From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Sep 13 01:32:15 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Sep 14 02:43:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
Message-ID: <20060912.164924.156.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
...an intentionally irritating miracle, yes. - Franis
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Karilen Mays
<tubakari@yahoo.com> writes:
> [smiles] mwahahaha
>
> Can we accept whatever it is, and just hold it, in whatever you do,
> relax into, eagerly knowing that it is perfect and quite possibly a
> miracle?
> http://kari.zaadz.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:58:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
>
>
> Had he done that before? I was referring to "didoes" a standard
> pitism.
> And isn't William the smartest one here?
> don
> On 12 Sep 2006, at 16:58, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> > Has pit finally slipped up and revealed himself ? (don)
> >
> > pit schneide "slipped up" in her post to Dear alpha male
> > William calling him the smartest one here
> >
> > pat
> > _______________________________________________
> >
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Sep 13 01:49:24 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Sep 14 02:43:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Featherlessmess
Message-ID: <20060912.164924.156.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Yeah, but the ratio of noise to value is about one to forty-three.
Reminds of the monkeys eventually typing Shakespeare idea. The sheer
force of the massive number of posts means that at some point, anyone who
did that barrage of writing is going to say something valuable.
- Franis
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:39:14 -0400 "kirsten schneide"
<kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> writes:
> But Don, Dear, aren't you a bit....
> How shall we put it ....
> Too .... ?
> With Peter?
> He has (come up with) a few good thinkgs, after 'all' ;-!
>
> Love & Tiramisu, Kirsten
From tubakari at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 01:56:00 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Thu Sep 14 02:47:40 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
In-Reply-To: <20060912.164924.156.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20060912235600.21503.qmail@web52904.mail.yahoo.com>
i dont know if this is needed or wanted, but that is my current signature line and not a response to don's message...?
interesting response nonetheless!
kari
Can we accept whatever it is, and just hold it, in whatever you do, relax into, eagerly knowing that it is perfect and quite possibly a miracle?
http://kari.zaadz.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:32:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
...an intentionally irritating miracle, yes. - Franis
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Karilen Mays
<tubakari@yahoo.com> writes:
> [smiles] mwahahaha
>
> Can we accept whatever it is, and just hold it, in whatever you do,
> relax into, eagerly knowing that it is perfect and quite possibly a
> miracle?
> http://kari.zaadz.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:58:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feathernessmess
>
>
> Had he done that before? I was referring to "didoes" a standard
> pitism.
> And isn't William the smartest one here?
> don
> On 12 Sep 2006, at 16:58, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> > Has pit finally slipped up and revealed himself ? (don)
> >
> > pit schneide "slipped up" in her post to Dear alpha male
> > William calling him the smartest one here
> >
> > pat
> > _______________________________________________
> >
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060912/3892bc38/attachment.html
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 02:15:32 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Thu Sep 14 03:07:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, Logic, necessity in thought ...
In-Reply-To: <8BAAB68D-50B6-4B27-B84B-36983C15EABF@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20060913001532.23333.qmail@web61012.mail.yahoo.com>
But the question occurs to me in reading what you have
written here,
What would an Islamic would-be suicide bomber make of
these ideas?
Could he or she possibly suspend the belief system
that leads him or
her to want to do this? What conditions would make it
possible to see
that particular kind of necessity for what it actually
means, and
thus be able to reconsider it through the medium of
new insight?
I have this ability or I am capable of suspending my
believes whatever believes that might be. The
difficulty lies in fixed thought seeing any believe as
being true and real. Therefore, I am unable to
question such believe ever no matter what. We have
tremendous amount of such believes, and it is for such
believes that divides man against man. Each individual
is capable of having deep insight into believe system
itself, and therefore seeing through it is fallacy. To
me any believe is a tradition and deep conditioning
from very young age, which is then very hard to
question or alter. I may say that I do believe in
goodness or that the sun will rise again in the
morning but that has nothing to do with believe. I
create believe from my own instability and insecurity
inwardly. It is for this believe, which is like a warm
blanket giving me comfort and stability no matter how
false or true it may be.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 15:07:59 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Thu Sep 14 16:00:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Noise
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955177E@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F56B0F442395C67D76064FA8280@phx.gbl>
Franis, the agent of a-technique:
"Yeah, but the ratio of noise to value is about one to forty-three.
Reminds of the monkeys ...."
Franis, Dear, every ("every") freshmen of complexity theory has
Figured out already: that
Noise .................... is the 'magic bullet' that can get any
Stuck System (incl {Bohm}Chat-Groups) out of the
Rut
Oh, how much I wished there 's more noise here !
Love & Laundry-Detergent, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Sep 13 16:04:12 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Sep 14 17:22:25 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060912100002.E107322AF5@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF7D0EA1A7.CFA42227-ON852571E8.004D3771-852571E8.004D4A26@dialogos.com>
Rodger__ Don, you surprise me! _R
.
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
In order to dissolve these systems we need to accept them wholeheartedly,
Stir them into the entire rest of the system that
makes up who we each might really be. We do have that much free will....
...And the entire system is thereby sweetened. don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060913/7cdb139b/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Sep 13 16:29:54 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Sep 14 17:22:26 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060912100002.E107322AF5@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFF389DE0C.FF6D44BC-ON852571E8.004E29CF-852571E8.004FA465@dialogos.com>
Rodger__A mistake most often repeated is to confuse an idea of
right-or-wrong with preference. Would it be right to NOT put our hand in
fire? or is it a preference?
Some prefer the pain, even enjoy it, and so they feel it is right to get
burnt.
Which leads to the next point. A person can decide to maintain a discipline
like yoga or eat a healthy diet, or they can choose to be drunk,
overweight, or even commt suicide. In each case there is an element in the
complex system making a decision which can effectively control the system.
_R
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:52:20 -0400
From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
.
A corollary of this is: that no element in the system could hope to control
the system.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060913/ea3fc81c/attachment.html
From Matti.Vaittinen at uta.fi Wed Sep 13 17:29:53 2006
From: Matti.Vaittinen at uta.fi (Matti Vaittinen)
Date: Thu Sep 14 18:21:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, Logic, necessity in thought ...
In-Reply-To: <20060913001532.23333.qmail@web61012.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060913001532.23333.qmail@web61012.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060913182953.60npzvj97jy0wwsk@imp3.uta.fi>
The other day I went into a bookstore and found an interesting little
book by a Japanese "Samurai-philosopher", who lived in the late
1600's. That book was full of surprising insights, thoughts (aforisms
??). One was: "intelligence is many people thinking together."
(Another one was: If you have a difficult problem, leave it aside,
forget about it for a few days, and the solution will come to you by
itself. My comment on that is: maybe, maybe not ...)
Anyway, regarding "suspension of thought"; I think you can't do that
indefinitely. It takes too much energy. Eventually, sooner or later,
you must make up your mind, otherwise you can't take action. What
about theories? Say you are interested in Quantum mechanics, and you
read about the Copenhagen interpretation, and you study Bohm's views
about the physical meaning of the theory. Then, what do you do? You
study carefully what Bohr has to say, and what Bohm has to say about
for example, the two-slit experiment, and its meaning. Then, what do
you do? You feel you must find out the truth about the matter. What
do you do? Are you going to suspend indefinitely the both views, or,
will you decide that one of the two thories makes more sense? My view
is that you will make up your mind the other way or the other sooner
or later: you can't suspend forever. (Otherwise, you will go "crazy.")
What would it mean to "suspend" the both theories in your
consciousness, in your mind simultaneously? Is it even possible?
(This is just an example.) I remember once in Lappland, about thirty
miles off the nearest road, in the wilderness, noticing that I had
lost a tent I had been carriying along for someone else for a few
days: it had slipped off my rucksack. I turned around and went back
searching for it, through the forest, but could not find it because I
wasn't sure of the trail we came. Two other fellows were following me
(kind of trusting me, believing I knew the track), trying to spot the
tent, but we couldn't find it. Then on our "way back" I noticed
another unpleasant fact: I did not know where I was! The feeling,
the sense of being lost was quite overwhelming, even though I was not
alone. I thought I was "there" but it turned out that this "there"
was "elsewhere." We came across a creek, but neither I nor the other
guys were sure whether to go "upstream" or "downstream." I had a
certain sense of the direction, a sense of "where I was at," and when
I decided to go upstream it was because I had a clear belief (an
internal map) of where I was supposed to be, even though now I was
hesitant and not absolutely sure. Now, what happened next was that as
we had to go around a foot of a hill (only about a hundred meters) we
suddenly met the rest of our group, the place where we had left off,
originally. At that moment I could almost feel a "physical" sensation
in my brain, something taking place in the head. It took probably a
second or two for the brain, the mind, to adjust those two maps: the
one I had held in my mind and the one that emerged after seeing where
we really were. For a brief moment, the world turned around, so to
speak, a peculiar sensation, which I can still remember. The mind
adjusting itself to a new circumstance, responding to a "feedback"
from the environment. A sensation caused by thought.
Bohm uses in this 1951 book (on Quantum theory) mind as a metaphor for
certain new aspects of physics, as revealed by the Quantum theory.
For instance, he takes up the s.c. uncertainty principle, and the
indivisibility of the quanta. Bohm compares this with the difficulty
we have when we try to focus on one particular thought in our mind,
whatever it may be. If we try to do this, our attention to, or on a
particular thought seems to affect it so that it seems to evade and
change. Now, Krishnamurti often speaks about the "choiceless
awareness." I wonder if this has something to do with the example
given by Bohm above: you can't focus on thought as such. Something
else is required, a different kind of observation, perhaps. I guess
this means that we can't "touch" thought. However, it may have been
one of Bohm's "ideas," or hopes that we might be able to look at
thought, "observe" thought (perhaps) in a group, through a real-life
group dialogue. (And then, it does not matter what we talk about.)
Paradoxically, then, this kind of awareness (of thought) - this kind
of attention might have the quality of being able to change "thought"
as a whole, which makes up the system which is us ... whatever that
may be, culturally, I don't know.
But it requires a (serious) group.
matti
Lainaus "Mr. Frantisek Plessl" <frantisekplessl@yahoo.com>:
(Don F:)
> But the question occurs to me in reading what you have
> written here,
> What would an Islamic would-be suicide bomber make of
> these ideas?
> Could he or she possibly suspend the belief system
> that leads him or
> her to want to do this? What conditions would make it
> possible to see
> that particular kind of necessity for what it actually
> means, and
> thus be able to reconsider it through the medium of
> new insight?
Mr. P:
> I have this ability or I am capable of suspending my
> believes whatever believes that might be. The
> difficulty lies in fixed thought seeing any believe as
> being true and real. Therefore, I am unable to
> question such believe ever no matter what. We have
> tremendous amount of such believes, and it is for such
> believes that divides man against man. Each individual
> is capable of having deep insight into believe system
> itself, and therefore seeing through it is fallacy. To
> me any believe is a tradition and deep conditioning
> from very young age, which is then very hard to
> question or alter. I may say that I do believe in
> goodness or that the sun will rise again in the
> morning but that has nothing to do with believe. I
> create believe from my own instability and insecurity
> inwardly. It is for this believe, which is like a warm
> blanket giving me comfort and stability no matter how
> false or true it may be.
>
> Fanda
>
>
> Fanda Plessl
> e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 13 17:39:47 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 14 18:31:45 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <OF7D0EA1A7.CFA42227-ON852571E8.004D3771-852571E8.004D4A26@dialogos.com>
References: <OF7D0EA1A7.CFA42227-ON852571E8.004D3771-852571E8.004D4A26@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <AF53C889-231C-4727-9C84-CE7B4B613ED0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I think where Kirsten's participation is concerned in this system,
there is one assumption that, maybe, needs to be looked at again.
That is the assumption that for a Bohm dialogue to have any value, it
must take transparency and vulnerablity as being central to its
function. If someone hides behind an opaque mask, it hobbles the rest
of the system. And that too needs to be looked at. The questions to
be asked are: If one participant is able to skew the process so that
a large part of the energy of the group ends up being directed to
that participant in a way that allows her to become the centre of
attention, should this be allowed to continue? And if so, what does
that tell us about the overall value of the system?
We have had such situations before, in both F2F dialogues and here on-
line. In one case, the participant who demanded too much attention
used it as a sort of therapy group for her own needs. Of course, the
rest of the group fell into that mode. She didn't return and the rest
of group breathed a sigh of relief. But we needn't have got so sucked
in. Another time there was a woman who was clearly psychotic and
would make long incomprehensible statements. But when she was asked
to explain what she meant she would attack the asker. She stayed as
part of the group for a`number of sessions until David Bohm, who was
also a member of the group, suggested that this process was still
too delicate to be able to deal with that sort of behaviour and we
agreed then to ask her to leave. There was a lot of soul searching
after that but it became clear that it was necessary if the group was
to survive.
Then, on-line, there were a few instances of people coming on board
to try and convince the rest of us to accept their alternative
theories either of physics or psychology. In these cases, when the
rest of the group just wouldn't go along with them they dropped out.
Then, of course, there was peter and now kirsten. Peter began by
playing a devil's advocate role, but then began to try to turn the
whole thing into a sort of dadaist playground based on his
understanding that this was what Bohm dialogue was really about, a
sort of anything goes play group. He pushed and pushed, and finally,
after many participants began to leave, the remaining few agreed to
shut the group down for while. Kirsten, now seems to be having a go
at playing devil's advocate in way very similar to peter, close
enough even to make some of us wonder it it isn't peter in another
one of his personae. This might be okay except that she/he hides
behind this impenetrable mask or a sort of armour that allows her to
remain invulnerable. This, in small doses, might be acceptable,
except that her doses are not small and the only logical conclusion
one can come to is that she behaves like a child who demands
attention while at the same time giving an excellent self-serving
performance, acting and pretending, in order to maintain her need to
protect her self-image from any, possibly painful, consequences.
How to deal creatively with this situation, remains, for me, an open
question.
Any suggestion, anyone?
don
On 13 Sep 2006, at 15:04, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
> Rodger__ Don, you surprise me! _R
> .
> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> .
> In order to dissolve these systems we need to accept them
> wholeheartedly, Stir them into the entire rest of the system that
> makes up who we each might really be. We do have that much free
> will....
> ...And the entire system is thereby sweetened. don
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 13 17:57:12 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 14 18:49:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Logos as Ontic Pool of Common Meaning, Ratio,
Reason, Logic, necessity in thought ...
In-Reply-To: <20060913182953.60npzvj97jy0wwsk@imp3.uta.fi>
References: <20060913001532.23333.qmail@web61012.mail.yahoo.com>
<20060913182953.60npzvj97jy0wwsk@imp3.uta.fi>
Message-ID: <A4CEFD96-E2EA-4AE0-BB8F-7200E9E4CEB1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 13 Sep 2006, at 16:29, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> But it requires a (serious) group.
Thanks for this Mattti. I mean, the whole story, but especially this
last sentence.
I think we have to decide if we are a serious group, or perhaps try
and figure out
what it means to be a serious group.
For me, my seriousness, is focused on trying to understand the nature
of human consciousness
by looking at it through my own consciousness. I can't conceive of
any other approach. But
I see that I can only do this within a group of like-minded people.
"Like-minded" means a group of
people who share my longing for such an understanding.
Coming back to Kirsten, I think some of her snarky remarks are
valuable reminders of the need to be more
serious. But I cannot see her as being serious. Since her behaviour
appears to be that of someone who
presumes to already know the truth. As someone once said,
Don't trust the person who claims to know the truth,
trust the one who is seeking it.
don
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Sep 13 18:10:58 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Sep 14 19:03:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] dance
Message-ID: <20060913.121101.1524.18.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Reading from Chap 3 of "Wholeness"
"If the thing and the thought about it have their ground in the one
undefinable and unknown totality of flux, then the attempt to explain
their relationship by supposing that the thought is in reflective
correspondence with the thing has no meaning, for both thought and thing
are forms abstracted from the total process. The reason why these forms
are related could only be in the ground from which they arise, but there
can be no way of discussing reflective correspondence in this ground,
because reflective correspondence implies knowledge, while the ground is
beyond what can be assimilated in the content of knowledge.
"Does this mean that there can be no further insight into the
relationship of thing and thought? We suggest that such further insight
is in fact possible but that it requires looking at the question in a
different way. To show the orientation involved in this way, we may
consider as an analogy the well known dance of the bees, in which one bee
is able to indicate the location of honey - bearing flowers to other
bees. This dance is probably not to be understood as producing in the
"minds" of the bees a form of knowledge in reflective correspondence with
the flowers. Rather, it is an activity which, when properly carried out,
acts as a pointer or indicator, disposing the bees to an order of action
that will generally lead them to the honey. This activity is not separate
from the rest of what is involved in collecting the honey. It flows and
merges into the next step in an unbroken process. So one may propose for
consideration the notion that thought is a sort of 'dance of the mind'
which functions indicatively, and which, when properly carried out flows
and merges into an harmonious and orderly sort of overall process in life
as a whole."
The bee who knows where the honey flowers are located can be considered
to be the
non - local [as well as the superficially localizable] 'part' of the
system that will direct the bee dance toward the flowers. This is what
the 'dancing' is about.
"Dance" is the perfect metaphor for those who love to dance
spontaneously. While dancing, it can be noticed again and again [this is
in fact the essence of the joy of dancing], that every apparent
"mis-step" is only the beginning of a new patterning, a new harmony or
ratio. A complete confidence is learned, that the new and different is
ongoing and not to be second guessed and certainly not to be met with
objection. Dance is an ongoing welcome, welcome, welcome.
pat
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 18:16:25 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Thu Sep 14 19:08:23 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <AF53C889-231C-4727-9C84-CE7B4B613ED0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F17AA49A6960115A96B7442A8280@phx.gbl>
Don, Dear
Does (Bohm)Dialog
Want/Require
................ DNA-testing ;-?
Why are you so hung up on names/personas?
I cant [and, better: have not desire to] verify
Any Identities of Susbscribers in this Chat Group here either.
I care about what people say.
Love & Q-tips, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:39:47 +0100
>
>I think where Kirsten's participation is concerned in this system, there
>is one assumption that, maybe, needs to be looked at again. That is the
>assumption that for a Bohm dialogue to have any value, it must take
>transparency and vulnerablity as being central to its function. If someone
>hides behind an opaque mask, it hobbles the rest of the system. And that
>too needs to be looked at. The questions to be asked are: If one
>participant is able to skew the process so that a large part of the energy
>of the group ends up being directed to that participant in a way that
>allows her to become the centre of attention, should this be allowed to
>continue? And if so, what does that tell us about the overall value of the
>system?
>
>We have had such situations before, in both F2F dialogues and here on-
>line. In one case, the participant who demanded too much attention used it
>as a sort of therapy group for her own needs. Of course, the rest of the
>group fell into that mode. She didn't return and the rest of group
>breathed a sigh of relief. But we needn't have got so sucked in. Another
>time there was a woman who was clearly psychotic and would make long
>incomprehensible statements. But when she was asked to explain what she
>meant she would attack the asker. She stayed as part of the group for
>a`number of sessions until David Bohm, who was also a member of the
>group, suggested that this process was still too delicate to be able to
>deal with that sort of behaviour and we agreed then to ask her to leave.
>There was a lot of soul searching after that but it became clear that it
>was necessary if the group was to survive.
>
>Then, on-line, there were a few instances of people coming on board to
>try and convince the rest of us to accept their alternative theories
>either of physics or psychology. In these cases, when the rest of the
>group just wouldn't go along with them they dropped out. Then, of course,
>there was peter and now kirsten. Peter began by playing a devil's advocate
>role, but then began to try to turn the whole thing into a sort of dadaist
>playground based on his understanding that this was what Bohm dialogue was
>really about, a sort of anything goes play group. He pushed and pushed,
>and finally, after many participants began to leave, the remaining few
>agreed to shut the group down for while. Kirsten, now seems to be having
>a go at playing devil's advocate in way very similar to peter, close
>enough even to make some of us wonder it it isn't peter in another one of
>his personae. This might be okay except that she/he hides behind this
>impenetrable mask or a sort of armour that allows her to remain
>invulnerable. This, in small doses, might be acceptable, except that her
>doses are not small and the only logical conclusion one can come to is
>that she behaves like a child who demands attention while at the same time
>giving an excellent self-serving performance, acting and pretending, in
>order to maintain her need to protect her self-image from any, possibly
>painful, consequences.
>
>How to deal creatively with this situation, remains, for me, an open
>question.
>
>Any suggestion, anyone?
>
>don
>
>
>On 13 Sep 2006, at 15:04, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>
>>Rodger__ Don, you surprise me! _R
>>.
>>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>.
>>In order to dissolve these systems we need to accept them wholeheartedly,
>>Stir them into the entire rest of the system that
>>makes up who we each might really be. We do have that much free will....
>>...And the entire system is thereby sweetened. don
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 18:23:51 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Thu Sep 14 19:15:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Dance
In-Reply-To: <20060911.190535.1608.21.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F203C165DFFE8580468BBDCA8280@phx.gbl>
Dear Dancer Dropper,
Hmmm, moving, nice, merci.
No thinkg stiffer to keep ~ communication/s ~ moving
Than:
http://www.justsalsa.com/salsa/dance/steps/la_on1sm.jpg
http://www.sacdance.com/graphics/danceflooretiquette.jpg
Love & Coconuts, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 13 19:58:58 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 14 20:50:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] dance
In-Reply-To: <20060913.121101.1524.18.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060913.121101.1524.18.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <E397218D-5F34-429F-8412-869A4152C4DE@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 13 Sep 2006, at 17:10, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Reading from Chap 3 of "Wholeness"
> "If the thing and the thought about it have their ground in the one
> undefinable and unknown totality of flux, then the attempt to explain
> their relationship by supposing that the thought is in reflective
> correspondence with the thing has no meaning, for both thought and
> thing
> are forms abstracted from the total process. The reason why these
> forms
> are related could only be in the ground from which they arise, but
> there
> can be no way of discussing reflective correspondence in this ground,
> because reflective correspondence implies knowledge, while the
> ground is
> beyond what can be assimilated in the content of knowledge.
> "Does this mean that there can be no further insight into the
> relationship of thing and thought? We suggest that such further
> insight
> is in fact possible but that it requires looking at the question in a
> different way. To show the orientation involved in this way, we may
> consider as an analogy the well known dance of the bees, in which
> one bee
> is able to indicate the location of honey - bearing flowers to other
> bees. This dance is probably not to be understood as producing in the
> "minds" of the bees a form of knowledge in reflective
> correspondence with
> the flowers. Rather, it is an activity which, when properly carried
> out,
> acts as a pointer or indicator, disposing the bees to an order of
> action
> that will generally lead them to the honey. This activity is not
> separate
> from the rest of what is involved in collecting the honey. It flows
> and
> merges into the next step in an unbroken process. So one may
> propose for
> consideration the notion that thought is a sort of 'dance of the mind'
> which functions indicatively, and which, when properly carried out
> flows
> and merges into an harmonious and orderly sort of overall process
> in life
> as a whole."
For those who don't read carefully this is the end of the quotation.
But the meaning that pat attributes to the quotation moves in a
rather different direction
from what her reading of it implies
Bohm continues,
"In practical affairs, it is fairly clear what this harmony and order
mean (e,g,, the community will be successful in producing food,
clothing, shelter, healthy conditions of life, etc.), but man also
engages in thought going beyond the immediately practical. For
example, since time immemorial he has sought to understand the origin
of all things and their general nature, in religious thought, in
philosophy, and in science. this may be called thought that has 'the
totality of all that is' as its content. (for example, the attempt to
comprehend the nature of reality as a whole). What we are proposing
here is that such comprehension of totality is not a reflective
correspondence between thought and 'reality as a whole'. Rather, it
is to be considered as an art form, like poetry, which may dispose us
toward order and harmony in the overall 'dance of the mind' (and thus
in the general functioning of the brain and nervous system) This
point has been made earlier, in the Introduction.
"What is required here, then, is not an explanation that would give
us some knowledge of the relationship of thought and thing, or of
thought and 'reality as a whole'. Rather, what is needed is an act of
understanding, in which we see the totality as an actual process
that, when carried out properly, tends to bring both thought and what
is thought about in a harmonious and overall orderly action,
incorporating both thought and what is thought about in a single
movement, in which analysis into separate parts (e.g., thought and
thing) has no meaning."
don
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Sep 13 20:12:49 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Sep 14 21:06:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] dance Chapter 3 "Wholeness"
Message-ID: <20060913.141249.1524.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
(e.g., thought and
thing) has no meaning."
don
Do you type or scan that? When reading that chapter last night
the beauty of it made me want to type the whole thing. The context
particularly before the quote is quite helpful. Perhaps you could scan
that
(if it is scanning you do here).
thanks, pat
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 13 22:09:27 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 14 23:01:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] dance Chapter 3 "Wholeness"
In-Reply-To: <20060913.141249.1524.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060913.141249.1524.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C53EB1A2-DFD7-44FB-968A-B6CFB3CB0E43@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
No, my scanner has been fighting back of late. I had to type it.
One of these days I will sort out the scanner and some character
recognition software that works prioperly on my Mac. I have a load of
good
material that I have just been searching through. A lot of it
unpublished
that sheds a lot of light on where Dave was coming from, especially from
his later - sort of - post K years.
don
On 13 Sep 2006, at 19:12, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> (e.g., thought and
> thing) has no meaning."
>
> don
>
> Do you type or scan that? When reading that chapter last night
> the beauty of it made me want to type the whole thing. The context
> particularly before the quote is quite helpful. Perhaps you could scan
> that
> (if it is scanning you do here).
>
> thanks, pat
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 22:54:23 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Thu Sep 14 23:46:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Truth",,,, ""THE""
In-Reply-To: <A4CEFD96-E2EA-4AE0-BB8F-7200E9E4CEB1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F7708BDB97A2B7DD17AD88A8280@phx.gbl>
Dear Ever Lasting Seeker Donf
Which of the zillion truths are you refering to again, please?
Love & Plasma(screens), Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>Coming back to Kirsten, I think some of her snarky remarks are valuable
>reminders of the need to be more
>serious. But I cannot see her as being serious. Since her behaviour
>appears to be that of someone who
>presumes to already know the truth. As someone once said,
>Don't trust the person who claims to know the truth,
>trust the one who is seeking it.
>
>don
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 13 23:03:00 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 14 23:54:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Truth",,,, ""THE""
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F7708BDB97A2B7DD17AD88A8280@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F7708BDB97A2B7DD17AD88A8280@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <47119B11-550C-4608-B014-BF47224241CF@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 13 Sep 2006, at 21:54, kirsten schneide wrote:
> Which of the zillion truths are you refering to again, please?
Whichever one I mention I am certain that you will have a good
snarky answer for it, so what 's the point? That's a question and
that's the truth
don