From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 00:55:15 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:00:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
References: <20061113.133820.1408.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00dd01c7077f$2b325b70$1879480c@HOME>

Well, I've stopped worrying about it Franis.  I've learned that sometimes 
people appreciate my posts and sometimes they don't.  And I've never been 
able to predict when or who that will happen with.  If I sound 
teacherly...so be it.  If people don't like teacherly...so be it.  It's much 
more important to me to write what I need to write in the moment than it is 
to worry about who is or is not going to like/appreciate my post.

Susan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly


> I'm wondering why the culture thinks of me or Susan as teacherly; or why
> I have learned to somehow use the language in that way to give people the
> idea I'm teacherly. I mean, I do have some Alexander Technique students
> sometimes - but that's more a process of coaching self-observation rather
> than a process of me telling the other person information as most
> teachers do.
>
> It is in the assumptions where all the meat of meaning is for me. So
> going over what the assumptions are can make me sound as if I'm insulting
> someone's ability to see the obvious...but I'm sort of making a list to
> see if we can spot an assumption that we could change. Other people don't
> get my intent, so I've learned to spell it out before I do it. Then the
> others can play too. Othewise if people do not know what is going on,
> they tend to assign some negative motive to what I'm doing - which is how
> I regard the "teacherly-ness." It's not that it's negative, but it's a
> role to describe some sort of authority thing that is going on.
>
> I know I have a tendency to say things to see how they sound after they
> come out of my mouth. I try out making a statement about something to see
> how the rest of me reacts. This is part of what makes me sometimes sound
> so full of it that my eyes are brown, because I'll make a statement as if
> I know what I'm talking about when I know absolutely nothing.
>
> I seem to want to offer the benefit of my observations - but really, it's
> mostly that I want to tell what I have observed so far because I want to
> "trade notes" on certain topics. I have these many topics of ongoing
> investigation that are extremely open-ended; so when someone mentions
> something about them, my ears prick up. I guess trotting out what I know
> about something so far isn't the way to evoke the responses I want; but
> by doing that I have so often catapulted the conversation onto a much
> deeper level. So I keep doing it - at the risk of sounding as if I'm an
> authority - and I try to do damage control when I see mismatches.
>
> I hate being tagged as an authority when all I'm doing is putting
> whatever I have observed so far into words. On the other hand, I hate not
> being in a position where what I have to offer is not valued. I spend
> much of my time establishing rapport - and to be in rapport means you
> don't get the respect in this culture, which is a shame.
>
> I really love and respect those people who could be described as
> unappreciated pearls, because they reject all presentation skills and
> just go for content. But in this day and age, if you want to be in the
> position of offering what you know, you almost have to work on how you're
> presenting it, otherwise it goes completely unnoticed.
>
> Franis
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:31:52 +0000 Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> writes:
>> Hi Francis,
>>
>> I appreciate what you say here ... I guess my intention is to focus
>> more on
>> unearthing the assumptions I am making and when I am wanting to
>> focus on
>> something with another person I work hard at taking responsibility
>> for my
>> own feelings and thoughts and check out the intentions and parts
>> others may
>> be playing. I try to walk my talk although I guess I often fail but
>> I never
>> want to ask somebody to go somewhere where I haven't already been
>> myself.
>>
>> I guess a 'teacherly' style doesn't do it for me ... But I liked
>> your
>> honesty and what felt like to me openness.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> on 10/11/06 21:06, Franis Engel at franis_franis@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, Susan and myself both have the "teacherly" tone of writing.
>> > It's something that has crept into my writing, and I don't
>> necessarily
>> > intend what I'm writing to come across that way. It seems this
>> tone is
>> > what happens when you begin to articulate assumptions - or at
>> least,
>> > that's when it has happened. Often some people feel insulted that
>> you're
>> > going back to square one with them, as if they do not know what is
>> > obvious.
>> > Franis
>> >
>> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:40:27 +0000 Gill Wyatt
>> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> > writes:
>> >> Hi Susan,
>> >>
>> >> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are trying
>> to
>> >> teach
>> >> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this from
>> >> both of
>> >> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making an
>> >> assumption
>> >> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was gorgeous,
>> and
>> >> maybe
>> >> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody
>> agrees
>> >> with me
>> >> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was
>> >> meaning it in
>> >> my message.
>> >>
>> >> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David Bohm
>> is
>> >> saying in
>> >> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would never
>> mean
>> >> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the meeting
>> of
>> >> two
>> >> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are doing
>> this
>> >> in this
>> >> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are making
>> >> about me.
>> >> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I guess I
>> am
>> >> telling
>> >> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions were.
>> It
>> >> feels as
>> >> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to this
>> >> list that
>> >> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have
>> written
>> >> a
>> >> Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops
>> >> introducing the
>> >> concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many years in how
>> >> some
>> >> groups get to dialogue and how the shift in consciousness at a
>> group
>> >> level
>> >> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have
>> been
>> >> the
>> >> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know
>> about
>> >> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that kept
>> on
>> >> occurring
>> >> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
>> >>
>> >> Gill
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name).  Yes, it can be
>> very
>> >>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on an
>> >> intimate
>> >>> level.  However, since being in Dialogue I have come to cherish
>> a
>> >> different
>> >>> kind of connection that seems to be just as intimate if not more
>> >> so.  I'm
>> >>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I look
>> for
>> >> now.  I
>> >>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation
>> that
>> >> comes from
>> >>> exploring our differences.  So I'll defer to DB's words to
>> >> describe it:
>> >>>
>> >>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one
>> >> person says
>> >>> something, the other person does not in general respond with
>> >> exactly the
>> >>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the
>> >> meanings are only
>> >>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies,
>> >> the first
>> >>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and what
>> the
>> >> other
>> >>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may then
>> be
>> >> able to
>> >>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and
>> to
>> >> those of
>> >>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the
>> >> continual
>> >>> emergence of a new content that is common to both participants.
>> >> Thus, in a
>> >>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain
>> >> ideas or items
>> >>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may be
>> >> said that
>> >>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating
>> >> something new
>> >>> together."
>> >>>
>> >>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together"
>> that
>> >> I look
>> >>> for now through the exploration of our differences.  I no longer
>> >> look for
>> >>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to see
>> >> what we can
>> >>> create out of the hubris of our differences.  And when we manage
>> >> to do that
>> >>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the common
>> >> ground we
>> >>> share.  I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he
>> talks
>> >> about a
>> >>> "difference that makes a difference".
>> >>>
>> >>> Susan
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> >>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> >>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:27 AM
>> >>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi Susan,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ok I understand.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think sometimes I look, perhaps unrealistically for more of
>> an
>> >> explicit
>> >>>> connection between what I have said and the person who responds
>> >> to me. It
>> >>>> just feels so gorgeous when it happens.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> By the way my name is Gill, short for Gillian ... Not the male
>> >> American
>> >>>> Gil.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And yes I do agree that good discussions get triggered by
>> >> difficulties
>> >>>> here
>> >>>> and in the wider world. Well sometimes in the wider world, if
>> >> that is not
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> being pessimistic.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Gill
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> on 9/11/06 21:27, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Gil.  Actually you were very clear about what you wanted.
>> >> And my
>> >>>>> response was about what I was feeling and thinking.  I put the
>> >> link in to
>> >>>>> the past discussion we had on the purpose of dialogue to
>> respond
>> >> to you
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> the rest of the post was about me.  I personally don't think
>> the
>> >>>>> discussion
>> >>>>> about PKZ is necessarily about PKZ.  I think it's about us.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> How do we deal with trolls, spamming, and the like in our
>> daily
>> >> lives?
>> >>>>> Do
>> >>>>> we ever respond to a legitimate interaction from someone as
>> >> though they
>> >>>>> are
>> >>>>> a troll or spamming or in some other way simply because that
>> is
>> >> what's
>> >>>>> going
>> >>>>> on?  I would say right now trolling and spamming and flaming
>> are
>> >> a pretty
>> >>>>> ordinary occurrence.  The current political climate here in
>> >> Arizona was
>> >>>>> pretty much of a flame war.  Television, the mail, and most of
>> >> the
>> >>>>> telephone
>> >>>>> calls I get are trolling and spamming.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Doesn't our culture basically embrace this type of behavior as
>> >> perfectly
>> >>>>> acceptable?  Isn't this a part of the incoherence in our daily
>> >> lives?
>> >>>>> And
>> >>>>> how has this affected the way we communicate with each other
>> and
>> >> our
>> >>>>> ability
>> >>>>> to be open and honest with each other?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So you see, I wasn't really ignoring what you were addressing.
>> >> For me,
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> best way to talk about it is within the story that is
>> happening.
>> >>  Getting
>> >>>>> clear about the microcosm can help to see the macrocosm to my
>> >> way of
>> >>>>> thinking.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> And I'll tell you something that I noticed when I was going
>> >> through the
>> >>>>> archives today.  The PKZ phenomenom seemed to stimulate a lot
>> of
>> >> thought
>> >>>>> at
>> >>>>> the time and there were some really rousing and interesting
>> >> conversation
>> >>>>> that seemed to come out of it.  The same thing happened here
>> in
>> >> Arizona
>> >>>>> with
>> >>>>> the political flame wars.  Although I really got tired of
>> >> hearing the
>> >>>>> politicians beating each other up, people seemed to wake up
>> and
>> >> get a
>> >>>>> little
>> >>>>> more interested in the issues and to be stimulated to vote.
>> It
>> >> was
>> >>>>> certainly much better than the mediocre lackluster campaigns
>> of
>> >> the past.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Do we bring this kind of phenomena on when things are getting
>> a
>> >> little
>> >>>>> too
>> >>>>> stagnant perhaps?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Susan
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> >>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:22 PM
>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle
>> way
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Susan,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Um ... Its interesting its only when I have a response that I
>> >> realise
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>> perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be to get what I
>> am
>> >> saying
>> >>>>> across.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm very able to pick and choose which messages I read and am
>> >> happy to
>> >>>>> delete. I mentioned in my email deleting 50-75 emails a day
>> from
>> >> this
>> >>>>> list.
>> >>>>> I find some of the one liner don't add anything to what I
>> think
>> >> of
>> >>>>> dialogue
>> >>>>> and sometimes I wonder why they are not sent to the one person
>> >> they are
>> >>>>> addressed to. So I guess I feel differently from you, the
>> number
>> >> of
>> >>>>> emails
>> >>>>> per day does not indicate for me anything about the quality of
>> >> the
>> >>>>> dialogue.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The other point re 'PK and probably more accurate to say maybe
>> >> Z' ... in
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> way what I intended to communicate was to take the focus away
>> >> from PK(Z)
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> have it back on us ... What are we not paying attention to?
>> ...
>> >> What am I
>> >>>>> not paying attention to? Am I really understanding the message
>> >> in the
>> >>>>> messages that I do read ... And do my responses make a
>> >> connection with
>> >>>>> other
>> >>>>> people in a way that transcends the more usual cultural
>> >> assumptions.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That was more of what I was meaning to talk about ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Gill
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> on 9/11/06 00:11, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi Gill.  It's nice to meet you.  I understand the current
>> >> desire among
>> >>>>>> many
>> >>>>>> of you to explore the PKZ phenomena.  When I first joined the
>> >> list the
>> >>>>>> same
>> >>>>>> discussion was going on.  I jumped right in, eager to explore
>> >> it.  And
>> >>>>>> it
>> >>>>>> was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right
>> now.
>> >>>>>> Although
>> >>>>>> at
>> >>>>>> that time Peter was an active member of the group and he was
>> >> included in
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>> discussion.  In the beginning I sounded much like you and
>> some
>> >> of the
>> >>>>>> others
>> >>>>>> right now.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the
>> >> subject
>> >>>>>> except
>> >>>>>> Peter I began to feel differently.  Peter's response was
>> mostly
>> >> just to
>> >>>>>> ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into
>> >> himself, all
>> >>>>>> he
>> >>>>>> was interested in was goading the rest of us.  Rather than
>> use
>> >>>>>> suspension
>> >>>>>> he
>> >>>>>> would flood us with brief posts about the world being made up
>> >> of carrot
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> stick mentality and we should all recognize that the only
>> >> solution was
>> >>>>>> total
>> >>>>>> chaos.  When he became determined to spam the group with
>> >> anywhere from
>> >>>>>> 75
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>>>>> 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day
>> regardless
>> >> of how
>> >>>>>> any
>> >>>>>> of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we
>> felt)
>> >> the
>> >>>>>> decision
>> >>>>>> (after much agonizing) was made to ban him.  At that point I
>> >> was ready
>> >>>>>> for
>> >>>>>> him to be banned.  He mostly just trolled for recruits for
>> his
>> >> OD site
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> spammed us for not being interested.  He also seems to have a
>> >> fixation
>> >>>>>> with
>> >>>>>> male authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a
>> surrogate
>> >>>>>> authority.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list
>> >> as well as
>> >>>>>> exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar
>> >> problems that
>> >>>>>> caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in
>> my
>> >> post to
>> >>>>>> her.
>> >>>>>> In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least a
>> >> loose and
>> >>>>>> flexible structure.  Here's a link to some of the thoughts I
>> >> have had
>> >>>>>> about
>> >>>>>> the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our
>> >> previous
>> >>>>>> discussions:
>> >>>>>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what
>> >> happened
>> >>>>>> with
>> >>>>>> them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any
>> >> warning and
>> >>>>>> without any group discussion.  If that's true, then I would
>> say
>> >> that I
>> >>>>>> think
>> >>>>>> anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or who we
>> >> suspect is
>> >>>>>> Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be
>> >> given a
>> >>>>>> chance
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>>>>> speak for themselves.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or
>> >> how long
>> >>>>>> they
>> >>>>>> are.  I used to worry about that.  But then I decided that
>> the
>> >> purpose
>> >>>>>> of
>> >>>>>> dialogue is to dialogue.  You can't do that without posting.
>> A
>> >> healthy
>> >>>>>> dialogue is going to have lots of posts.  I've learned to
>> deal
>> >> with it
>> >>>>>> by
>> >>>>>> learning to know which people are definitely going to have
>> >> something to
>> >>>>>> say
>> >>>>>> that I'm interested in responding to and not.  On my busy
>> days
>> >> I skip
>> >>>>>> through the posts and read only a few people or if there's a
>> >> good thread
>> >>>>>> going I will read only that thread.  And, yes, sometimes I
>> miss
>> >> a lot
>> >>>>>> doing
>> >>>>>> that but it's better than the alternative of not being a part
>> >> of all of
>> >>>>>> this.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Susan
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> >>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle
>> way
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me
>> ...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness,
>> >> compassion AND
>> >>>>>> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think
>> >> it is only
>> >>>>>> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a
>> >> response
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration
>> >> here. I too
>> >>>>>> have
>> >>>>>> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75
>> >> messages in one
>> >>>>>> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I
>> >> like that
>> >>>>>> term)
>> >>>>>> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near
>> >> where I
>> >>>>>> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this
>> >> possibility here
>> >>>>>> matters to me.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we
>> >> need to
>> >>>>>> learn
>> >>>>>> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated
>> >> about
>> >>>>>> saying
>> >>>>>> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is
>> >> it in us,
>> >>>>>> in
>> >>>>>> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected
>> >> response from
>> >>>>>> PKZ.
>> >>>>>> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I
>> want
>> >> or need
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other
>> >> people. Is
>> >>>>>> it
>> >>>>>> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that
>> >> response
>> >>>>>> from
>> >>>>>> others?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have
>> >> very much
>> >>>>>> appreciated reading your emails.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody
>> else
>> >>>>>> struggle?
>> >>>>>> As
>> >>>>>> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally
>> have
>> >> sent
>> >>>>>> three
>> >>>>>> or so in one day ...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Gill
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> info:
>> >>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>> >>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> info:
>> >>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>>>
>> >>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>
>> >>>> dialogue facilitator:
>> >>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> info:
>> >>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>>
>> >>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>>
>> >>> dialogue facilitator:
>> >>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>>
>> >>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> info:
>> >> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>
>> >> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >> dialogue facilitator:
>> >> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >> admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > info:
>> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >
>> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > dialogue facilitator:
>> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > Administrator of the mailing list:
>> > admin@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 

From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 01:03:18 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:08:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
References: <007d01c70739$05f01960$2278480c@HOME>
	<4558EFE2.000003.04268@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <00f301c70780$4ab6f0e0$1879480c@HOME>

I'm so glad I asked William.  I think you and I are on the same track with this one.  I guess I've completely misunderstood your posts on this subject up until now.  But I agree whole heartedly with what you're saying here.

Although when people say they have experienced states of wholeness and oneness, being in touch with god, etc. I don't think that's really any different from what you're describing here.  I think people are just misinterpreting because of the reasons you've given here (they're still looking for mommy and daddy to tell them what it is and what to do with it).  They're still too caught up in their own programming to be able to think in new ways about their own experience and assign some value to the self.  

Susan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: william 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness




        From: Susan Clemons
        >I guess I'm wondering what you would describe as the advances 
        >humans have made in consciousness so far then, 

        I think, the most significant advance so far is the development of the sense of self, individualism, or persona. This, to some extend, is a separation from the whole. In mythical or religious terms it amounts to an escape from paradise, freedom from God. Also we have developed language that emphasizes distinctions, enabling us to conceptualize ourselves in terms of you and me, them and us, etc. This is a real breakthrough and a pre-requisite for everything else that follows.



        >And what kind of ideas you have of where we might go as a 
        >race with consciousness? 

        Well, I don't know. We're still kind of pussy-footing around, not really believing we're free. Still feeling uncertain and kind of looking back if mama or papa or God can see us. Personally, I would go in the direction of developing what I like to call "modes of perception", I.e. the ability to switch from one reality to another, like switching TV channels, having different views through the same eyes. This would automatically lead to the ability of holding many truths at the same time. By way of illustration, this would have the same impact as adding a third dimension to a hypothetical two-dimensional world. Such a new dimension in the perception of reality, means that each one can have his or her own preferred truth or reality as if it were cloth we can change at any time.  That would be enough progress for the time being, but it will probably move on into areas that we can't imagine yet...

        William

       
               
       



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/4e08840c/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Tue Nov 14 00:49:56 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:11:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feeling Up and Reason
References: <OF47A0CF1E.607D3413-ON85257225.006FE3EF-85257225.00713077@dialogos.com>
	<B0BD8A0B-A19C-4B0C-B9A8-C4867CF4031B@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00b101c70780$c47c3070$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>

I appreciate the way this is said, as well as the sense of what is said!

My very deep sense, deep feeling, is that William is being shamefully 
attacked and mis-characterized by this 'feel-up" nonsense.  In approximately 
five years here, I have seen nothing other than reasonable, rational, 
thoughtful and enjoyable postings from this man.  The same cannot be said 
for Xoe ...  and  neither for its supporters.

Can anyone cite something useful from her/him/it?  dbl





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: feigning injustice


> best post of the day. congratulation.
> don
> On Nov 13, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>
>> Rodger __Rephrasing williams request for Zoes phone number into an 
>> attempt to feel-Zoe-up, exemplifies a level of maturity inherent in 
>> western drama queens. Or maybe it just tells how long ago its been  since 
>> those involved have had some good sex. Because last time I 
>> felt-someone-up, it was nothing like making a phone call. _R
>> .
>> .
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 

From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 01:06:48 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:11:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F61D4C3A9605194C8D8723A5F40@phx.gbl><2704CA14-D1AC-4CE3-ABCA-CD5D4942AB55@david-bohm.net><008101c7075e$426cb810$1879480c@HOME><02FEC678-5D0A-4B71-8D76-7CDC3C920281@david-bohm.net><00a501c70764$567cec20$1879480c@HOME><3CC13B9B-551E-4AAD-9C29-479DB19F168C@david-bohm.net><00b301c70765$ea7c6260$1879480c@HOME>
	<C0049D9A-5169-4016-8E71-8FB120C4DC2A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <010301c70780$c830fb10$1879480c@HOME>

ROFLMAO = Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Ass Off 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: donald factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe




  On Nov 13, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:


     ROFLMAO

  I'm afraid you got me on that one.



  Here is something from my childhood.


  FUMNX?
  SVFMNX.
  OKMNX


  don






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/96d5ac47/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Tue Nov 14 00:37:45 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:34:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061113.192922.2144.45.ae.dropper@juno.com>

PTW, it opens with an explanation of how one person can send 
emails from anothers' address.  (k)

Do you have reason to think that Kirsten used tech skill
to send that e-mail from zoe's address?

pat
From dfactor at dc.rr.com  Tue Nov 14 01:50:16 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:55:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <20061113.192922.2144.45.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061113.192922.2144.45.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <F39B5F00-D3B2-4793-B5F9-EDA75F158CF4@dc.rr.com>


On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:37 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:

> PTW, it opens with an explanation of how one person can send
> emails from anothers' address.  (k)

Where is this explanation? I must have missed your link.

don
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/88045db0/attachment.html
From facilitator at david-bohm.net  Tue Nov 14 01:54:34 2006
From: facilitator at david-bohm.net (facilitator)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:59:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F198B6232F780D3111D434FA5F40@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F198B6232F780D3111D434FA5F40@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <270E8AEA-5073-4010-AD85-436C180D405B@david-bohm.net>

Kathy, please. Could you try to trim your posts. This one has eight  
previous posts plus 10 admin tags. These use up a lot of band width  
and also disk space for those who like to save posts.

facilitator again.

On Nov 13, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:

> Thanks.  In his Administrator manifestation, right?  HaHa.  k
>
>
>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:27:27 -0800
>>
>> I'm afraid that William is the only one who can deal with that,
>> don
>> On Nov 13, 2006, at 1:16 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>> OK, but just in case both or either of you missed my plea for  
>>> help  on the archives site, what do I do?  When I type in my  
>>> address as  requested, I get the message that it is an illegal  
>>> address,  therefore, I can go no further.  Did somebody forget to  
>>> tell the  computer I changed my address?  Thanks, k
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: facilitator <facilitator@david-bohm.net>
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:54:06 -0800
>>>>
>>>> Listen, you gotta keep your executives straight. William is  
>>>> the   administrator. I am the facilitator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 13, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> William, you should absolutely not be a scapegoat, but that's    
>>>>> unfortunately what happens when one person holds all the  
>>>>> power.   As  to the argument of experience vs theory, we're  
>>>>> into a  dichtonomic  thinking if we don't view them in  
>>>>> relationship to  each other.   Plus, I think I hear an  
>>>>> underlying assumption that  theory has  little or no basis in  
>>>>> experience and practice, which  could lead to  busy people not  
>>>>> taking the time to read it.  Maybe  that's just me.  But that  
>>>>> seems to fall right in line with that  Chomsky quote Zoe  ended  
>>>>> her posting the to group with:
>>>>>
>>>>> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to  
>>>>> strictly   limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow  
>>>>> very lively   debate within that spectrum ? even encourage the  
>>>>> more critical  and  dissident views.
>>>>> That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going  
>>>>> on,   while all the time the
>>>>> presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the  
>>>>> limits   put on the range of the debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW - what do I need to do to get my information corrected so  
>>>>> I  can  access the archives?  I tried.  I can't even email to  
>>>>> ask  for my  password because I get the message that I'm  
>>>>> entering an  illegal  address.  Hence, I address my question to  
>>>>> you.   Thanks, k
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: facilitator <facilitator@david-bohm.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:52:36 -0800
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I sometimes think that the primary job of the moderator,    
>>>>>> facilitator  or administrator,
>>>>>>  is to be the object of listmember projections, that is, a     
>>>>>> scapegoat. I have spent time
>>>>>>  participating in a forum  that has more than forty  
>>>>>> thousand    members. On such a list
>>>>>> the administrative judgments have to be made swiftly. Posts   
>>>>>> are   sometimes deleted
>>>>>> and members banned. When this happens  the admin may  get a   
>>>>>> few   snarky comments but
>>>>>> that's about it. He and his team are most appreciated.  Of    
>>>>>> course,  this particular outfit
>>>>>> also has a second list where members can  discuss the way  
>>>>>> the   list  works, both technically
>>>>>> and in terms of content and control. But technically it is on   
>>>>>> a   different level from
>>>>>> ours. It is based on blog software. If you are interested, in   
>>>>>> a   different approach
>>>>>> have a look at www.metafilter.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I must say, I agree with Steven that experiencing the   
>>>>>> actual   workings of some of these
>>>>>> lists, forums or whatever they're called, is far more  
>>>>>> valuable   than  just dealing with the academic
>>>>>> overview.in much of the world theory gets more attention  
>>>>>> than    practice. And that's very much why, I
>>>>>> believe, the US has got into such a mess in the middle  
>>>>>> east.    Dialogue, on the other hand,
>>>>>> is a kind of praxis, which is a blend of theory and practice   
>>>>>> that  is  a state of constant change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2006, at 7:14 AM, Steve Devlin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Morgan is a welsh name (I'm half-welsh) and where I'm from  
>>>>>>> its   usually
>>>>>>> males that have it (in my experience), like Morgan Freeman,    
>>>>>>> apologies
>>>>>>> for any offence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any anger you perceive maybe a projection of your own btw,  
>>>>>>> and  I  might
>>>>>>> add that I find my experience to be as valid or more valid   
>>>>>>> than   anything
>>>>>>> I might find on google, but thanks for the tips. One thing   
>>>>>>> about  being
>>>>>>> involved in the various sites is you know firsthand what  
>>>>>>> people  have
>>>>>>> said/done and what offends different subscribers. You can't  
>>>>>>> get  that
>>>>>>> from some summary from MIT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't mention who is the arbiter of internet protocol,    
>>>>>>> neither do
>>>>>>> you comment on what you think about the possibility of anonymous
>>>>>>> dialogue when there is suspicion as to the motives of certain
>>>>>>> subscribers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the anonymity question here relates to "if it walks   
>>>>>>> like  a  duck,
>>>>>>> quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, its probably a   
>>>>>>> duck",  i.e.
>>>>>>> Peter, and it is my opinion that the moderator is  
>>>>>>> perfectly    entitled to
>>>>>>> do as he/she sees fit in the running of the site. They set  
>>>>>>> it  up,  they
>>>>>>> get all the personal flak for it, it should be their rules.  
>>>>>>> If  I  don't
>>>>>>> like them I can exercise my right to unsubscribe and find    
>>>>>>> somewhere  else
>>>>>>> to go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of   
>>>>>>> Morgan  Jett
>>>>>>> Sent: 13 November 2006 14:18
>>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list  
>>>>>>> of    guidelines
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would be appropriate here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> K:  I think so.  Again, no matter what your experience, I   
>>>>>>> suggest  you
>>>>>>> amplify it by looking at the experiences available by   
>>>>>>> Googling.   I  hear
>>>>>>> anger in your tone.  Is there something here that needs    
>>>>>>> exploring?   k
>>>>>>> PS - I'm not "Mr.".  I'm Ms. with two grown sons.  Why did  
>>>>>>> you   assume
>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>> male?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>>>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:09:44 -0000
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Ive been on several lists for various things, some exceedingly
>>>>>>>> trivial (movie sites etc). I've never seen moderators have  
>>>>>>>> to   explain
>>>>>>>> decisions to kick anyone,I've seen people quibble over it,  
>>>>>>>> but  I've
>>>>>>>> never sen a moderator explain the reasons, and that  
>>>>>>>> includes  sites
>>>>>>>> where you have to pay to be a member, just like in real  
>>>>>>>> life   where  you
>>>>>>>> can be asked to leave premises with little or no reason  
>>>>>>>> other   than  the
>>>>>>>> owner of the premises doesn't want you there. I've seen  
>>>>>>>> sites   where a
>>>>>>>> new person has come in and been disruptive, deliberately   
>>>>>>>> trying  to  push
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> peoples buttons only to get their PC hacked by other site    
>>>>>>>> members and
>>>>>>>> all sorts of damage done to their PC.It certainly stops  
>>>>>>>> them  coming
>>>>>>>> back with a new IP address and causing more hassle. But   
>>>>>>>> that's  how  some
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> people manage these issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  You do have options, if you don't like the way a moderator   
>>>>>>>> runs a
>>>>>>>> site, you can leave and start your own with your own values   
>>>>>>>> re:   kicking
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> people. It happens all the time. Usually the new sites end  
>>>>>>>> up   with  the
>>>>>>>> exact same problem and end up kicking people for the same   
>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lets imagine if a moderator has to submit reasons to kick    
>>>>>>>> someone and
>>>>>>>> there is some sort of vote. When you have an anonymous list   
>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>> ours it's all to easy to subscribe with multiple names to   
>>>>>>>> throw any
>>>>>>>> voting system off. So I don't see why a moderator has to  
>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>> themselves. It's their list to do what they want with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've never got the impression that opinion is stifled here,   
>>>>>>>> I've  seen
>>>>>>>> it get quite heated, but generally everybody gets to say  
>>>>>>>> what  they
>>>>>>>> want. But I've also seen some particularly nasty personal  
>>>>>>>> attacks
>>>>>>>> against people that go beyond what would be allowed on any  
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> sites/lists (except star wars fan sites where abuse of     
>>>>>>>> participants is
>>>>>>>> an art form and has to be seen to be believed).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of
>>>>>>>> guidelines would be appropriate here, there's only been a  
>>>>>>>> few   people
>>>>>>>> over the years who they'd apply to, but maybe there is a  
>>>>>>>> place  for
>>>>>>>> them. In practice the moderators here do very little   
>>>>>>>> (usually   nothing)
>>>>>>>> to anyones posts, I don't think I've been edited or  
>>>>>>>> censored  in   any way
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> since I first came here,most people seem quite able to censor
>>>>>>>> themselves, but when they are unwilling to(for whatever    
>>>>>>>> justification
>>>>>>>> they can please themselves with) the smooth running of the  
>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>> requires a moderator to suspend them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of    
>>>>>>>> Morgan  Jett
>>>>>>>> Sent: 13 November 2006 12:43
>>>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just replied to this, but Hotmail is acting up again.  If   
>>>>>>>> you  get a
>>>>>>>> duplicate, that's why.  So - to repeat:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, Stephen, but your statement is absolutely inaccurate.
>>>>>>>> I am compiling a list of URLs to post that present a wide    
>>>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>>>> approaches to this issue.  I suggest we start with
>>>>>>>> www.sierraclub.org/lists/dispute.asp and
>>>>>>>> http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall95-  
>>>>>>>> papers/  rigby-ano
>>>>>>>> n
>>>>>>>> ymity.html
>>>>>>>> - a paper written by a student at MIT on the issue of   
>>>>>>>> anonymity.  I  will
>>>>>>>> follow up  with a list of others.  As I read them, I am   
>>>>>>>> keeping in
>>>>>>>> mind the unique nature of Bohm Dialog, for it will be a   
>>>>>>>> worthwhile
>>>>>>>> challenge
>>>>>>>> to reconcile our principles to internet protocol and    
>>>>>>>> procedures.  Happy
>>>>>>>> reading and thinkg!  k
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:04 +0000 (GMT)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any where else online and the group would get no consultation
>>>>>>>>> whatsoever as to the exclusion of a list-member. We all  
>>>>>>>>> know   how to
>>>>>>>>> behave, if
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault.  
>>>>>>>>> I  don't
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed  
>>>>>>>>> necessary   then  there
>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>> trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not   
>>>>>>>>> be   allowed
>>>>>>>> back.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed   
>>>>>>>>> their   hands up
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> first the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be   
>>>>>>>>> Having  The
>>>>>>>>> Last
>>>>>>>> Laugh -
>>>>>>>>> On Vatican looks cold.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor:    
>>>>>>>>> Send   me
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>  phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe  Chu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> William's point in  wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>>>>>>>  find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>>>>>>>  number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>>>>>>>  actually  misread the  purpose?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  pat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________________________ 
>>>>>>>> __
>>>>>>>> Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better  
>>>>>>>> handle   your  cash
>>>>>>>> with Live Search!
>>>>>>>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?    
>>>>>>>> kit=improve&loc
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> le=en-US&source=hmtagline
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>>>>> Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
>>>>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>>>>> This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended   
>>>>>>>> only  for  the
>>>>>>>> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain     
>>>>>>>> confidential
>>>>>>>> and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution,     
>>>>>>>> disclosure or
>>>>>>>> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
>>>>>>> information by
>>>>>>>> persons or entities other than the intended recipient is    
>>>>>>>> prohibited.
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
>>>>>>> immediately
>>>>>>>> and delete the material from your computer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption,  
>>>>>>>> interception,    viruses and
>>>>>>>> unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not  
>>>>>>>> accept    liability
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or  
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> consequences.
>>>>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________________________________ 
>>>>>>> _
>>>>>>> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and  
>>>>>>> more...then  map  the
>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>> route!  http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows   
>>>>> Live  Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/  
>>>>> direct/01/? href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?  
>>>>> wx_action=create&wx_url=/ friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https://  
>>> voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your  
> cash with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/ 
> default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>

From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com  Tue Nov 14 01:43:20 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Nov 15 03:47:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
In-Reply-To: <009401c7075f$43607170$1879480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C17E6D48.7F9A%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>

Susan,
There may be a typo in the link.  I did find it at this location:
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/tart/socintr.htm
Lynne

On 11/13/06 2:06 PM, "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Well Don, I just clicked on the link and couldn't get in.  I find that happens
> with many of the links you give.  Here's the message I got:
>  
> Not Found
> The requested document was not found on this server.
> 
> 
> Web Server at druglibrary.org
>  
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: donald factor <mailto:dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
>> 
>> I  mentioned in a previous post that it is now online. just go to
>> 
>>   http://www.druglibrary.org/special/tart/soccont.htmI
>> 
>> I have met him and he is very nice guy, refers to himself as Charlie.  He was
>> a professor of psychology  at one of the University of California campuses.
>> But now he is a professor emeritus. Which means he got too old to still have
>> the job he had. 
>> 
>> don
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 13, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree with you whole heartedly Don.  In NLP one of the first things they
>>> teach you is how to recognize some of the many altered states you
>>> participated in every day, how everytime we turn on the tv and get involved,
>>> we are under hypnosis.  The book on Tart sounds interesting.  I may have to
>>> check it out.
>>>  
>>> But since I misinterpreted William the first time, I thought it might be a
>>> good idea to check and see if I have misinterpreted him on this issue also.
>>>  
>>> Susan
>>>  
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: donald factor <mailto:dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:07 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
>>>> 
>>>> The point that I think William is missing is that we all have various
>>>> discrete states of consciousness. One these you could call our ordinary
>>>> state, but there are others. For instance when you are writing a message
>>>> such as this or focusing on some architectural drawings, you are in an
>>>> entirely different state than when you are, say, out dancing with friends.
>>>> In the book I keep recommending Tart researched amongst other things,
>>>> people who were smoking marijuana and found that a group of people who were
>>>> stoned actually were in a different shared state than when they were in
>>>> their ordinary shared state. I know from personal experience that when I
>>>> have walked into a room where there are a bunch of people who have been
>>>> smoking they all seem to be talking nonsense, but when I have been one of
>>>> them it all makes perfect sense and others are doing the nonsensical stuff.
>>>> The point is that there are probably many such states, each of which has
>>>> their own sets of values, meanings and priorities. But we don't really
>>>> notice these shifts. And, as you say, when we do, if it happens
>>>> spontaneously, it can be frightening.
>>>> 
>>>> don
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 13, 2006, at 7:33 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It looks like I've misinterpreted you.  Thanks for clearing that up.
>>>>>  
>>>>> I guess I'm wondering what you would describe as the advances humans have
>>>>> made in consciousness so far then, and what kind of ideas you have of
>>>>> where we might go as a race with consciousness?
>>>>>  
>>>>> To my way of thinking, there have been a few isolated  experiences of
>>>>> people having altered states of consciousness but for the most part, the
>>>>> average person seldom allows themselves to experience anything other than
>>>>> their ordinary state.  If they do have an altered state they immediately
>>>>> think something is "wrong" with them and they repress it out of fear.  And
>>>>> so an advance in consciousness would mean that people would take it as
>>>>> ordinary to have multiple states of consciousness on a regular basis.
>>>>> That people as a whole would begin to explore their own subjective states
>>>>> of consciousness for subtle differences and begin to use those differences
>>>>> more effectively.  Particularly in the area of emotions.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>  
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: william <mailto:w@david-bohm.net>
>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:23 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From: Susan Clemons <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>> >Yes.  And saying (as William seems to imply) that any change
>>>>>>> >in consciousness or altered state of consciousness can only be
>>>>>>> >a result of (or result in) brain damage seems to be much too
>>>>>>> >limiting of an idea.  It could just as easily be brain enhancing.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Did I say that? Sorry, I only meant to question the value of altered
>>>>>> states of consciousness by means of damaging the brain. It is possible to
>>>>>> get "expanded" consciousness, heightened creativity, sense of wholeness
>>>>>> and loss of separation, seeing intense colours, hearing pure sounds or
>>>>>> the voice of God, or knowing the Truth with a capital T, etc. All these
>>>>>> things are very nice and interesting but, to me, it looks like a form of
>>>>>> regress to an earlier stage of evolution.
>>>>>> I like to think that consciousness has evolved over a long time, and that
>>>>>> this evolution is still in progress. If we can think of consciousness as
>>>>>> an evolving ongoing process then it seems reasonable to assume that
>>>>>> future states of consciousness may be something different from what we
>>>>>> know now (and also different from these "altered states of consciousness"
>>>>>> that we already know). I am curious where this is leading to, so I tend
>>>>>> to more interested in progress rather than regress.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> William
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>> 
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>> 
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>> 
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>> 
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> 
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> 
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 


-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
   208 376-1336
   www.lifedirectionscoach.com
    (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)


"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/c195c133/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 04:49:53 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Wed Nov 15 05:54:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: feigning injustice
Message-ID: <20061114034953.7125.qmail@web52905.mail.yahoo.com>

im glad some of us still have some humor and wit. i agree with don, rodger!
kari



----- Original Message ----
From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:45:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: feigning injustice


best post of the day. congratulation.
don
On Nov 13, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:

> Rodger __Rephrasing williams request for Zoes phone number into an  
> attempt to feel-Zoe-up, exemplifies a level of maturity inherent in  
> western drama queens. Or maybe it just tells how long ago its been  
> since those involved have had some good sex. Because last time I  
> felt-someone-up, it was nothing like making a phone call. _R
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/6ce4721b/attachment.html
From joachimfaust at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 14 05:56:53 2006
From: joachimfaust at earthlink.net (Joachim Faust)
Date: Wed Nov 15 07:01:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position
In-Reply-To: <20061114110004.1C69124950@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
References: <20061114110004.1C69124950@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <0C152F0B-3FEF-42F4-8262-FCD3059E5997@earthlink.net>

Since etymology is popular on this list: "truth" is related to  
"trust" and
also to "tree." (Indoeuropean *deru- tree, oak). If I had to
reconstruct the underlying web of meaning, then it would be something  
like:
truth is what you trust in, and something is true, if you believe in  
it strongly enough.
You believe that  you can rely on your truth, like you can rely on  
the branch of an oak tree to hold you.
Or:  your trust in the truth is as solid and unbreakable as the wood of
an oak tree. Sounds like a Germanic phantasy straight from the  
primordial oak forest :)

The theme "can we live with two different truths" (particularly if  
they are represented by two
competing alpha-males) reminded me of something that came up on this  
list a few months ago.
Someone (I think it was Don F.) proposed to conduct a thought  
experiment, which in essence
was to "put oneself into the two positions that constitute a given  
conflict." If I remember correctly this
was in connection with the Lebanese war in the summer, but it did not  
meet with much interest, perhaps,
because the two positions were too abstract, and there was nobody on  
the list who actually represented
any of them in real life.

However, I do think it could be a good idea, if you did this  
experiment with a conflict such as the one that we have
at hand here ( the Don/William vs. Zoe-conflict). Each of the two  
"partners" in conflict would have
to suspend their truth temporarily, and assume the truth of the  
other. Then, moving back into their previous
positions, they both observe and notice if anything has changed. Most  
importantly, notice if and how
a third position- a metaposition-  slowly but surely emerges.

Didn't you do NLP, Susan?  In essence, this is an NLP-process, which  
I think could be modified to be applied
to dialogue. Just a thought...

Joachim



On 14.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:

> But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)?  Isn't this a  
> really good example of what happens in the world at large?  I don't  
> see this as a narrow focus at all.  If we can find ways to solve  
> this here in this one small way, then there are ways to broaden it  
> and use it in larger scopes.
>
> Susan

Joachim Faust
joachimfaust@earthlink.net


From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com  Tue Nov 14 05:07:15 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Nov 15 07:11:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
In-Reply-To: <00f301c70780$4ab6f0e0$1879480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C17E9D13.7F9C%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>

This is a fascinating subject, and I think I?m basically in agreement.  But
it is helpful to me to make a distinction between states of consciousness
and stages of consciousness.  About 25 years ago I experienced such a state
of wholeness ? distinctive enough that I wasn?t sure what to think of it.  I
interpreted it mythically, as an experience of God, even became a Christian
for a while.  Now I have a different understanding of reality, and my
interpretation of that same event is different.  The state of consciousness
is the same; the perspective, or stage of consciousness from which I can
interpret it has changed.  (Hopefully, that interpretation will continue to
expand and change as I keep learning!)

Lynne
On 11/13/06 6:03 PM, "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> I'm so glad I asked William.  I think you and I are on the same track with
> this one.  I guess I've completely misunderstood your posts on this subject up
> until now.  But I agree whole heartedly with what you're saying here.
>  
> Although when people say they have experienced states of wholeness and
> oneness, being in touch with god, etc. I don't think that's really any
> different from what you're describing here.  I think people are just
> misinterpreting because of the reasons you've given here (they're still
> looking for mommy and daddy to tell them what it is and what to do with it).
> They're still too caught up in their own programming to be able to think in
> new ways about their own experience and assign some value to the self.
>  
> Susan
>  
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: william <mailto:w@david-bohm.net>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> From: Susan Clemons <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>> >I guess I'm wondering what you would describe as the advances
>>> >humans have made in consciousness so far then,
>>  
>> I think, the most significant advance so far is the development of the sense
>> of self, individualism, or persona. This, to some extend, is a separation
>> from the whole. In mythical or religious terms it amounts to an escape from
>> paradise, freedom from God. Also we have developed language that emphasizes
>> distinctions, enabling us to conceptualize ourselves in terms of you and me,
>> them and us, etc. This is a real breakthrough and a pre-requisite for
>> everything else that follows.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>> >And what kind of ideas you have of where we might go as a
>>> >race with consciousness?
>>  
>> Well, I don't know. We're still kind of pussy-footing around, not really
>> believing we're free. Still feeling uncertain and kind of looking back if
>> mama or papa or God can see us. Personally, I would go in the direction of
>> developing what I like to call "modes of perception", I.e. the ability to
>> switch from one reality to another, like switching TV channels, having
>> different views through the same eyes. This would automatically lead to the
>> ability of holding many truths at the same time. By way of illustration, this
>> would have the same impact as adding a third dimension to a hypothetical
>> two-dimensional world. Such a new dimension in the perception of reality,
>> means that each one can have his or her own preferred truth or reality as if
>> it were cloth we can change at any time.  That would be enough progress for
>> the time being, but it will probably move on into areas that we can't imagine
>> yet...
>>  
>> William
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> 
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 


-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
   208 376-1336
   www.lifedirectionscoach.com
    (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)


"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/28b2dfea/attachment.html
From facilitator at david-bohm.net  Tue Nov 14 07:03:31 2006
From: facilitator at david-bohm.net (facilitator)
Date: Wed Nov 15 08:08:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] List
Message-ID: <964473B3-933C-433A-ACB9-5C17D53C24D8@david-bohm.net>

If I ignore the fact that there are a few of us who have more than  
one e-mail address and that there are a few people who have "no mail"  
checked which means that they don't want to receive any posts, we  
have hit the hundred mark today. Actually, there are probably about  
94 or 95 of us. But 100 sounds pretty landmarkish.

facilitator
From stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com  Tue Nov 14 07:48:52 2006
From: stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com (STEPHEN DEVLIN)
Date: Wed Nov 15 08:53:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
In-Reply-To: <00f301c70780$4ab6f0e0$1879480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <20061114064852.43776.qmail@web86501.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

I imagine here you're referring to the NLP techniques you've been learning. I have a colleague who's just spent about ?6000 learning to become a teacher of NLP. From what I can tell the assigning value is all to do with how they blatantly rip you off by over charging for materials and courses that comprise a mix of hypnotism and self help feel good nonsense.

Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:     v\:* {  BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml) }   v\:* {  BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml) }   I'm so glad I asked William.   I think you and I are on the same track with this one.  I guess I've  completely misunderstood your posts on this subject up until now.  But I  agree whole heartedly with what you're saying here.
  
 Although when people say they have  experienced states of wholeness and oneness, being in touch with god, etc. I  don't think that's really any different from what you're describing here.   I think people are just misinterpreting because of the reasons you've given here  (they're still looking for mommy and daddy to tell them what it is and what to  do with it).  They're still too caught up in their own programming to be  able to think in new ways about their own experience and assign some value to  the self.  
  
 Susan
  
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    william 
   To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org    
   Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:21    PM
   Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of    Consciousness
   

                         
          
                  From: Susan Clemons

         >I guess I'm wondering what you would describe as the advances          
         >humans have made in consciousness so far then, 
          
         I think, the most significant advance so far is          the development of the sense of self, individualism, or persona.          This, to some extend, is a separation from the whole. In          mythical or religious terms it amounts to an escape from paradise,          freedom from God. Also we have developed language that emphasizes          distinctions, enabling us to conceptualize ourselves in terms of you and          me, them and us, etc. This is a real breakthrough and a pre-requisite          for everything else that follows.
          
          
          
         >And what kind of ideas you have of where we might go as a  
         >race with consciousness? 
          
         Well, I don't know. We're still kind of pussy-footing around, not          really believing we're free. Still feeling uncertain and kind of looking          back if mama or papa or God can see us. Personally, I would go in the          direction of developing what I like to call "modes of perception", I.e.          the ability to switch from one reality to another, like switching TV          channels, having different views through the same eyes. This would          automatically lead to the ability of holding many truths at the same          time. By way of illustration, this would have the same impact as adding          a third dimension to a hypothetical two-dimensional world. Such a new          dimension in the perception of reality, means that each one can have his          or her own preferred truth or reality as if it were cloth we can change          at any time.  That would be enough progress for the time          being, but it will probably move on into
 areas that we can't imagine          yet...
          
         William
          
          
                                                        
             
             
      

---------------------------------
    
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post    to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue    facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing    list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________


_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/27f76cc4/attachment-0001.html
From franis_franis at juno.com  Tue Nov 14 08:25:25 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Nov 15 10:18:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
Message-ID: <20061114.000853.1408.3.franis_franis@juno.com>

What if the way you want to come across in the way you mean to
communicate isn't "teacherly"? Wouldn't you like to be flexible enough to
bring about the effect for the reader you might intend? I know that there
are times when I do not want to be regarded as teacherly, for instance -
so I'd like to know how to subtract that effect from my writing style. -
Franis

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:55:15 -0700 "Susan Clemons"
<Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Well, I've stopped worrying about it Franis.  I've learned that 
> sometimes 
> people appreciate my posts and sometimes they don't.  And I've never 
> been 
> able to predict when or who that will happen with.  If I sound 
> teacherly...so be it.  If people don't like teacherly...so be it.  
> It's much 
> more important to me to write what I need to write in the moment 
> than it is 
> to worry about who is or is not going to like/appreciate my post.
> 
> Susan
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:30 PM
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering why the culture thinks of me or Susan as teacherly; 
> or why
> > I have learned to somehow use the language in that way to give 
> people the
> > idea I'm teacherly. I mean, I do have some Alexander Technique 
> students
> > sometimes - but that's more a process of coaching self-observation 
> rather
> > than a process of me telling the other person information as most
> > teachers do.
> >
> > It is in the assumptions where all the meat of meaning is for me. 
> So
> > going over what the assumptions are can make me sound as if I'm 
> insulting
> > someone's ability to see the obvious...but I'm sort of making a 
> list to
> > see if we can spot an assumption that we could change. Other 
> people don't
> > get my intent, so I've learned to spell it out before I do it. 
> Then the
> > others can play too. Othewise if people do not know what is going 
> on,
> > they tend to assign some negative motive to what I'm doing - which 
> is how
> > I regard the "teacherly-ness." It's not that it's negative, but 
> it's a
> > role to describe some sort of authority thing that is going on.
> >
> > I know I have a tendency to say things to see how they sound after 
> they
> > come out of my mouth. I try out making a statement about something 
> to see
> > how the rest of me reacts. This is part of what makes me sometimes 
> sound
> > so full of it that my eyes are brown, because I'll make a 
> statement as if
> > I know what I'm talking about when I know absolutely nothing.
> >
> > I seem to want to offer the benefit of my observations - but 
> really, it's
> > mostly that I want to tell what I have observed so far because I 
> want to
> > "trade notes" on certain topics. I have these many topics of 
> ongoing
> > investigation that are extremely open-ended; so when someone 
> mentions
> > something about them, my ears prick up. I guess trotting out what 
> I know
> > about something so far isn't the way to evoke the responses I 
> want; but
> > by doing that I have so often catapulted the conversation onto a 
> much
> > deeper level. So I keep doing it - at the risk of sounding as if 
> I'm an
> > authority - and I try to do damage control when I see mismatches.
> >
> > I hate being tagged as an authority when all I'm doing is putting
> > whatever I have observed so far into words. On the other hand, I 
> hate not
> > being in a position where what I have to offer is not valued. I 
> spend
> > much of my time establishing rapport - and to be in rapport means 
> you
> > don't get the respect in this culture, which is a shame.
> >
> > I really love and respect those people who could be described as
> > unappreciated pearls, because they reject all presentation skills 
> and
> > just go for content. But in this day and age, if you want to be in 
> the
> > position of offering what you know, you almost have to work on how 
> you're
> > presenting it, otherwise it goes completely unnoticed.
> >
> > Franis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:31:52 +0000 Gill Wyatt 
> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> > writes:
> >> Hi Francis,
> >>
> >> I appreciate what you say here ... I guess my intention is to 
> focus
> >> more on
> >> unearthing the assumptions I am making and when I am wanting to
> >> focus on
> >> something with another person I work hard at taking 
> responsibility
> >> for my
> >> own feelings and thoughts and check out the intentions and parts
> >> others may
> >> be playing. I try to walk my talk although I guess I often fail 
> but
> >> I never
> >> want to ask somebody to go somewhere where I haven't already been
> >> myself.
> >>
> >> I guess a 'teacherly' style doesn't do it for me ... But I liked
> >> your
> >> honesty and what felt like to me openness.
> >>
> >> Gill
> >>
> >>
> >> on 10/11/06 21:06, Franis Engel at franis_franis@juno.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yes, Susan and myself both have the "teacherly" tone of 
> writing.
> >> > It's something that has crept into my writing, and I don't
> >> necessarily
> >> > intend what I'm writing to come across that way. It seems this
> >> tone is
> >> > what happens when you begin to articulate assumptions - or at
> >> least,
> >> > that's when it has happened. Often some people feel insulted 
> that
> >> you're
> >> > going back to square one with them, as if they do not know what 
> is
> >> > obvious.
> >> > Franis
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:40:27 +0000 Gill Wyatt
> >> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> > writes:
> >> >> Hi Susan,
> >> >>
> >> >> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are 
> trying
> >> to
> >> >> teach
> >> >> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this 
> from
> >> >> both of
> >> >> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making 
> an
> >> >> assumption
> >> >> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was 
> gorgeous,
> >> and
> >> >> maybe
> >> >> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody
> >> agrees
> >> >> with me
> >> >> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was
> >> >> meaning it in
> >> >> my message.
> >> >>
> >> >> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David 
> Bohm
> >> is
> >> >> saying in
> >> >> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would 
> never
> >> mean
> >> >> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the 
> meeting
> >> of
> >> >> two
> >> >> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are 
> doing
> >> this
> >> >> in this
> >> >> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are 
> making
> >> >> about me.
> >> >> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I 
> guess I
> >> am
> >> >> telling
> >> >> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions 
> were.
> >> It
> >> >> feels as
> >> >> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to 
> this
> >> >> list that
> >> >> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have
> >> written
> >> >> a
> >> >> Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops
> >> >> introducing the
> >> >> concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many years in 
> how
> >> >> some
> >> >> groups get to dialogue and how the shift in consciousness at a
> >> group
> >> >> level
> >> >> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have
> >> been
> >> >> the
> >> >> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know
> >> about
> >> >> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that 
> kept
> >> on
> >> >> occurring
> >> >> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Gill
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name).  Yes, it can be
> >> very
> >> >>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on 
> an
> >> >> intimate
> >> >>> level.  However, since being in Dialogue I have come to 
> cherish
> >> a
> >> >> different
> >> >>> kind of connection that seems to be just as intimate if not 
> more
> >> >> so.  I'm
> >> >>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I 
> look
> >> for
> >> >> now.  I
> >> >>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation
> >> that
> >> >> comes from
> >> >>> exploring our differences.  So I'll defer to DB's words to
> >> >> describe it:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when 
> one
> >> >> person says
> >> >>> something, the other person does not in general respond with
> >> >> exactly the
> >> >>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the
> >> >> meanings are only
> >> >>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person 
> replies,
> >> >> the first
> >> >>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and 
> what
> >> the
> >> >> other
> >> >>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may 
> then
> >> be
> >> >> able to
> >> >>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views 
> and
> >> to
> >> >> those of
> >> >>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the
> >> >> continual
> >> >>> emergence of a new content that is common to both 
> participants.
> >> >> Thus, in a
> >> >>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain
> >> >> ideas or items
> >> >>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may 
> be
> >> >> said that
> >> >>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating
> >> >> something new
> >> >>> together."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together"
> >> that
> >> >> I look
> >> >>> for now through the exploration of our differences.  I no 
> longer
> >> >> look for
> >> >>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to 
> see
> >> >> what we can
> >> >>> create out of the hubris of our differences.  And when we 
> manage
> >> >> to do that
> >> >>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the 
> common
> >> >> ground we
> >> >>> share.  I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he
> >> talks
> >> >> about a
> >> >>> "difference that makes a difference".
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Susan
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> >>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >> >>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:27 AM
> >> >>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle 
> way
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Hi Susan,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Ok I understand.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I think sometimes I look, perhaps unrealistically for more 
> of
> >> an
> >> >> explicit
> >> >>>> connection between what I have said and the person who 
> responds
> >> >> to me. It
> >> >>>> just feels so gorgeous when it happens.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> By the way my name is Gill, short for Gillian ... Not the 
> male
> >> >> American
> >> >>>> Gil.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> And yes I do agree that good discussions get triggered by
> >> >> difficulties
> >> >>>> here
> >> >>>> and in the wider world. Well sometimes in the wider world, 
> if
> >> >> that is not
> >> >>>> be
> >> >>>> being pessimistic.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Gill
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> on 9/11/06 21:27, Susan Clemons at 
> Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi Gil.  Actually you were very clear about what you 
> wanted.
> >> >> And my
> >> >>>>> response was about what I was feeling and thinking.  I put 
> the
> >> >> link in to
> >> >>>>> the past discussion we had on the purpose of dialogue to
> >> respond
> >> >> to you
> >> >>>>> and
> >> >>>>> the rest of the post was about me.  I personally don't 
> think
> >> the
> >> >>>>> discussion
> >> >>>>> about PKZ is necessarily about PKZ.  I think it's about us.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> How do we deal with trolls, spamming, and the like in our
> >> daily
> >> >> lives?
> >> >>>>> Do
> >> >>>>> we ever respond to a legitimate interaction from someone as
> >> >> though they
> >> >>>>> are
> >> >>>>> a troll or spamming or in some other way simply because 
> that
> >> is
> >> >> what's
> >> >>>>> going
> >> >>>>> on?  I would say right now trolling and spamming and 
> flaming
> >> are
> >> >> a pretty
> >> >>>>> ordinary occurrence.  The current political climate here in
> >> >> Arizona was
> >> >>>>> pretty much of a flame war.  Television, the mail, and most 
> of
> >> >> the
> >> >>>>> telephone
> >> >>>>> calls I get are trolling and spamming.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Doesn't our culture basically embrace this type of behavior 
> as
> >> >> perfectly
> >> >>>>> acceptable?  Isn't this a part of the incoherence in our 
> daily
> >> >> lives?
> >> >>>>> And
> >> >>>>> how has this affected the way we communicate with each 
> other
> >> and
> >> >> our
> >> >>>>> ability
> >> >>>>> to be open and honest with each other?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> So you see, I wasn't really ignoring what you were 
> addressing.
> >> >> For me,
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>> best way to talk about it is within the story that is
> >> happening.
> >> >>  Getting
> >> >>>>> clear about the microcosm can help to see the macrocosm to 
> my
> >> >> way of
> >> >>>>> thinking.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> And I'll tell you something that I noticed when I was going
> >> >> through the
> >> >>>>> archives today.  The PKZ phenomenom seemed to stimulate a 
> lot
> >> of
> >> >> thought
> >> >>>>> at
> >> >>>>> the time and there were some really rousing and interesting
> >> >> conversation
> >> >>>>> that seemed to come out of it.  The same thing happened 
> here
> >> in
> >> >> Arizona
> >> >>>>> with
> >> >>>>> the political flame wars.  Although I really got tired of
> >> >> hearing the
> >> >>>>> politicians beating each other up, people seemed to wake up
> >> and
> >> >> get a
> >> >>>>> little
> >> >>>>> more interested in the issues and to be stimulated to vote.
> >> It
> >> >> was
> >> >>>>> certainly much better than the mediocre lackluster 
> campaigns
> >> of
> >> >> the past.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Do we bring this kind of phenomena on when things are 
> getting
> >> a
> >> >> little
> >> >>>>> too
> >> >>>>> stagnant perhaps?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Susan
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> >>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:22 PM
> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle
> >> way
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi Susan,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Um ... Its interesting its only when I have a response that 
> I
> >> >> realise
> >> >>>>> that
> >> >>>>> perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be to get what 
> I
> >> am
> >> >> saying
> >> >>>>> across.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I'm very able to pick and choose which messages I read and 
> am
> >> >> happy to
> >> >>>>> delete. I mentioned in my email deleting 50-75 emails a day
> >> from
> >> >> this
> >> >>>>> list.
> >> >>>>> I find some of the one liner don't add anything to what I
> >> think
> >> >> of
> >> >>>>> dialogue
> >> >>>>> and sometimes I wonder why they are not sent to the one 
> person
> >> >> they are
> >> >>>>> addressed to. So I guess I feel differently from you, the
> >> number
> >> >> of
> >> >>>>> emails
> >> >>>>> per day does not indicate for me anything about the quality 
> of
> >> >> the
> >> >>>>> dialogue.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The other point re 'PK and probably more accurate to say 
> maybe
> >> >> Z' ... in
> >> >>>>> a
> >> >>>>> way what I intended to communicate was to take the focus 
> away
> >> >> from PK(Z)
> >> >>>>> and
> >> >>>>> have it back on us ... What are we not paying attention to?
> >> ...
> >> >> What am I
> >> >>>>> not paying attention to? Am I really understanding the 
> message
> >> >> in the
> >> >>>>> messages that I do read ... And do my responses make a
> >> >> connection with
> >> >>>>> other
> >> >>>>> people in a way that transcends the more usual cultural
> >> >> assumptions.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> That was more of what I was meaning to talk about ...
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Gill
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> on 9/11/06 00:11, Susan Clemons at 
> Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Hi Gill.  It's nice to meet you.  I understand the current
> >> >> desire among
> >> >>>>>> many
> >> >>>>>> of you to explore the PKZ phenomena.  When I first joined 
> the
> >> >> list the
> >> >>>>>> same
> >> >>>>>> discussion was going on.  I jumped right in, eager to 
> explore
> >> >> it.  And
> >> >>>>>> it
> >> >>>>>> was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right
> >> now.
> >> >