these ideas we have
to be able to make them understandable to people who have never heard
of Bohm, Krishnamurti or Martin Heis
When we consider Bohm,. I did have the unique opportunity to have
spent a lot time with him informally. And he was only picky about
language use if he thought it would cause confusion in the conversation.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/c846b3f5/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 19:50:34 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 20:42:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos - and non locality
In-Reply-To: <20060912.113752.1524.11.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060912.113752.1524.11.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <4B4663AD-0BD3-49B6-985A-F407C8A7F880@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Somehow to me it seems like its neither one or the other but smething
between the two.
LIke on one hand homo sap partipates in reason and rationality and on
the other reason
and rationality unfold from homo sap. Or something like that. But
then it would be non-
local wouldn't it? Because non-locality relates to causation in the
sense that one thing
causes another. Although, that too oughtn't to be taken too literally.
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 16:37, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> The applications of the term "non - local" are worthy
> of much focus and exploration.
>
> It seems that the thought that rationality or reason
> is a purely "local" phenomenon could get homo saps
> into a LOT of trouble. And it seems that it is a habit
> [reflex] of thought to think this.
>
> Does it make more sense to say that
> reason, rationality is localized in the
> homo sap, or that homo saps participate
> in reason and rationality?
>
> At what point, in 'each of us', does
> the rational seem to "localize" itself?
>
> And what are the similarities of such
> "localization" [among us] and what are the
> differences of such "localization" {between
> us}?
>
> pat
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:37:06 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
> Don F: My first impulse was to say, Who cares. But then I realized
> that you care. Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you?
>
> Pat: If "the common pool of meaning" is accessible "everywhere"
> can "location"
> regarding it be said to be meaningful? Could "the common pool of
> meaning
> be said to be "non - local?" It would seem to be "non - local."
>
> dbl: Parmenides and Heraclitus may be the way explain db's
> connection with meaning, with the non local. Pat is suggesting the
> answer to the question -- Where is the local of the logos, of
> reason. of ratio? -- Pat's answer by way of Bohm physics is that
> Ratio, Reason, Logos is NON LOCAL. Is Reason local? Ratio ... local?
>
> The local means fixed, doesn't it? Is the ratio, reason, logic,
> necessity ... of Heraclitus fixed? No, Pat is saying in agreement
> with Bohm, ratio, reason, logic, necessity ... is NON LOCAL.
>
> What's the connection with DBD, with db dialogue ON LINE, this
> right here/now, etc? Maybe the connection is NON LOCAL. Maybe it's
> Spiritual connection instead of fragmented, disjoint imaginary parts.
>
> Why do I care? Understanding is more precious than gold and
> silver, than precious gems, etc. That saying has been around for
> millennia. I believe it. -- dbl
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
>
> My first impulse was to say, Who cares. But then I realised that
> you care. Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you?
>
> don
>
> On 12 Sep 2006, at 14:34, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> What's the meaning ... that Bohm references Parmenides and
>> Heraclitus? Was Bohm a name dropper? Or did Bohm see that
>> according to Parmenides and Heraclitus the English word dialog is
>> connected to the English word, MEANING? Why did Bohm think it had
>> MEANING to reference P&H?
>>
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "dia logos IS meaning"?
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "Ratio"?
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "cosmic law"?
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "the logical"?
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "necessity in thought"?
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "meaning ... reason"?
>>
>> "Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in
>> various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical,
>> as necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason."
>>
>> Don L
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/ee2ff3da/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 19:58:43 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 20:50:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
In-Reply-To: <20060912.115900.1524.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060912.115900.1524.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <3C5B3CF0-2304-4519-8B59-C73627E7EBE5@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Had he done that before? I was referring to "didoes" a standard pitism.
And isn't William the smartest one here?
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 16:58, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Has pit finally slipped up and revealed himself ? (don)
>
> pit schneide "slipped up" in her post to Dear alpha male
> William calling him the smartest one here
>
> 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 tubakari at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 20:11:01 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Wed Sep 13 21:02:40 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
In-Reply-To: <3C5B3CF0-2304-4519-8B59-C73627E7EBE5@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20060912181101.83295.qmail@web52912.mail.yahoo.com>
[smiles] mwahahaha
Can we accept whatever it is, and just hold it, in whatever you do, relax into, eagerly knowing that it is perfect and quite possibly a miracle?
http://kari.zaadz.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:58:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
Had he done that before? I was referring to "didoes" a standard pitism.
And isn't William the smartest one here?
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 16:58, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Has pit finally slipped up and revealed himself ? (don)
>
> pit schneide "slipped up" in her post to Dear alpha male
> William calling him the smartest one here
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/f7052aa0/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 21:30:53 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 22:22:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
In-Reply-To: <00af01c6d67c$5a8b3880$701e153f@DL01>
References: <005001c6d670$42f791c0$701e153f@DL01>
<6253C020-BA1F-4BD6-91AC-3BB5FB575805@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00af01c6d67c$5a8b3880$701e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <278E22D9-0FD0-41EA-850D-D2C2C7324255@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Maybe its just not the way this mind works. But to give so much
emphasis to very distant roots which may or may not be meaningfully
connected, I don't know. If someone says that Bohm was influenced by
Krishnamurti or by J. Robert Oppenheimer or by Karl Marx , Lenin or
Einstein, that makes sense to me. And if someone adds that he was
interested in Vico, that might be interesting.
don.
On 12 Sep 2006, at 16:01, Don Lay wrote:
> Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you? -- don F
>
> I believe it means participation in the non local whole instead of
> just limited participation in the limited, local social identity
> system, the PIS. Don, maybe it is a way to address, relate the non
> local with the fixed, identified local.
>
> I do not know exactly why I care about dialogue other than the
> notion relating to the whole, the non local? Union, unity?
> Wholeness? -- dbl
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Meaning and dia logos
>
> My first impulse was to say, Who cares. But then I realised that
> you care. Why? What does any of this do to the meaning for you?
>
> don
>
> On 12 Sep 2006, at 14:34, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> What's the meaning ... that Bohm references Parmenides and
>> Heraclitus? Was Bohm a name dropper? Or did Bohm see that
>> according to Parmenides and Heraclitus the English word dialog is
>> connected to the English word, MEANING? Why did Bohm think it had
>> MEANING to reference P&H?
>>
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "dia logos IS meaning"?
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "Ratio"?
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "cosmic law"?
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "the logical"?
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "necessity in thought"?
>> Did Bohm see that P&H say = "meaning ... reason"?
>>
>> "Since antiquity the [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in
>> various ways: as Ratio, as Vebum, as cosmic law, as the logical,
>> as necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason."
>>
>> Don L
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/57624a5f/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 21:39:14 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 13 22:30:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Featherlessmess
In-Reply-To: <74FF6B90-4DFB-4F4B-9BEB-590A636A00CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F357BCDCB6132A64F2CBB67A82B0@phx.gbl>
But Don, Dear, aren't you a bit....
How shall we put it ....
Too ....
......... STIFF ......
With Peter?
He has (come up with) a few good thinkgs, after 'all' ;-!
Love & Tiramisu, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 21:45:10 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 13 22:36:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Localized
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177C@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F2103F1E357FEDB5D3EC50FA82B0@phx.gbl>
Subscriber Dropper:
At what point, in 'each of us', does
the rational seem to "localize" itself?
Dear Dropper,
You ever don't write AND read & talk & thinkg
(For 1=one day ~ ~ ~ 'at least' ;;--??)
Green, Red, Yellow, Light, Kirsten in a taxi "on her way".......
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 21:51:28 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 13 22:43:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Localized
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F2103F1E357FEDB5D3EC50FA82B0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F2103F1E357FEDB5D3EC50FA82B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <A423B3B2-8565-4923-9933-57D8405696B8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Why don't you just throw away the mask, quit the acting and pretending
and tell us how a guy like you can afford a Blackberry.
On 12 Sep 2006, at 20:45, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Subscriber Dropper:
>
> At what point, in 'each of us', does
> the rational seem to "localize" itself?
>
>
> Dear Dropper,
>
> You ever don't write AND read & talk & thinkg
>
> (For 1=one day ~ ~ ~ 'at least' ;;--??)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Green, Red, Yellow, Light, Kirsten in a taxi "on her way".......
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day
> trial! http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 22:05:24 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 13 22:57:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quotewhy
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177E@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F32E69805099DF70D4DD396A82B0@phx.gbl>
This Bohm Chat Group Subscriber 'asks':
Why don't you just throw away the mask, quit the acting and pretending
and tell us how a guy like you can afford a Blackberry.
To which i can 'only'
'Answer':
Why would this Subscriber 'do' such a thinkg?
Foliage, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live
Toolbar Today! http://get.live.com/toolbar/overview
From Matti.Vaittinen at uta.fi Tue Sep 12 23:08:23 2006
From: Matti.Vaittinen at uta.fi (Matti Vaittinen)
Date: Thu Sep 14 00:00:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The mask: an evening with David Bohm
In-Reply-To: <20050614155222.03pfp7n9s4g0ogs4@imp2.uta.fi>
References: <6CE202238EEC1A4AB06E553F88422E046415A2@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
<20050614155222.03pfp7n9s4g0ogs4@imp2.uta.fi>
Message-ID: <20060913000823.ivs7p3lfta80skgc@imp3.uta.fi>
"[David Bohm told us] there was an actor who dropped acting, for private
reasons, and became a philosopher. He used his observations of theatre
as to describe the self. His idea and our starting point was: the
actor stands in for the character, and the audience stands in for the
actor (who is "in" the character).
Also, the actor stands in for the audience from which he gets feedback
and energy for the perfomance. The characater is something that is
given to the actor and the actor has to study it carefully in order to
breathe in life and credibility to it. However, it may happen in the
course of a performance that the actor forgets that he is merely
displaying a character, and so he becomes that character.
In the same way, the performance may be so entertaining that the
audience forget completely about themselves and live in the character
for the moment. A collective self comes about. The actor stands in
for the character, the audience for the actor (i.e. the character) and
the actor for the audience (that gives energy and support to the actor).
The character could be called the s e l f, and in a theatre a
collective self may come about through interaction between the actor
and the audience. What role does mime play in all this?
A child first learns about itself through the people around it. By
subtle clues and hints it learsn how it is, behaves and how it should
be and behave. Miming takes place. The child responses to the faces
and gestures like a mirror. There is probably a tencendy to feel as
comfortable and secure as possible (the brain doesn't want conflict);
in other words, one of the reasons why a child mimes is that it wants
to avoid disturbances.
In the beginning there is the learning about oneself by imitating.
Somewhere along the line as the child's mental capasities
develop, he learns to imitate (imagine) _himself_ without anybody
around. The child is now able to project an image of himself in time,
past and future. Naturally, the child tries to build an image that
feels the most comfortable. However, this image may be challenged by
simplyl putting down the child. Comfort is lost and the brain tries to
find relief. One way to get out is to conceal the fact that produced
pain (e.g. that one really isn't as good a boy/girl as one thought).
An immediate relief is produced when someone takes the child back to
the original state of mind by reassuring of the original image. The
concealment of the pain (the other image) then comes by _believing_ in
this person. The pain is actively forgotten (eventually, the
concealing process is probably that of the brain actively remembering
to forget!). An essential part of this movement is the brain darting
from one thing to another, actively avoiding painful images and never
staying with one thing for long.
In the course on time, more images and roles are formed to fit in
different situations in life. The concealing process goes on and on.
What is comfortable is believed in and adhered to, and future actions
follow accordingly. The mimetical responses seem to play a major role
in our daily actions. The intellect is rather a servant than the
master of all that which is subtly conveyed through facial
expressions, gestures et cetera. These responses arise from within and
are much quicker and more powerful than the intellect (the intellectual
reactions). What is within is, of course, the thought process
imitating and projecting its own images and concealing and avoiding as
much as possible the painful ones. It is like a short-cut.
In the beginning, miming was probably very useful both for the child
and for the primitive man in the activities of learning and surviving.
However, thought forgets the primary purpose and usefulness of its
miming (others and itself), creating a s e l f, first a collective one,
and then deriving an individual one from that, not realizing that the
self may be just a myth (i.e. a character) - it does not really exist!
The question arises: seeing the fact of the mimetical respones, where
they come from and where they lead to, how is one to proceed?
Obviously, thought tends to carry on its darting and concealing, being
deeply imprisoned by the brain chemicals. This is the very process one
has had a glimpse of and does not want it to carry on."
(An extract from Matti's diary, Autumn 1983)
--
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 23:17:33 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 14 00:09:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The mask: an evening with David Bohm
In-Reply-To: <20060913000823.ivs7p3lfta80skgc@imp3.uta.fi>
References: <6CE202238EEC1A4AB06E553F88422E046415A2@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
<20050614155222.03pfp7n9s4g0ogs4@imp2.uta.fi>
<20060913000823.ivs7p3lfta80skgc@imp3.uta.fi>
Message-ID: <74FF51C4-FAC8-4F97-8E16-E947ADEA9EDC@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I've asked this before and I will ask it again. What would we be if
this sort of
process didn't occur, what if there was no mimicking, no mirror, no
audience?
Would there be 6 billion people walking on the earth? What sort of
things
would they be doing? Would it be better than what we have now? Can
you or
anyone else imagine this world? I can't
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 22:08, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>
>
> "[David Bohm told us] there was an actor who dropped acting, for
> private
> reasons, and became a philosopher. He used his observations of
> theatre
> as to describe the self. His idea and our starting point was: the
> actor stands in for the character, and the audience stands in for the
> actor (who is "in" the character).
>
> Also, the actor stands in for the audience from which he gets
> feedback
> and energy for the perfomance. The characater is something that is
> given to the actor and the actor has to study it carefully in
> order to
> breathe in life and credibility to it. However, it may happen in the
> course of a performance that the actor forgets that he is merely
> displaying a character, and so he becomes that character.
>
> In the same way, the performance may be so entertaining that the
> audience forget completely about themselves and live in the character
> for the moment. A collective self comes about. The actor stands in
> for the character, the audience for the actor (i.e. the character)
> and
> the actor for the audience (that gives energy and support to the
> actor).
>
> The character could be called the s e l f, and in a theatre a
> collective self may come about through interaction between the actor
> and the audience. What role does mime play in all this?
>
> A child first learns about itself through the people around it. By
> subtle clues and hints it learsn how it is, behaves and how it should
> be and behave. Miming takes place. The child responses to the faces
> and gestures like a mirror. There is probably a tencendy to feel as
> comfortable and secure as possible (the brain doesn't want conflict);
> in other words, one of the reasons why a child mimes is that it wants
> to avoid disturbances.
>
> In the beginning there is the learning about oneself by imitating.
> Somewhere along the line as the child's mental capasities
> develop, he learns to imitate (imagine) _himself_ without anybody
> around. The child is now able to project an image of himself in
> time,
> past and future. Naturally, the child tries to build an image that
> feels the most comfortable. However, this image may be
> challenged by
> simplyl putting down the child. Comfort is lost and the brain
> tries to
> find relief. One way to get out is to conceal the fact that produced
> pain (e.g. that one really isn't as good a boy/girl as one thought).
>
> An immediate relief is produced when someone takes the child back to
> the original state of mind by reassuring of the original image. The
> concealment of the pain (the other image) then comes by
> _believing_ in
> this person. The pain is actively forgotten (eventually, the
> concealing process is probably that of the brain actively remembering
> to forget!). An essential part of this movement is the brain darting
> from one thing to another, actively avoiding painful images and never
> staying with one thing for long.
>
> In the course on time, more images and roles are formed to fit in
> different situations in life. The concealing process goes on and on.
> What is comfortable is believed in and adhered to, and future actions
> follow accordingly. The mimetical responses seem to play a major role
> in our daily actions. The intellect is rather a servant than the
> master of all that which is subtly conveyed through facial
> expressions, gestures et cetera. These responses arise from
> within and
> are much quicker and more powerful than the intellect (the
> intellectual
> reactions). What is within is, of course, the thought process
> imitating and projecting its own images and concealing and
> avoiding as
> much as possible the painful ones. It is like a short-cut.
>
> In the beginning, miming was probably very useful both for the child
> and for the primitive man in the activities of learning and
> surviving.
> However, thought forgets the primary purpose and usefulness of its
> miming (others and itself), creating a s e l f, first a
> collective one,
> and then deriving an individual one from that, not realizing that
> the
> self may be just a myth (i.e. a character) - it does not really
> exist!
>
> The question arises: seeing the fact of the mimetical respones,
> where
> they come from and where they lead to, how is one to proceed?
> Obviously, thought tends to carry on its darting and concealing,
> being
> deeply imprisoned by the brain chemicals. This is the very
> process one
> has had a glimpse of and does not want it to carry on."
>
> (An extract from Matti's diary, Autumn 1983)
>
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 23:18:47 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 14 00:10:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quotewhy
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F32E69805099DF70D4DD396A82B0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F32E69805099DF70D4DD396A82B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <7AEE183D-2090-4B52-BE50-68E0832AA5E3@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
A more urgent question might be, why wouldn't he?
don
On 12 Sep 2006, at 21:05, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
>
> This Bohm Chat Group Subscriber 'asks':
>
> Why don't you just throw away the mask, quit the acting and pretending
> and tell us how a guy like you can afford a Blackberry.
>
> To which i can 'only'
>
> 'Answer':
>
> Why would this Subscriber 'do' such a thinkg?
>
>
>
> Foliage, Kirsten
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE
> Windows Live Toolbar Today! http://get.live.com/toolbar/overview
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 12 23:58:03 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 14 00:49:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] hyperreality
Message-ID: <CE7EFDD9-B923-40C6-ABE9-4062C6952AD9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Maybe its just me, but this is the kind of philosophy that these days
gets me going.
Let them Greeks and last century Germans rest in peace.
I am forwarding it here really for DonL and Kirstenpeter of the
leading edge but maybe
some others will enjoy it, or treat it as a different flavour food
for thought.
enjoy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-thill/memorializing-
hyperrealit_b_29196.html
don