From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 00:43:59 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 00:49:15 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
In-Reply-To: <894078.20209.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W421100F51C521ABE0C192DDC660@phx.gbl>
<894078.20209.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W37D2D0BB0EAB2D8F6410FBDC660@phx.gbl>
save the aplomb for yo momma.
-- are we then legion?
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:22:39 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Well, depends on which me you ask, Rob ][--}
But one could say, we, for a start, would be some Rob and some Alan -- no ;-?
That said, might not even need you for a we, you see, there is plenty of me-s right under my nose. Or maybe: Above. Or, more likely: Bot--h
Some Son Of A _____ (B, like blank)rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
have you nothing to say about 'we'? it is a big word to bandy about unexamined -- we(e) rob
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:31:59 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Next we could get some into "them" ;-\
Alanrob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
tell me about 'we'? -- Alan 'n' me
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:35:56 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Zero point two-five would not do, Rob? :--9
Alanrob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Penelope,sometimes this place is more thready than others, when some topic entrains attention. other times it's just smart arses riffing and tweets twattin' about. If I follow half of what gets said I start to become concerned.Rob
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:06:05 -0800From: pennyduby@yahoo.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Everything in one place? All new Windows Live! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Everything in one place? All new Windows Live! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/a2333dc7/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 00:45:27 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 00:50:44 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <196946.65421.qm@web38305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <196946.65421.qm@web38305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W266ACD62887314AD39C948DC660@phx.gbl>
you put your finger right on it Penelope. do what you think best and good luck.
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:27:07 -0800From: pennyduby@yahoo.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenOk, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/f1a30450/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 00:54:00 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 00:59:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <234906.58086.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712130658pc869b52ye6ebd7df3217f1e7@mail.gmail.com>
<234906.58086.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W218791A1575E85AE79977FDC660@phx.gbl>
dead as good?
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:52:50 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Aren't trees mostly dead, I mean, dead matter ;-)
Talking about which: They say if you are childless you are as good as dead. Well, you know, scientist can be funny (too) ]-]]
AlanIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like. Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience. WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally, >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- -- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/8b2df40b/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:05:26 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:10:46 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W37D2D0BB0EAB2D8F6410FBDC660@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <785275.88102.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
A wee we-traumatized? How munch hands does the food go through before it goes in Rob's mouth, and on-wards :=======)
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } save the aplomb for yo momma.
-- are we then legion?
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:22:39 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Well, depends on which me you ask, Rob ][--}
But one could say, we, for a start, would be some Rob and some Alan -- no ;-?
That said, might not even need you for a we, you see, there is plenty of me-s right under my nose. Or maybe: Above. Or, more likely: Bot--h
Some Son Of A _____ (B, like blank)
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} have you nothing to say about 'we'? it is a big word to bandy about unexamined
-- we(e) rob
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:31:59 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Next we could get some into "them" ;-\
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} tell me about 'we'?
-- Alan 'n' me
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:35:56 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Zero point two-five would not do, Rob? :--9
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} Hi Penelope,
sometimes this place is more thready than others, when some topic entrains attention. other times it's just smart arses riffing and tweets twattin' about. If I follow half of what gets said I start to become concerned.
Rob
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:06:05 -0800
From: pennyduby@yahoo.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Everything in one place
All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Everything in one place
All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move
Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/27874e6f/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:07:58 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:13:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W266ACD62887314AD39C948DC660@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <651135.39484.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
I hate to push any ones button, but, sure I hope she can do better ("things") with that. Her finger &*8
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } you put your finger right on it Penelope. do what you think best and good luck.
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:27:07 -0800
From: pennyduby@yahoo.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/863cb36c/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:08:40 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:13:58 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <360002.5761.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <C386B320.F8C8%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
<360002.5761.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W34FF50C219CC932066E82FDC670@phx.gbl>
no guru no method no genes. Diarrhoea isn't genetic but it's hard to get out of your genes.
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:37:01 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Teach me ;-)
If you ;-}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8owv5YjHfJA&feature=related
AlanLynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I have some ?teacher? genes. Some ?rescuer? too. I?ve just been reading about the human longing for wholeness, connection ? sometimes at all costs. I?m always having to let go of that attachment to outcomes.LynneOn 12/13/07 8:40 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
No kind of content can prevent looking at function. It's all good grist. Especially content that sparks objection. -- funny On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:23:36 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Hi Penelope,It really does take some perseverance. You just came in with two others who sparked a rather terse style, but it?s not always like that. Bohm said that while a dialogue group should not have a goal (stifles creativity), it does need a purpose, which he suggested was ?impersonal fellowship? which serves as the glue to hold people. That takes time (probably especially online). I?ve been here about a year and a half, & while I don?t always have time to jump in, I do appreciate what can happen here.LynneOn 12/13/07 6:27 AM, "Penelope Duby" <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/73180fa3/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Fri Dec 14 01:08:51 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:14:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
Message-ID: <5B07F283-95D7-407C-B0CC-2F38CF710481@dc.rr.com>
Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a
nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central
core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its
more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more
trees.
For what its worth:
The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics
right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and
metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to
describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there
are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed
meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in
process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite
complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when
treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole
process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts"
makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as
parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or
organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to,
therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement.
This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in
terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that
he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do
not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together
by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information
for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole -
or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a
difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the
result of all of this.
Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process
Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is
simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken
wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have
had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more
attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing
movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding -
from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of
unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.
Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the
quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be
unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or
enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and
enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is
no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets
called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing-
thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not
language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in
process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking
process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that
tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but
mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has
dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects
interacting in a cartesian space.
The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case
within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we
spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that
too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours
ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that
distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay
I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and
rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more
coherent.
So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's
use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the
verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is
all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact
that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin
of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.
Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.
don
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:10:49 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:16:07 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W218791A1575E85AE79977FDC660@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <561144.3325.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
In that case, in a case LIKE that, this is what I do:
" Checker "
[-)
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } dead as good?
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:52:50 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Aren't trees mostly dead, I mean, dead matter ;-)
Talking about which: They say if you are childless you are as good as dead. Well, you know, scientist can be funny (too) ]-]]
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like.
Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/00add29d/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Dec 14 01:11:44 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:17:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
References: <848680.35461.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <016701c83de5$e9eba9c0$ff76480c@HOME>
definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/b1d1bb81/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:12:43 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:18:00 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language, Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <20071213.131127.2428.411.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071213.131127.2428.411.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W32675CCE8DF05CFE38D8ECDC670@phx.gbl>
'synopsize'. I have never met this word before. it is lovely. synopsize.
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:42 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language, Map, and Email IdentitiesFrom: ae.dropper@juno.com
I: My understanding of it didn't change. I simply realized that what I had known all along, and what nobody had taught me to do, was what the scientists were putting in their own language. Ever hear of the piece "Rage Over a Lost Penny"? Mozart of Beethoven. I forget which.
Is it possible to synopsize Jeffery's words on observer/observed? (funny)I: In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains rigid! Maybe that's what TAS as culprit is all about. -- And can you say more about this?
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:55:16 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: My understanding of it didn't change. I simply realized that what I had known all along, and what nobody had taught me to do, was what the scientists were putting in their own language. Ever hear of the piece "Rage Over a Lost Penny"? Mozart of Beethoven. I forget which. In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains rigid! Maybe that's what TAS as culprit is all about.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:41 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed? (funny)
I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain plasticity?
More interesting than the stuff about clarity.
Something that is understood after its having been so
elusive for so long catches my interest in terms of how it might
be newly worded
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:54:50 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain plasticity?
On Dec 11, 2007 9:59 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
It's over. True tired is true rest. They are inseparable.
Whatever needed affirming is no longer there. It was never there.
Not substantially. It was static. Static affirming static.
Clarity is just that. Clarity.
It's only edge is its flowing
crystalline expression of itself
about itself. It's expression
is how it knows its beauty.
It's expression is its beauty.
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to do something about it, I share the following with you. I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD and Sharon Begley. I normally don't like psychiatrists et al, but I read their ideas so I won't be ignorant on the topics. This one has a couple of things I think are valuable. About him personally, he says that at 15, he was convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only mystery worth pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And amazingly, some of his writing reads like the 'excitation - inhibition' work we do in Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear chapter on The Quantum Brain, and has managed to explain 'observer & observed' so it makes sense to me. Actually, it's something I've always been aware of, and used. But the fancy words in books made it seem like something esoteric and unfamiliar. Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used variations of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to incorporate and add something to the TAS process.Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our 'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they arise and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's presence, then saying your own specific version of "that is a false message due to a jammed transmission in the brain". The author makes me laugh. He says "The brain's gonna do what the brain's gonna do, but you don't have to let it push you around." I agree. In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with "Every day in every way, I'm getting better and better." Affirmations are the core of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the lines "Now I walk in Beauty" have been passed down as 'poetry'. Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.(The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four corners.)
On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about clarity - "getting to" clarity.
The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self) which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a static sensation and a non satisfaction.
Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that I say" that interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely [seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too. One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure" turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom the response is being written.
Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily a response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is its own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if I understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is leading up to. (wm)
Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative for all of it though.
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a response. This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. The point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually your intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment" or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be 'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a "something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan " again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the "sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises. Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of "suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal. The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of "suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun. And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/68f33cd8/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:16:21 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:21:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDon't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. ALIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending thismessage to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (orcan be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on atop-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no oneresponded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populatedhand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day Ire-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/3194e8f7/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:16:22 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:21:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W34FF50C219CC932066E82FDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <388348.2287.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
In case some gene-expression has notIced: The beauty of Diarrhoea is that it tends to do, to come with out force or hard or such ness ;,,,,,,,,,=
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } no guru no method no genes. Diarrhoea isn't genetic but it's hard to get out of your genes.
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:37:01 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Teach me ;-)
If you ;-}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8owv5YjHfJA&feature=related
Alan
Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I have some ?teacher? genes. Some ?rescuer? too. I?ve just been reading about the human longing for wholeness, connection ? sometimes at all costs. I?m always having to let go of that attachment to outcomes.
Lynne
On 12/13/07 8:40 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
No kind of content can prevent looking at function.
It's all good grist. Especially content that sparks objection.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:23:36 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Hi Penelope,
It really does take some perseverance. You just came in with two others who sparked a rather terse style, but it?s not always like that. Bohm said that while a dialogue group should not have a goal (stifles creativity), it does need a purpose, which he suggested was ?impersonal fellowship? which serves as the glue to hold people. That takes time (probably especially online). I?ve been here about a year and a half, & while I don?t always have time to jump in, I do appreciate what can happen here.
Lynne
On 12/13/07 6:27 AM, "Penelope Duby" <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/c6dbc0cd/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:17:11 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:22:28 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <1571F54A-25C0-48C5-95A8-9AD6E27CB2F5@dc.rr.com>
References: <360002.5761.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<1571F54A-25C0-48C5-95A8-9AD6E27CB2F5@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W335F3751836AE365100E68DC670@phx.gbl>
who the fuck are they. no wait... s'okay.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:32:25 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgHow do we get Nina Hagen to join this list? And Don Rickles for that matter.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Teach me ;-)
If you ;-}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8owv5YjHfJA&feature=related
AlanLynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I have some ?teacher? genes. Some ?rescuer? too. I?ve just been reading about the human longing for wholeness, connection ? sometimes at all costs. I?m always having to let go of that attachment to outcomes.LynneOn 12/13/07 8:40 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
No kind of content can prevent looking at function. It's all good grist. Especially content that sparks objection. -- funny On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:23:36 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Hi Penelope,It really does take some perseverance. You just came in with two others who sparked a rather terse style, but it?s not always like that. Bohm said that while a dialogue group should not have a goal (stifles creativity), it does need a purpose, which he suggested was ?impersonal fellowship? which serves as the glue to hold people. That takes time (probably especially online). I?ve been here about a year and a half, & while I don?t always have time to jump in, I do appreciate what can happen here.LynneOn 12/13/07 6:27 AM, "Penelope Duby" <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/d6a3da22/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:18:58 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:24:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <4EC3A151-55DB-4837-8C5C-451CC94FC621@dc.rr.com>
References: <394576.58188.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<4EC3A151-55DB-4837-8C5C-451CC94FC621@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W22720B8F7F285792A323C3DC670@phx.gbl>
i don't think she was real anyway
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:50:52 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgGone, gone, gone.
Penelope Duby is gone.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
How could I dare not to (dare) >->>
Alan
(Do I need to fill out an official form, too? Fillin? ;*1)ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Penelope Duby, of the three new, um, individual subscribers,
you show the most promise. Or equal promise anyway.
Dare to ask me why I say that.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:27:07 -0800 (PST) Penelope Duby <pennyduby@yahoo.com> writes:
Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/6c7b64dc/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:20:06 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:25:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
In-Reply-To: <456278.72714.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <20071213.131127.2428.413.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<456278.72714.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W12026AE8EA6986A1F24F8ADC670@phx.gbl>
save yo stoma fo yo momma
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:51:36 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] AlmostTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Wait, again! Are you saying that somebody who loves to eat horses is NOT a horse-lover (too) .-?
Alan
Ps: I have the gut feeling Mom would get along with you. Less sure about loving, tho '=,,
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I: Good Grief, how gruesome, Pat.
Especially for horse lovers. (White Castle hamburgers
had a high percentage of horse meat in them).
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:57:37 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: Good Grief, how gruesome, Pat.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:46 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Two years from now there will be a terrible sponge shortage.
And people who have had surgery will be "mined" for sponges.
Those who have had many surgeries will be either wealthy
or in great danger, depending on their luck. Sponge "donation"
centers will open up in the back room of every dunkin donuts
and White Castle shop. Yes, White Castle is coming back.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:19:12 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Hey funny. I not kidding. You must be God. That was news from a few days back. I sure will go nowhere. This is fun funny. Tell us more about the future. Funny you rule.
Alanae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I know. I gave you that information myself 3 or 4 years ago.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:33:31 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Ae.Dropper. Every year, in the United States about 1,500 people have surgical objects accidentally left inside them after surgery, according to medical studies. About two-thirds of the surgical objects left behind are sponges. AL
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Then there was that lunch with Germaine Greer.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:19:10 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
It actually refers to something I wrote mentioning Dennis Hopper, an old friend.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
The what, "hopper"? And where does that one come in here now? More scrolling to do for me? O-boy --gender!--, this list is a wild ride.
Alanae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's [the question] is in "the hopper." It seems a stretch but that's
not new. Connections LOVE to make themselves.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Almost time for eggs and ham. That's for certain. But does that count, too, Funny?
Alanae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"We can seldom go erect. Almost every man we meet requires some civility, requires to be humored; -- he has some fame, some talent, some whim of religion or philanthropy in his head that is not to be questioned, and so spoils all conversation with him." -- Emerson"Almost"
It's always the "almost" that promises faithfully the
alternative that delivers the tiniest exception that changes
e v e r y t h i n g.
-- funnyinfo:
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/117ba118/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Dec 14 01:20:30 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:25:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
References: <5B07F283-95D7-407C-B0CC-2F38CF710481@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <01ce01c83de7$23270a80$ff76480c@HOME>
Very well said Don!!!
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:08 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a
nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central
core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its
more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more
trees.
For what its worth:
The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics
right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and
metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to
describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there
are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed
meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in
process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite
complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when
treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole
process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts"
makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as
parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or
organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to,
therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement.
This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in
terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that
he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do
not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together
by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information
for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole -
or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a
difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the
result of all of this.
Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process
Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is
simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken
wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have
had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more
attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing
movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding -
from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of
unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.
Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the
quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be
unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or
enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and
enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is
no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets
called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing-
thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not
language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in
process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking
process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that
tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but
mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has
dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects
interacting in a cartesian space.
The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case
within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we
spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that
too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours
ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that
distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay
I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and
rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more
coherent.
So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's
use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the
verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is
all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact
that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin
of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.
Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/5693dad8/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 01:20:59 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:26:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <016701c83de5$e9eba9c0$ff76480c@HOME>
References: <848680.35461.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<016701c83de5$e9eba9c0$ff76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131620x63cdd8c9m4242185ef5318397@mail.gmail.com>
I: But only one of himers. Remember, Zoe and Kris were also Peter.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
>
>
>
> *Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>* wrote:
>
> So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
>
> Susan
>
>
> Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since
> I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/8e1ba5d5/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:21:38 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:26:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <013f01c83dc2$3378be80$ff76480c@HOME>
References: <629896.75416.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<013f01c83dc2$3378be80$ff76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W391BA5A214F2E1C2C7292ADC670@phx.gbl>
yes it certainly would seem that way to you Susan (honey) wouldn't it?
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:05 -0700
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Do we have a problem with(in) stuckness ||=?
Alan
Okay, Mom again. Why do mothers need so much? Attention? Later, gotta run :-))
AlanIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Go, Don! It's good to hear your voice again. Nice and clear, whether or not it seems stuck.
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/bba7627a/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:22:51 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:28:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <016701c83de5$e9eba9c0$ff76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <667000.32376.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Aaaand ;-?
Susan, when you leave the house, is what you utter this:
"definitely looks very weathery" ;--??
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote: So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
Alan
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/c2ac2cd2/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:24:44 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:30:02 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W391BA5A214F2E1C2C7292ADC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <79519.44811.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
When --why??-- do dialogists start calling each other. That. "Honies" ;-?
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } yes it certainly would seem that way to you Susan (honey) wouldn't it?
---------------------------------
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:05 -0700
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Do we have a problem with(in) stuckness ||=?
Alan
Okay, Mom again. Why do mothers need so much? Attention? Later, gotta run :-))
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Go, Don! It's good to hear your voice again. Nice and clear, whether or not it seems stuck.
---------------------------------
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/53aa20f8/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:25:16 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:30:33 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712131326g20630599x4cabbd0e12cbaf44@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20071213.103226.2428.392.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<c47283890712131326g20630599x4cabbd0e12cbaf44@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
some are comedectomies
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funniesI: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like. Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience. WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally, >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- -- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/6d8f53ce/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:26:56 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:32:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712131620x63cdd8c9m4242185ef5318397@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <313998.54931.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
"Were"? Dis'eased ;-?
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: But only one of himers. Remember, Zoe and Kris were also Peter.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:11 PM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote: So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
Alan
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/14157c72/attachment-0001.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:30:42 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:36:00 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <394059.35059.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
comedectomies
Mom, among a few others, has locked up too the dictionary book. Other wise I would be in there, in a heart beat, to unlook it up ;->
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } some are comedectomies
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like.
Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
--
Irene
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/90f09170/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:31:21 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:36:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
In-Reply-To: <5B07F283-95D7-407C-B0CC-2F38CF710481@dc.rr.com>
References: <5B07F283-95D7-407C-B0CC-2F38CF710481@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W422913550B3823057E3B90DC670@phx.gbl>
go Don. thanks for that.> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:08:51 -0800> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell> > Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a > nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central > core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its > more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more > trees.> > For what its worth:> > The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics > right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and > metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to > describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there > are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed > meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in > process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite > complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when > treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole > process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts" > makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as > parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or > organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to, > therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement. > This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in > terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that > he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do > not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together > by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information > for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole - > or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a > difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the > result of all of this.> > Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process > Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is > simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken > wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have > had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more > attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing > movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding - > from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of > unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.> > Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the > quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be > unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or > enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and > enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is > no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets > called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing- > thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not > language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in > process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking > process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that > tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but > mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has > dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects > interacting in a cartesian space.> > The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case > within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we > spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that > too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours > ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that > distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay > I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and > rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more > coherent.> > So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's > use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the > verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is > all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact > that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin > of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.> > Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.> > > don> > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/9aba54a7/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 01:32:23 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:37:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
References: <20071213.103226.2428.392.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<c47283890712131326g20630599x4cabbd0e12cbaf44@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131632i752c31b9kadd48c93c95280aa@mail.gmail.com>
I: Yes, but I want to know why the runny ones run.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:25 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> some are comedectomies
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
>
> I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
> them. (I)
>
> Maybe *that's* why I've been so alone all these years.
> All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
> Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
> They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for
> BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together
> in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm
> not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you
> like.
> Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
>
> And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
> them.
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for
> instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat
> etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking
> trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic
> manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively"
> help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In
> fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
> living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
>
> From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
>
>
> to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
> Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
> quote):
> >...<
> Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
> ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
> WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
>
> Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
>
> I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
> (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
> If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
> choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
> To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
> have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
> son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
> Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
> negligent.
> And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
> acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
> *
> " >JPL:
> >"Shout, shout, let it all out
> >these are the things I can do without,
> >come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
> " >>Wm:
> >>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
> William
> *
> Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
> "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: Re: purpose of list
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello All,
>
> I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
> message to check for echo.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: inside out
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would share another thought that I found interesting.
>
> The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
> that
> it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
> can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
> contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
> seen
> from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
>
> My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
> form or on the un-form that borders it.
>
> The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
> represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
> viewing angle has been intriguing.
>
> Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
>
> From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
> Subject: Re:intentional dying
>
> Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
> kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
> dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
> 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
> right:
>
> > ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
> >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
> >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
> about
> >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
> >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
> would
> >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
> Normally,
> >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
> with
> >our work. =
>
> I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
>
> sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
> get
> back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
> with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
> forget
> -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
> rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
> *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
> because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
> lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
>
> I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
> Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
>
> not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
> I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
> is
> we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
> people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
> terms
> -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
> away
> the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
> no
> obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
> takes.
> So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
> through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
> the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
> top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out
> a
> lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
> enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
>
> responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
> have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
> --
> and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
> hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
> unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
>
> Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
> short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
> *me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
> common
> humanity.
> I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
>
> note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
> (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
> someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
>
> re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
> speaking
> to one of its authors!
>
>
> >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
> the
> >one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
> >
> >The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
> >directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
> >universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
>
> Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
> lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
> of
> birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
> so
> no full living either. No?
>
> I think Julia has hit on something important when she sa