From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 00:01:16 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:05:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F1EA1FA25B7FB87E8AE3C5A5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <012f01c706ae$75e1b1b0$ed78480c@HOME>
What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to allow
both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix" either one
of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
> "felt up" so she can come back
> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that e-mail
> from Zoe's e-mail address?
> Did she mention anything about it at all?
> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
> I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I asked
> first.
>
>
>
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>
>>Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with your
>>reasoning! (k)
>>
>>I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be OK, right
>>K? (pat)
>>
>>Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>folk hero. (k)
>>
>>"Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>"obsession"
>>regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>and questions. (pat)
>>
>>His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>history
>>look at us? LOL (k)
>>
>>Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>
>>Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an extended
>>time.
>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special designation in
>>
>>the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's does.
>>It
>>says UK. (k)
>>
>>Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of us will
>>know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in maybe 6
>>months.
>>And what an interesting 6 months!
>>
>>Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>
>>What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be "felt
>>
>>up" so she can come back? (k)
>>
>>K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>she mention anything about it at all?
>>
>>pat
>>
>>
>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>> >
>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at
>> >whatever time,
>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for
>>a
>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>> >considering
>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>> >would
>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>> >might
>> >look undesirable.
>> >
>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>> >suggestion
>> >of "craziness").
>> >
>> >pat
>> >
>> >
>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if
>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a woman
>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her phone
>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter thing?
>> >
>> >Susan
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> >
>> >
>> >But, alright,
>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>> >
>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>> >actually misread the purpose?
>> >
>> >pat
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get today's hot entertainment gossip
> http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 00:04:53 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:09:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F13D4409E51FE05F1C0C602A5F50@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F13D4409E51FE05F1C0C602A5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <479B4B86-2350-4AF5-AC7A-7C8F7E109447@dc.rr.com>
Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the
world's ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of
Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
> We agree on that. k
>
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>>
>> Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we want
>> to deny
>> peter's importance to this process.
>>
>> pat
>>
>>
>> Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's
>> having one
>> hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact this
>> group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>
>>
>> It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>> number at
>> whatever time,
>> than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>> arranged for a
>> call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>> obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>> might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>> considering
>> William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>> would
>> have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>> might
>> look undesirable.
>>
>> What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>> suggestion
>> of "craziness").
>>
>> pat
>>
>>
>> How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>> whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>> silly if
>> you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a
>> woman
>> friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her
>> phone
>> number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter
>> thing?
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>
>>
>> But, alright,
>> if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>
>> William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>> actually misread the purpose?
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win
> a free trip! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/
> default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 00:10:23 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:15:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <012f01c706ae$75e1b1b0$ed78480c@HOME>
References: <BAY22-F1EA1FA25B7FB87E8AE3C5A5F50@phx.gbl>
<012f01c706ae$75e1b1b0$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <1BD9BD8A-475F-4AD1-9B16-F95448DB57E1@dc.rr.com>
This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't quite
see how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting truths can
engage in any kind of understanding, unless they forget about the
subject at hand and agree not to discuss it, and just enjoy being
friends. But then is that possible? And is that the condition we want
to end up with?
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way
> to allow both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to
> "fix" either one of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
> <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself
>> to be "felt up" so she can come back
>> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send
>> that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that
>> way? I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first,
>> because I asked first.
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>
>>> Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with
>>> your
>>> reasoning! (k)
>>>
>>> I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be
>>> OK, right
>>> K? (pat)
>>>
>>> Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>> folk hero. (k)
>>>
>>> "Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>> "obsession"
>>> regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>> and questions. (pat)
>>>
>>> His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>> pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>> history
>>> look at us? LOL (k)
>>>
>>> Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>> That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>
>>> Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an
>>> extended
>>> time.
>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special
>>> designation in
>>>
>>> the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's
>>> does.
>>> It
>>> says UK. (k)
>>>
>>> Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>> which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of
>>> us will
>>> know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in
>>> maybe 6
>>> months.
>>> And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>> any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>> level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>
>>> What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to
>>> be "felt
>>>
>>> up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>
>>> K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>> to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>> she mention anything about it at all?
>>>
>>> pat
>>>
>>>
>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>> >
>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>> number at
>>> >whatever time,
>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>> arranged for
>>> a
>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>> >considering
>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>> number, he
>>> >would
>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>> trickster
>>> >might
>>> >look undesirable.
>>> >
>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>>> the
>>> >suggestion
>>> >of "craziness").
>>> >
>>> >pat
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>> telling
>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>>> silly if
>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>>> a woman
>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>>> her phone
>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>> Peter thing?
>>> >
>>> >Susan
>>> >
>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >But, alright,
>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>> >
>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>> >
>>> >pat
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/
>> hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 00:11:26 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:16:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F13D4409E51FE05F1C0C602A5F50@phx.gbl>
<479B4B86-2350-4AF5-AC7A-7C8F7E109447@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <013c01c706af$e1bb2410$ed78480c@HOME>
But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a really good
example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see this as a narrow
focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in this one small way,
then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger scopes.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the world's
> ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
>
> I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of
> Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
>
> don
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>
>>
>> We agree on that. k
>>
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>>>
>>> Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we want to
>>> deny
>>> peter's importance to this process.
>>>
>>> pat
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's having one
>>> hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact this
>>> group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at
>>> whatever time,
>>> than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for
>>> a
>>> call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>> obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>> might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>> considering
>>> William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>>> would
>>> have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>>> might
>>> look undesirable.
>>>
>>> What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>>> suggestion
>>> of "craziness").
>>>
>>> pat
>>>
>>>
>>> How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>>> whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if
>>> you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a
>>> woman
>>> friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her
>>> phone
>>> number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter
>>> thing?
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>
>>>
>>> But, alright,
>>> if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>
>>> William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>> actually misread the purpose?
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a
>> free trip! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/
>> default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 00:16:20 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:21:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <013c01c706af$e1bb2410$ed78480c@HOME>
References: <BAY22-F13D4409E51FE05F1C0C602A5F50@phx.gbl>
<479B4B86-2350-4AF5-AC7A-7C8F7E109447@dc.rr.com>
<013c01c706af$e1bb2410$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BC34DBD8-BC2A-425D-9E8F-EBB87BB72FFC@dc.rr.com>
Well, I can't argue with that. But strangely, rattling around in my
head is this fragment of lyric that seems meaningful here.
Those were the days, my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we'd choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way
Something to do with Zoe maybe.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a
> really good example of what happens in the world at large? I don't
> see this as a narrow focus at all. If we can find ways to solve
> this here in this one small way, then there are ways to broaden it
> and use it in larger scopes.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>> Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the
>> world's ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
>>
>> I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront
>> of Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing
>> philosophy.
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We agree on that. k
>>>
>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>>>>
>>>> Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we
>>>> want to deny
>>>> peter's importance to this process.
>>>>
>>>> pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's
>>>> having one
>>>> hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact
>>>> this
>>>> group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>>> number at
>>>> whatever time,
>>>> than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>>> arranged for a
>>>> call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>>> obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>> might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>> considering
>>>> William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>>> number, he
>>>> would
>>>> have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>>> trickster
>>>> might
>>>> look undesirable.
>>>>
>>>> What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>>>> the
>>>> suggestion
>>>> of "craziness").
>>>>
>>>> pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>>> telling
>>>> whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>>>> silly if
>>>> you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>>>> a woman
>>>> friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>>>> her phone
>>>> number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>>> Peter thing?
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, alright,
>>>> if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>>
>>>> William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>> actually misread the purpose?
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to
>>> win a free trip! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/
>>> yahoo/ default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20061112/5ce6b72e/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 00:20:39 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:25:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F1EA1FA25B7FB87E8AE3C5A5F50@phx.gbl><012f01c706ae$75e1b1b0$ed78480c@HOME>
<1BD9BD8A-475F-4AD1-9B16-F95448DB57E1@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <014501c706b1$2aecf9a0$ed78480c@HOME>
They can very easily hold onto their own (conflicting) truths and still be
friends. What they can't do is to insist that the other change their truth
or that the other is wrong or less in value because they have a different
truth. Otherwise, people would not be able to hold on to their own inner
conflicting truths. So the question is, to my way of thinking, how can a
group operate (co-operate) with conflicting truths? It can only happen if
we do no insist on the primacy of "one" truth.
Susan
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't quite see
> how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting truths can engage in
> any kind of understanding, unless they forget about the subject at hand
> and agree not to discuss it, and just enjoy being friends. But then is
> that possible? And is that the condition we want to end up with?
> don
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>> What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to
>> allow both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix"
>> either one of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>
>>
>>> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>> "felt up" so she can come back
>>> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
>>> e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
>>> I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I
>>> asked first.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with your
>>>> reasoning! (k)
>>>>
>>>> I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be OK,
>>>> right
>>>> K? (pat)
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>>> folk hero. (k)
>>>>
>>>> "Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>>> "obsession"
>>>> regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>>> and questions. (pat)
>>>>
>>>> His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>>> pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>>> history
>>>> look at us? LOL (k)
>>>>
>>>> Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>>> That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an extended
>>>> time.
>>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special designation
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>> the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's does.
>>>> It
>>>> says UK. (k)
>>>>
>>>> Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>>> which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of us
>>>> will
>>>> know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in maybe 6
>>>> months.
>>>> And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>>> any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>>> level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>>
>>>> What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>>> "felt
>>>>
>>>> up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>>
>>>> K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>>> to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>>> she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>
>>>> pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>>> >
>>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>>> number at
>>>> >whatever time,
>>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>>> arranged for
>>>> a
>>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>> >considering
>>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>>> number, he
>>>> >would
>>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>>> trickster
>>>> >might
>>>> >look undesirable.
>>>> >
>>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>>>> the
>>>> >suggestion
>>>> >of "craziness").
>>>> >
>>>> >pat
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>>> telling
>>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>>>> silly if
>>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>>>> a woman
>>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>>>> her phone
>>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>>> Peter thing?
>>>> >
>>>> >Susan
>>>> >
>>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >But, alright,
>>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>> >
>>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>>> >
>>>> >pat
>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/
>>> hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 00:23:26 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:28:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F13D4409E51FE05F1C0C602A5F50@phx.gbl><479B4B86-2350-4AF5-AC7A-7C8F7E109447@dc.rr.com><013c01c706af$e1bb2410$ed78480c@HOME>
<BC34DBD8-BC2A-425D-9E8F-EBB87BB72FFC@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <015401c706b1$8ee99800$ed78480c@HOME>
Something to do with holding on to yesterdays values and yesterdays ways? Or something about youth being so certain they have "the" truth? Do we throw out (exclude) the young?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Well, I can't argue with that. But strangely, rattling around in my head is this fragment of lyric that seems meaningful here.
Those were the days, my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we'd choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way
Something to do with Zoe maybe.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a really good example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see this as a narrow focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in this one small way, then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger scopes.
Susan
----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the world's ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
We agree on that. k
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we want to deny
peter's importance to this process.
pat
Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's having one
hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact this
group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at
whatever time,
than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for a
call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
considering
William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
would
have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
might
look undesirable.
What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
suggestion
of "craziness").
pat
How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if
you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a woman
friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her phone
number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter thing?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
But, alright,
if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
actually misread the purpose?
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
_______________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free trip! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/ default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/9a902879/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 00:27:14 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:31:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <014501c706b1$2aecf9a0$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1667F88AC9FDC70B9DF050A5F50@phx.gbl>
Isn't that called "agree to disagree"? My childhood friend and I are still
close, even if she still lives in the thinkgs of the South. k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:20:39 -0700
>
>They can very easily hold onto their own (conflicting) truths and still be
>friends. What they can't do is to insist that the other change their truth
>or that the other is wrong or less in value because they have a different
>truth. Otherwise, people would not be able to hold on to their own inner
>conflicting truths. So the question is, to my way of thinking, how can a
>group operate (co-operate) with conflicting truths? It can only happen if
>we do no insist on the primacy of "one" truth.
>
>Susan
>.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>>This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't quite see
>>how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting truths can engage in
>>any kind of understanding, unless they forget about the subject at hand
>>and agree not to discuss it, and just enjoy being friends. But then is
>>that possible? And is that the condition we want to end up with?
>>don
>>
>>On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>>What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to
>>>allow both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix"
>>>either one of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>>>
>>>Susan
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>
>>>
>>>>K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>>>"felt up" so she can come back
>>>>P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
>>>>e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
>>>>I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I
>>>>asked first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with your
>>>>>reasoning! (k)
>>>>>
>>>>>I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be OK,
>>>>>right
>>>>>K? (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>>Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>>>>folk hero. (k)
>>>>>
>>>>>"Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>>>>"obsession"
>>>>>regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>>>>and questions. (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>>His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>>>>pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>>>>history
>>>>>look at us? LOL (k)
>>>>>
>>>>>Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>>>>That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an extended
>>>>>time.
>>>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special
>>>>>designation in
>>>>>
>>>>>the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's does.
>>>>>It
>>>>>says UK. (k)
>>>>>
>>>>>Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>>>>which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of us
>>>>>will
>>>>>know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in maybe 6
>>>>>months.
>>>>>And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>>>
>>>>>Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>>>>any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>>>>level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>>What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>>>>"felt
>>>>>
>>>>>up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>>>
>>>>>K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>>>>to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>>>>she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>pat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>>>>number at
>>>>> >whatever time,
>>>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>>>>arranged for
>>>>>a
>>>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>>> >considering
>>>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>>>>number, he
>>>>> >would
>>>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>>>>trickster
>>>>> >might
>>>>> >look undesirable.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>>>>>the
>>>>> >suggestion
>>>>> >of "craziness").
>>>>> >
>>>>> >pat
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>>>>telling
>>>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>>>>>silly if
>>>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>>>>>a woman
>>>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>>>>>her phone
>>>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>>>>Peter thing?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Susan
>>>>> >
>>>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >But, alright,
>>>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>>> >
>>>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>info:
>>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/
>>>>hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 00:29:09 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:33:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <015401c706b1$8ee99800$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F123BC868219CC6950F8171A5F50@phx.gbl>
Wouldn't it be a better world if youth and age could dialog? k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:23:26 -0700
>
>Something to do with holding on to yesterdays values and yesterdays ways?
>Or something about youth being so certain they have "the" truth? Do we
>throw out (exclude) the young?
>
>Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
> Well, I can't argue with that. But strangely, rattling around in my head
>is this fragment of lyric that seems meaningful here.
>
>
> Those were the days, my friend
> We thought they'd never end
> We'd sing and dance forever and a day
> We'd live the life we'd choose
> We'd fight and never lose
> For we were young and sure to have our way
>
>
> Something to do with Zoe maybe.
>
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>
> But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a
>really good example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see
>this as a narrow focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in
>this one small way, then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger
>scopes.
>
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>
>
> Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the
>world's ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
>
>
> I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of
>Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
>
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We agree on that. k
>
>
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>
>
> Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we
>want to deny
> peter's importance to this process.
>
>
> pat
>
>
>
>
> Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's
>having one
> hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact
>this
> group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>
>
> It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>number at
> whatever time,
> than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>arranged for a
> call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that
>not
> obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
> might seem more difficult with William than with Don -
>especially
> considering
> William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>number, he
> would
> have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>trickster
> might
> look undesirable.
>
>
> What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>the
> suggestion
> of "craziness").
>
>
> pat
>
>
>
>
> How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>telling
> whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>silly if
> you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>a woman
> friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>her phone
> number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>Peter thing?
>
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>
>
> But, alright,
> if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>
>
> William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> actually misread the purpose?
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win
> a free trip! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/
>default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 00:41:16 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:45:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <013c01c706af$e1bb2410$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F636C73B63B0CE7844A6FFA5F50@phx.gbl>
S: Isn't this a really good example of what happens in the world at large?
K: Didn't i read something in The Essential Bohm on that? I think he agreed
with you - or the other way around. k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:11:26 -0700
>
>But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a really
>good example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see this as a
>narrow focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in this one
>small way, then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger scopes.
>
>Susan
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>>Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the world's
>>ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
>>
>>I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of
>>Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
>>
>>don
>>
>>
>>On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>We agree on that. k
>>>
>>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>>>>
>>>>Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we want to
>>>>deny
>>>>peter's importance to this process.
>>>>
>>>>pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's having one
>>>>hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact this
>>>>group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>>>>
>>>>Susan
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at
>>>>whatever time,
>>>>than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for
>>>>a
>>>>call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>>>obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>>might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>>considering
>>>>William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>>>>would
>>>>have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>>>>might
>>>>look undesirable.
>>>>
>>>>What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>>>>suggestion
>>>>of "craziness").
>>>>
>>>>pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>>>>whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if
>>>>you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a woman
>>>>friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her phone
>>>>number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter thing?
>>>>
>>>>Susan
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But, alright,
>>>>if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>>phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>>
>>>>William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>>find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>>number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>>actually misread the purpose?
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a
>>>free trip! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/
>>>default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 00:47:01 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:51:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <1BD9BD8A-475F-4AD1-9B16-F95448DB57E1@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F44D2A390632D28B3D9CBBA5F50@phx.gbl>
just enjoy being friends. - But then is that possible? I've been able to
do that.
And is that the condition we want to end up with? - well, didn't Bohm say
that our focus was to watch the process of thought, not come to conclusions?
Not proselytizing would come under that category. He said, as i recall,
that if someone came to an understanding (correct word?), as a side effect,
that was good.
Sometimes, i think we just have to let a person come to his/her own
conclusions in their own time, but not let it hold back the group's deeping
understanding. Actually, even that can deepen group understanding on the
nature of change itself. Can be frustrating, tho. k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:10:23 -0800
>
>This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't quite see
>how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting truths can engage in any
>kind of understanding, unless they forget about the subject at hand and
>agree not to discuss it, and just enjoy being friends. But then is that
>possible? And is that the condition we want to end up with?
>don
>
>On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>>What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to
>>allow both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix"
>>either one of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>
>>
>>>K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>>"felt up" so she can come back
>>>P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
>>>e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>>K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
>>>I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I asked
>>>first.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>>
>>>>Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with your
>>>>reasoning! (k)
>>>>
>>>>I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be OK,
>>>>right
>>>>K? (pat)
>>>>
>>>>Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>>>folk hero. (k)
>>>>
>>>>"Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>>>"obsession"
>>>>regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>>>and questions. (pat)
>>>>
>>>>His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>>>pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>>>history
>>>>look at us? LOL (k)
>>>>
>>>>Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>>>That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an extended
>>>>time.
>>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special designation
>>>>in
>>>>
>>>>the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's does.
>>>>It
>>>>says UK. (k)
>>>>
>>>>Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>>>which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of us
>>>>will
>>>>know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in maybe 6
>>>>months.
>>>>And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>>
>>>>Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>>>any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>>>level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>>
>>>>What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>>>"felt
>>>>
>>>>up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>>
>>>>K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>>>to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>>>she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>
>>>>pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>>> >
>>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number
>>>>at
>>>> >whatever time,
>>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged
>>>>for
>>>>a
>>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>> >considering
>>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>>>> >would
>>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>>>> >might
>>>> >look undesirable.
>>>> >
>>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>>>> >suggestion
>>>> >of "craziness").
>>>> >
>>>> >pat
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly
>>>>if
>>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a
>>>>woman
>>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her
>>>>phone
>>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter
>>>>thing?
>>>> >
>>>> >Susan
>>>> >
>>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >But, alright,
>>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>> >
>>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>>> >
>>>> >pat
>>>
>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/
>>>hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 00:59:04 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:03:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <20061112.170145.2144.14.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
P: And Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless during his first
incarnation (or was it the second? Or both?).
K: That's something to consider. Should a moderator have considered that
flaming, or should that kind of conversation be taken off the list, just
like the moderator asked Kris and me to take ours off the list? Or what
other options would we have? k
>In fact, it seems that if the "Alpha males" could get their relationships
>figured out we could combine some of these smaller groups and have getting
>requisite numbers for the sustained experiment made easier..
Maybe i've been online too long, but what's coming up in my mind as I read
is that all these alpha male pairs - including maybe Peter and William - are
competing for power over the herd? I must be too tired to understand,
because that's certainly not the purpose of Bohm. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:01:43 -0500
>
>And William might be a "Fool me twice, shame on me" type person.
>
>To consider as well is what can be perceived in an archetypal
>alpha male/alpha male type confrontation. As much "trouble"
>as Peter gives everyone, including Don, Don to him seems to
>be not much more qualitatively, than an inclusion, one of the people
>who he likes to attack, and who is easier to attack both because
>he posts so much and because he is an authority figure.
>
>But William? Peter's first post as Kirsten mentioned
>that "William was obviously the smartest one on the list,"
>and he talked about how much he LOVED Alpha males.
>
>And Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless
>during his first incarnation (or was it the second? Or both?).
>For whatever reason, William was silent for a good long time after
>Peter was ousted.
>
>I was very excited about a year ago when there were
>two (and coincidentally, even 3) "alpha males" in one of our
>local groups. They both managed to stay to the end. NEVER such
>electricity! It was otherworldly! I PRAYED for a month that
>they would be back at the same time next month. This had been
>a first. Many times I have seen such twosomes in a dialogue setting
>where they only way the two could stay at the meeting place was by doing
>what
>Einstein and Bohr did at that famous gathering Bohm loved to talk about.
>Stay in separate corners. But they would NEVER agree to meet again. They
>have, quite consistently, gone off to start their own groups (I attend
>many of these groups, started by these "alpha males") and many are on
>each others mailing lists but they never show up at the "other's"
>dialogue groups. And, incidentally, my PRAYING
>did not work.
>
>In fact, it seems that if the "Alpha males" could get their relationships
>figured out
>we could combine some of these smaller groups and have getting requisite
>numbers for the sustained experiment made easier..
>
>It's expecting a lot though. Seems biologically based. But if it surfaced
>as a phenomenon and an issue, that alone would be refreshing, and a
>beginning.
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 01:09:50 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:14:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F44D2A390632D28B3D9CBBA5F50@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F44D2A390632D28B3D9CBBA5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <EC712CA4-8AAF-475A-8FEB-F3F88976CB48@dc.rr.com>
I guess there are various kinds or categories of friendship. I too
have friends who I don't share a lot of meanings with, but there is
always a sense of something incomplete in those relationships. Mainly
it is the fact that there is no cultural precedent for inquiring
together. My wife and I often disagree, but we are usually able,
sometimes it takes a long while, to suspend them and talk about
them. Bohm's idea was that if we can suspend our disagreements then
it is possible for there to unfold a new set of meanings that can
transcend the two. I have seen that happen but not all that often.
Often, this sort of transcendence has a character where we don't even
notice that our point of view has changed. That's the curious part.
For me, the question is, What do we mean by truth? Are there
different levels of truth? It seems to me that there are, so probably
its a linguistic difficulty. But at its worst its when our notions of
truth take on the character of absolute necessity.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> just enjoy being friends. - But then is that possible? I've been
> able to do that.
>
> And is that the condition we want to end up with? - well, didn't
> Bohm say that our focus was to watch the process of thought, not
> come to conclusions? Not proselytizing would come under that
> category. He said, as i recall, that if someone came to an
> understanding (correct word?), as a side effect, that was good.
>
> Sometimes, i think we just have to let a person come to his/her own
> conclusions in their own time, but not let it hold back the group's
> deeping understanding. Actually, even that can deepen group
> understanding on the nature of change itself. Can be frustrating,
> tho. k
>
>
>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:10:23 -0800
>>
>> This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't
>> quite see how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting
>> truths can engage in any kind of understanding, unless they
>> forget about the subject at hand and agree not to discuss it, and
>> just enjoy being friends. But then is that possible? And is that
>> the condition we want to end up with?
>> don
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>> What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a
>>> way to allow both people to have their own "truth's" without
>>> needing to "fix" either one of them by having them adopt our
>>> "truth:?
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
>>> <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>
>>>
>>>> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow
>>>> herself to be "felt up" so she can come back
>>>> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send
>>>> that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>>> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question
>>>> that way? I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you
>>>> first, because I asked first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up
>>>>> with your
>>>>> reasoning! (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to
>>>>> be OK, right
>>>>> K? (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>>>> folk hero. (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>>>> "obsession"
>>>>> regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>>>> and questions. (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>>>> pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How
>>>>> will
>>>>> history
>>>>> look at us? LOL (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>>>> That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an
>>>>> extended
>>>>> time.
>>>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special
>>>>> designation in
>>>>>
>>>>> the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country?
>>>>> Don's does.
>>>>> It
>>>>> says UK. (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>>>> which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some
>>>>> of us will
>>>>> know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in
>>>>> maybe 6
>>>>> months.
>>>>> And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>>>> any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>>>> level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself
>>>>> to be "felt
>>>>>
>>>>> up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>>>> to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>>>> she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> pat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>>>> number at
>>>>> >whatever time,
>>>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>>>> arranged for
>>>>> a
>>>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is
>>>>> that not
>>>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>>> >considering
>>>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>>>> number, he
>>>>> >would
>>>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>>>> trickster
>>>>> >might
>>>>> >look undesirable.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even
>>>>> in the
>>>>> >suggestion
>>>>> >of "craziness").
>>>>> >
>>>>> >pat
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>>>> telling
>>>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is
>>>>> really silly if
>>>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily
>>>>> get a woman
>>>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she
>>>>> sends her phone
>>>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>>>> Peter thing?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Susan
>>>>> >
>>>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >But, alright,
>>>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>>> >
>>>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/
>>>> movies/ hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https://
> voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 01:09:56 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:14:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <001001c706b8$0df4e1d0$ae77480c@HOME>
And yet, we have them. What do you do, exclude the alpha males?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> P: And Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless during his
> first incarnation (or was it the second? Or both?).
> K: That's something to consider. Should a moderator have considered that
> flaming, or should that kind of conversation be taken off the list, just
> like the moderator asked Kris and me to take ours off the list? Or what
> other options would we have? k
>
>>In fact, it seems that if the "Alpha males" could get their relationships
>>figured out we could combine some of these smaller groups and have getting
>>requisite numbers for the sustained experiment made easier..
> Maybe i've been online too long, but what's coming up in my mind as I read
> is that all these alpha male pairs - including maybe Peter and William -
> are competing for power over the herd? I must be too tired to understand,
> because that's certainly not the purpose of Bohm. k
>
>
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:01:43 -0500
>>
>>And William might be a "Fool me twice, shame on me" type person.
>>
>>To consider as well is what can be perceived in an archetypal
>>alpha male/alpha male type confrontation. As much "trouble"
>>as Peter gives everyone, including Don, Don to him seems to
>>be not much more qualitatively, than an inclusion, one of the people
>>who he likes to attack, and who is easier to attack both because
>>he posts so much and because he is an authority figure.
>>
>>But William? Peter's first post as Kirsten mentioned
>>that "William was obviously the smartest one on the list,"
>>and he talked about how much he LOVED Alpha males.
>>
>>And Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless
>>during his first incarnation (or was it the second? Or both?).
>>For whatever reason, William was silent for a good long time after
>>Peter was ousted.
>>
>>I was very excited about a year ago when there were
>>two (and coincidentally, even 3) "alpha males" in one of our
>>local groups. They both managed to stay to the end. NEVER such
>>electricity! It was otherworldly! I PRAYED for a month that
>>they would be back at the same time next month. This had been
>>a first. Many times I have seen such twosomes in a dialogue setting
>>where they only way the two could stay at the meeting place was by doing
>>what
>>Einstein and Bohr did at that famous gathering Bohm loved to talk about.
>>Stay in separate corners. But they would NEVER agree to meet again. They
>>have, quite consistently, gone off to start their own groups (I attend
>>many of these groups, started by these "alpha males") and many are on
>>each others mailing lists but they never show up at the "other's"
>>dialogue groups. And, incidentally, my PRAYING
>>did not work.
>>
>>In fact, it seems that if the "Alpha males" could get their relationships
>>figured out
>>we could combine some of these smaller groups and have getting requisite
>>numbers for the sustained experiment made easier..
>>
>>It's expecting a lot though. Seems biologically based. But if it surfaced
>>as a phenomenon and an issue, that alone would be refreshing, and a
>>beginning.
>>
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?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 dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 01:28:31 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:33:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <937B8786-9CD3-4BF7-A075-7B7FDEDD09DC@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> I must be too tired to understand, because that's certainly not
> the purpose of Bohm. k
Not necessarily. This may be something worth looking at. It was
certainly Bohm's intent but that doesn't mean that this kind of thing
doesn't slip in.
I know that I have been guilty of pulling rank in the sense that
having had a unique access to Bohm, at least amongst those who are
active participants on this list, I can try to set the record
straight when I think somebody has got it wrong. But then, what
makes me
think that I have the truth?
Bohm, too, often made the remark that whatever he said was a proposal
for further inquiry. It was never the truth, and certainly not a
commandment. Only once did I hear him claim that something was
absolutely true, or as near to an absolute truth as you can get.
Here it is, with a little context.
PeterGarrett ...the fact that it's one system (everyone in the
group) means that we are in direct participation.
DonFactor Whether we know it or not.
PG ... within the whole system all the time, and whether one
becomes proprioceptive in a world issue apparently, or a personal
issue apparently, seems to me to be the same thing. It's displayed
in different ways.
DF Do we really believe this ?
David Bohm It's true. This is as absolute a truth I think as
you'll ever find.
DF Do we behave as if it's?
DB No we don't, but that's what we have to get into.
PG That's why it's important to talk about.
DB I think that this is a very clear truth. Why don't we pay more
attention to it? That's the question. There's an incoherence we have
to look at. Either somebody can come along and say, ?That's a lot of
nonsense?, but I don't see anybody ever doing that. We are one
body... and I'm trying to say we've gone a long way in seeing how
different [the dialogue] is from the dinner table conversation.
???
I guess this is the problem of truth? We all believe in our own
truth. Some people attribute this to God and others simply to their own
perceptive skills. You may notice that I have changed the subject of
this thread. Anyone can change it back and just continue on with
talking about Zoe, Peter and William as before. But I think that
maybe this is another way toward understanding the same problem.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/e255b8bf/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 01:30:30 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:35:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <001001c706b8$0df4e1d0$ae77480c@HOME>
References: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
<001001c706b8$0df4e1d0$ae77480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <E497A040-5252-43BD-A315-27FBA7673A95@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 12, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> And yet, we have them. What do you do, exclude the alpha males?
>
> Susan
> But don't you know, we grow on trees.
\
don
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 01:31:52 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:36:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F44D2A390632D28B3D9CBBA5F50@phx.gbl>
<EC712CA4-8AAF-475A-8FEB-F3F88976CB48@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c706bb$1de338f0$ae77480c@HOME>
I would say what I have described is the suspension of the absolute
necessity of a truth. What Pat is talking about with two alpha males is
simply two men who believe in the necessity that one of their truths be held
primary by both of them. And I know Bohm hoped that we could go beyond
simply agreeing to disagree as Kathy says, but I would settle for that to
begin with. You have to start somewhere.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>I guess there are various kinds or categories of friendship. I too have
>friends who I don't share a lot of meanings with, but there is always a
>sense of something incomplete in those relationships. Mainly it is the
>fact that there is no cultural precedent for inquiring together. My wife
>and I often disagree, but we are usually able, sometimes it takes a long
>while, to suspend them and talk about them. Bohm's idea was that if we
>can suspend our disagreements then it is possible for there to unfold a
>new set of meanings that can transcend the two. I have seen that happen
>but not all that often. Often, this sort of transcendence has a character
>where we don't even notice that our point of view has changed. That's the
>curious part.
>
> For me, the question is, What do we mean by truth? Are there different
> levels of truth? It seems to me that there are, so probably its a
> linguistic difficulty. But at its worst its when our notions of truth
> take on the character of absolute necessity.
>
> don
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> just enjoy being friends. - But then is that possible? I've been able
>> to do that.
>>
>> And is that the condition we want to end up with? - well, didn't Bohm
>> say that our focus was to watch the process of thought, not come to
>> conclusions? Not proselytizing would come under that category. He
>> said, as i recall, that if someone came to an understanding (correct
>> word?), as a side effect, that was good.
>>
>> Sometimes, i think we just have to let a person come to his/her own
>> conclusions in their own time, but not let it hold back the group's
>> deeping understanding. Actually, even that can deepen group
>> understanding on the nature of change itself. Can be frustrating, tho.
>> k
>>
>>
>>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:10:23 -0800
>>>
>>> This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't quite
>>> see how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting truths can
>>> engage in any kind of understanding, unless they forget about the
>>> subject at hand and agree not to discuss it, and just enjoy being
>>> friends. But then is that possible? And is that the condition we want
>>> to end up with?
>>> don
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>
>>>> What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to
>>>> allow both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to
>>>> "fix" either one of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
>>>> <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to
>>>>> be "felt up" so she can come back
>>>>> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
>>>>> e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that
>>>>> way? I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first,
>>>>> because I asked first.
>>>>>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 01:34:42 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:39:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe Zoe Zoe
Message-ID: <BAY22-F52DF803F4EB84F8F69AD3A5F40@phx.gbl>
Zoe and I talked extensively last night after she received Don’s email. Let
me share some of that conversation with you. Edited, so it won’t be too
long, but nothing juicy taken out. This picks up at the point she got Don's
email. Also, the image is from her. Not offensive.
Z: Kay - I do not want to be a part of that. I hope you can see my
point, Kay, even tho we seem to disagree here... May those people run their
'dialogue'-joint, do (don't do) as they please. There is enough, more than
enough, of that rubbish in this world; already. I am not a masochist, or,
since, as I suspect, we are all somehow on some level/s masochist, may I
better say: I am not that much one, Kay, friend. --- Zoe
K: Yes, Zoe. I can see it. But I’m in a bind for helping you further
because my point was in large part based on the fact that you’re not Peter,
and now it looks to them like you are – like you’re pleading the 5th.
Z: Kay - I see your point. Even tho i think it is rather unhealthy to argue
something that is twisted, sick, to begin with. But this is what i propose:
I will send a letter like the following to Don. Your feedback is not just
welcome, but appreciated --- Zoe
Don - I am not inclined to provide you with my phone-number. But, as it
appears, you want to hear my voice so badly, let's us do it this way: you
give me your number, and I shall call you at my convenience. But do not
expect any lengthy chat or conversation, since all I have to say and want
to say is meant for the group, not some old men feeling they need to sniff
up on me via phone. What a profoundly embarrassing and shameful situation,
I at least feel that way. But, alright, if that is what you desire: Send
me your phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe
There ensued another lengthy conversation between us on the “sniffing up”
imagery
deafening the recipient to the content of the words. This morning, I
received:
Kay - No make-up, Kay. I pretty much just sent what I had drafted last
night. I also sent that image. If I can not express my feelings, my
thoughts, my hopes, my vision .... --- I do not wish to be part of such a
club/cult(ure). As simple as that. I do not want to, and I will not fight to
be part of people that identify/treat me as a disease of their "health".
This whole thinkg is sick, but maybe I am alone with that feeling, that
sensing, that percept. Thanks Kay --- Zoe
On asking if I could share with the group some of our dialog:
Kay – I am not your editor, nor do I want to be. Add to that: nor do I want
to be editor to anybody. Anybody can and should speak. For 'themselves',
meaning: With their voice. Voices. Make-up-off. Go ahead and post. Thinkgs
are there to be looked at, gotten into, talked about --- No matter what kind
of thinkg. There is not much worse than looking the other way, to repress
“thinkgs” that are clearly “out” there. If we like them, or not. The
courage to do so, to engage, is, for me, one of the beauties of dialogue.
To SHARE things/thinks. I believe in the power of dialogue, not, as they
calld it once at TT: diablock. --- Zoe
She did ask me to share this quote from Chomsky with you:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum ‹ even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives
people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the
presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the
range of the debate.
Noam Chomsky
As you see, we have no difficulty, and it was so before she was booted.