From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Sep 15 00:36:10 2006 From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide) Date: Sat Sep 16 01:31:09 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Rat Message-ID: <BAY107-F369D5D9C1AF00CDA4458DFA8290@phx.gbl> I guess you could say, at this stage of the project, I see >her as a kind of lab rat [donf] Hmmm, very interesting, this gentlemen Dividing (Bohm)Dialog into Who runs (the)' experiments' And who they are conducted on. Very telling ;-! Love & Smells, Kirsten -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld _________________________________________________________________ Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now! http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Sep 15 00:43:01 2006 From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide) Date: Sat Sep 16 01:36:49 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Delete" In-Reply-To: <BAY123-F30505C9288C357ED190098B7290@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <BAY107-F22125A3579DD3AA5E08BE2A8290@phx.gbl> Dear Bohm Chat Group Subscriber Regina, >I sense that for some here in this dialogue group, Kirsten is not problem. >There is a magic button called: delete I thinkg you are some how missing The beauty/beast of (Bohm) Dialog It's not about deleting Unwanted, uncomfortable, unfamiliar..... thinkgs And very much about digesting [processing] them. But never: Mind ;-! Love & Courage -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheldelete _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site. http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Sep 15 01:09:33 2006 From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com) Date: Sat Sep 16 02:03:48 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content Message-ID: <20060914.190940.3524.7.ae.dropper@juno.com> > Objection to the content here is because of > [some elaboration on or complication of] the thought > that "This makes me unhappy." > > Objections? > > pat Not an objection, but perhaps an oversimplification. (don) Can an objection to content based on the content's "oversimplification" be seen in any way, as a "complication" of a "this makes me unhappy" thought [as suggested in the initial question]? "Complication" can be seen to be the primary avoidance tactic [by thought] when inquiring into the workings of thought. Incidentally, thanks Regina for the words about Byron Katie. Her work is the best by far example I've ever seen of undistracted [by complication] inquiry into deep assumptions. One of the first things facilitators of "the work" will notice and give attention to is called "cross talk," which is something we can all notice thought doing as a distraction from simple inquiry. Getting the beliefs and assumptions onto paper in the clearest and simplest wording possible, is an invaluable help to the inquiry. The question that is of prime interest in Katie's "Work" and in a Bohm inspired dialogue is: Is it the person that is making me unhappy (or the person's words or actions) or is it the thought* about the person (or about the person's words or actions) that is "making me unhappy?" It is a strictly technical question. And it points to "a difference that makes a difference." It is a critical 'life' question too because seeing what is actually happening in thought will make the difference between other people [seemingly] holding the power to control our "happiness," or not "holding that control. What are the implications of a state of affairs where it is generally believed that other people control our mood buttons? Do we need look far to see such implications? *It is such thoughts that are exposed to inquiry when looking for implicit beliefs or assumptions beneath the reflexes that guide our behavior. pat I think that just about anything can be reduced to its lowest common denominator, but in that reduction a great deal of meaning gets lost. So, it is not the content, in and of itself, that I sometimes find objectionable but the meaning of that content. We know what words denote. but we have also to intuit the connotation that they carry in any particular context. Without this tacit level of understanding, there would be no possibility of communication. But to do this we have to approach each question with more of an artistic hand than just an analytical or literalist understanding. So sometimes I find the "tone " of someone's remarks objectionable because they imply an attitude that distracts us from the seriousness of our search for understanding. Peter Krauss's behaviour, first under his own name and later as gas, was an example of this. And now Kirsten, whoever Kirsten may be, is another, perhaps, so far, less extreme example. I would suggest, though, that our inquiry here is not meant to be an inquiry into whatever someone wants to have happen as if it were a kid's playground with one of them wanting to be king or queen of the sandpile, nor is it an anything goes sort of exercise. That is what Krauss wanted to make it. Rather its an inquiry into some of the more subtle and, dare I say, significant realms of human consciousness or what Bohm called "the totality of all that is." And that's what I value here. So, I feel that such a search needs to be treated delicately and seriously. And when it is not, then, yes, it does make me feel unhappy. don From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 03:40:26 2006 From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl) Date: Sat Sep 16 04:32:36 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <42C4D1FC-49E3-4170-B053-31ECF05F0D95@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20060915014026.16386.qmail@web61025.mail.yahoo.com> Human beings are capable of extraordinary things. My will and desire can take me very far in my journey through my life. I can become many things, and I can achieve many different states of being in my life. It doesn?t matter if it is in spiritual world or physical world so do speak. There are many examples of people doing extraordinary things through hard work and dedications. It would almost seem like life without boundaries. One wants to become great scientist or philosopher among many. Then there is a man living a life very simple and without the will or desire to become anybody. His journey in his/her life is to reach others and touch the lives of another deeply and profoundly without any reward or gain. Then there are people living lives just to survive on a daily basis without being aware of any of it. Man has been in trouble from the beginning of time, and the future of man looks very grim. I am foremost human being in relationship with the whole, which includes everything known to man and as well the unknown. I am a part of it and I am taking a part in it. Thought has been known as the most important instrument of man, which has created and still is creating the reality, as I know it. Thought has been shaping the world around me as well my own consciousness. Many have tried and still are trying to find out what lies beyond thought itself, and if there is an any other movement or energy beyond thought, which is capable to act upon my consciousness, which includes thought. Some of us may use many different words, which then are pointing to the very thing, which will or is capable of transforming my consciousness deeply and profoundly. Then there are those who claim they have found it, and they have reached the unreachable. One is trying to find out the answer to unanswerable or one is trying to find out the unknown through various forms of practice, which again would seem like the means to the end. I want something out of it; I am reaching for something in order to better myself inwardly. I am projecting the future state of mine when I become something physically as well psychologically or spiritually. It has been like this for millennia, and it would seem like the consciousness of man remained the same. If, there would be or there is some sort of movement or energy, which would change man deeply and profoundly what would that be? Is it possible for individual to ever reach such state? Is it possible only through the collective mind or universal mind? What would happen if one would stop such movement in becoming or reaching or longing constantly for something? Maybe when my mind is split between these worlds of time so do speak, I am not in direct contact with what is? Dialogue is a wonderful thing, and one should be doing it more often not for the result or for some other reason but mostly for the nature of a dialogue itself, which is to learn about oneself deeply without blindfold. I can only learn about myself by being in relationship with another and the world. It is for this perception that I am nobody by myself maybe only in my own image, which I carry with me my whole life. To look upon another human being with or through the image is a tragedy, and to look deeply beyond the mask one would find real and true being as I am what ever that means. Yes, human beings have done terrible things to one another but to change one soul at the time takes more then just casting judgment upon another. Fanda Fanda Plessl e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From franis_franis at juno.com Fri Sep 15 10:28:54 2006 From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel) Date: Sat Sep 16 11:25:06 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 Message-ID: <20060915.012854.896.3.franis_franis@juno.com> Rodger: Possibly some further consideration should go into the list, re: how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names. The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R I'd like to know more of who I'm talking with, because I think when people are more personal, they take more care in how they say what they mean. I've gone to the trouble of traveling to meet some of these people on this Dialouge group, and it was enlightening. The most interesting was how some people merely continued the conversation however we'd left off in Dialogue, and some assummed they were meeting me for the first time, as if what we'd been writing made no difference at all. It was surprising! I'd love more of that. I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of SF,) if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere near. I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit! - Franis From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Sep 15 11:30:10 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Sat Sep 16 12:22:28 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content In-Reply-To: <20060914.190940.3524.7.ae.dropper@juno.com> References: <20060914.190940.3524.7.ae.dropper@juno.com> Message-ID: <A52E4623-3751-45E2-B9B1-41CD6AF7DE6F@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Before I can go any further with this I would like to have a look at your "this makes me unhappy" thought. What do you mean by this? From what you write, Pat, it seems that you take such a thought is evidence of that old devil TAS at work once again. You suggest that complication is its modus operandi - an avoidance tactic. And you imply that the simplest description of something is better than one that includes all the subtleties and complexities that fill out its meaning. But do you really believe that? Or am I to believe that you believe that unhappiness is in some way a product of this unintelligent, mechanical system distracting us from - what? - catching it in the act of making us unhappy? And then you bring "power" into it. And say that somehow we must not allow anyone else to make us unhappy because that puts the control of happiness outside of our selves. So it is not onlyTAS distracting us by making us unhappy but it is also those others doing it to us. I guess we have to be very careful, not to get caught in this dreadful condition of victimhood, or of feeling unhappy, even about ourselves. All of this brings to mind the word, "compassion". Literally, from its etymology, the word means to suffer together. It means to be able to "feel someone else's pain". Without the ability to be compassionate, to feel the pain of another, I do not believe that we can be fully human. Would you recommend dialogue or trying to gain a deeper understanding of the "totality" as a means to a pain free life? As for Katie, she is a psychotherapist who works with groups and uses her own version of a therapeutic approach known as cognitive therapy which uses this sort of note taking and questionnaires to call attention to the sorts of stuff that conventional therapies take months to dredge up. It is good stuff but it is still psychotherapy. Dialogue as Bohm described it was not meant to be psychotherapy. don On 15 Sep 2006, at 00:09, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: >> Objection to the content here is because of >> [some elaboration on or complication of] the thought >> that "This makes me unhappy." >> >> Objections? >> >> pat > > Not an objection, but perhaps an oversimplification. (don) > > Can an objection to content based on the content's > "oversimplification" > be seen in any way, as a "complication" of a "this makes me unhappy" > thought [as suggested in the initial question]? > > "Complication" can be seen to be the primary avoidance > tactic [by thought] when inquiring into the workings of thought. > > Incidentally, thanks Regina for the words about Byron Katie. Her work > is the best by far example I've ever seen of undistracted [by > complication] > inquiry into deep assumptions. One of the first things facilitators of > "the > work" will notice and give attention to is called "cross talk," which > is something we can all notice thought doing as a distraction from > simple inquiry. Getting the beliefs and assumptions onto paper > in the clearest and simplest wording possible, is an invaluable > help to the inquiry. > > The question that is of prime interest in Katie's "Work" > and in a Bohm inspired dialogue is: Is it the person that > is making me unhappy (or the person's words or actions) > or is it the thought* about the person (or about the person's > words or actions) that is "making me unhappy?" It is a strictly > technical question. And it points to "a difference that makes > a difference." > > It is a critical 'life' question too because seeing > what is actually happening in thought will make the > difference between other people [seemingly] holding the power > to control our "happiness," or not "holding that control. What are > the implications of a state of affairs where it is generally believed > that other people control our mood buttons? Do we need look far > to see such implications? > > *It is such thoughts that are exposed to inquiry when > looking for implicit beliefs or assumptions beneath > the reflexes that guide our behavior. > > pat > > > > I think that just about anything can be reduced to its lowest common > denominator, but in that reduction a great deal of meaning gets lost. > So, it is not the content, in and of itself, that I sometimes find > objectionable but the meaning of that content. We know what words > denote. but we have also to intuit the connotation that they carry in > any particular context. Without this tacit level of understanding, > there would be no possibility of communication. But to do this we > have to approach each question with more of an artistic hand than > just an analytical or literalist understanding. > > So sometimes I find the "tone " of someone's remarks objectionable > because they imply an attitude that distracts us from the seriousness > of our search for understanding. Peter Krauss's behaviour, first > under his own name and later as gas, was an example of this. And now > Kirsten, whoever Kirsten may be, is another, perhaps, so far, less > extreme example. > > I would suggest, though, that our inquiry here is not meant to be an > inquiry into whatever someone wants to have happen as if it were a > kid's playground with one of them wanting to be king or queen of the > sandpile, nor is it an anything goes sort of exercise. That is what > Krauss wanted to make it. Rather its an inquiry into some of the more > subtle and, dare I say, significant realms of human consciousness or > what Bohm called "the totality of all that is." And that's what I > value here. So, I feel that such a search needs to be treated > delicately and seriously. And when it is not, then, yes, it does make > me feel unhappy. > > don > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Sep 15 12:35:21 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Sat Sep 16 13:27:39 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Rat In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F369D5D9C1AF00CDA4458DFA8290@phx.gbl> References: <BAY107-F369D5D9C1AF00CDA4458DFA8290@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <DB711655-F826-4938-B00C-CDCE3B4757EC@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Well, I wonder if we don't all test our perceptons on each other. Dialogue is an activity where each of us is both experimenter and experimental subject. But putting my experimenter cap on I have to say that my tentative conclusion regarding Kirsten is that, unless she is doing a first rate job of acting and pretending, she has a condition known as Asperger's Syndrome. Dr. Don On 14 Sep 2006, at 23:36, kirsten schneide wrote: > I guess you could say, at this stage of the project, I see >> her as a kind of lab rat [donf] > > > > Hmmm, very interesting, this gentlemen > > Dividing (Bohm)Dialog into > > Who runs (the)' experiments' > > And who they are conducted on. > > > Very telling ;-! > > > > > > > > Love & Smells, Kirsten > > -------------------------- > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld > > _________________________________________________________________ > Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now! http:// > search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > From Matti.Vaittinen at uta.fi Fri Sep 15 12:37:52 2006 From: Matti.Vaittinen at uta.fi (Matti Vaittinen) Date: Sat Sep 16 13:30:12 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content In-Reply-To: <EA24FAED-EE9E-4AF9-844B-18E4D9105EC0@donfactor.demon.co.uk> References: <20060914.100436.3524.2.ae.dropper@juno.com> <EA24FAED-EE9E-4AF9-844B-18E4D9105EC0@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20060915133752.6y46wkv98kis4c0w@imp1.uta.fi> I assume Peter likes this group. I have (also - many years) studied philosophy in university and I have noticed, among the students of philosophy, that there is a particular type of "student-personality" who are very intelligent but cynical, mostly very negative in their comments about a wide variety of issues in life. What is striking is the combination of "negativity" and the "bright shining intelligence." The result of this, - the outcome can often be just amazing, often simultaneously quite offending (meaning: offending some commonly and deeply held values and assumptions, perhaps concerning beauty, love, politics, the family, relationships etc.) and yet also entertaining, amusing, laughable. This kind of person can produce arguments that are both insulting and funny (and I don't mean the "insulting dog" kind of thing in the Conan O'Brien Show - this is still different, although similar). The net result can be such that one (i.e. "I") feels that one likes this person while at the same time one would like to give him a "lesson", even a physical one, kick his ass, so to speak. But the thing is, you can't "beat" their intelligence, and whatever you say won't change anything, won't make a difference, probably make oneself feel only worse. Those people are not healthy to be around with for long periods of time - this is my limited view. The thing is: you can't do much about it. Either you take it, or you leave the scene. - Now, if Peter thinks I am talking about h i m , he is mistaken: I am not talking about _you_ . I have never met you, I don't know "you." This is merely an association. However, the imperssion is that of a cynic. Also, I doubt Peter has got a face-to-face dialogue experience. I would be surprised if he had. Karilen gave a very good account (a couple of months ago) of an actual dialogue weekend seminar, what kind of experience it can be. In that respect, Peter seems to be an outsider: he's not interested, he does not respect "dialogue." Many years ago there was (i think) another Peter, from Holland, and he wrote and contributed a lot in here. He said he would n e v e r go and attend a face-to-face dialogue group, he couldn't stand it. However, "our" Peter has said that he wants to enquire the mind, and I suppose his assumption is that this inquiry can take place here, virtually. But I think you need more flesh for that, provoking emotions and stirring up people does not give good food for dialogue and make it enough for it to become "flesh" in that respect, in here. Anyway, Peter likes "us" and, "we" like "Kirsten" , perhaps in a perverse way ;-) Let our dull lives continue!! Best, no offense, matti Lainaus Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>: >> Objection to the content here is because of >> [some elaboration on or complication of] the thought >> that "This makes me unhappy." >> >> Objections? >> >> pat > > Not an objection, but perhaps an oversimplification. > > I think that just about anything can be reduced to its lowest common > denominator, but in that reduction a great deal of meaning gets lost. > So, it is not the content, in and of itself, that I sometimes find > objectionable but the meaning of that content. We know what words > denote. but we have also to intuit the connotation that they carry in > any particular context. Without this tacit level of understanding, > there would be no possibility of communication. But to do this we have > to approach each question with more of an artistic hand than just an > analytical or literalist understanding. > > So sometimes I find the "tone " of someone's remarks objectionable > because they imply an attitude that distracts us from the seriousness > of our search for understanding. Peter Krauss's behaviour, first under > his own name and later as gas, was an example of this. And now Kirsten, > whoever Kirsten may be, is another, perhaps, so far, less extreme > example. > > I would suggest, though, that our inquiry here is not meant to be an > inquiry into whatever someone wants to have happen as if it were a > kid's playground with one of them wanting to be king or queen of the > sandpile, nor is it an anything goes sort of exercise. That is what > Krauss wanted to make it. Rather its an inquiry into some of the more > subtle and, dare I say, significant realms of human consciousness or > what Bohm called "the totality of all that is." And that's what I > value here. So, I feel that such a search needs to be treated > delicately and seriously. And when it is not, then, yes, it does make > me feel unhappy. > > don > > > > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Sep 15 14:43:21 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Sat Sep 16 15:35:45 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] the pope Message-ID: <868016FE-5E0E-473E-BD2B-2F39AA2C7E38@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Oh oh, the pope is in big trouble. "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," the pope said, issuing an open invitation to dialogue among cultures. don -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060915/cefbed3f/attachment.html From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Sep 15 15:24:27 2006 From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide) Date: Sat Sep 16 16:16:50 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Mattistake In-Reply-To: <20060915133752.6y46wkv98kis4c0w@imp1.uta.fi> Message-ID: <BAY107-F31086E529231FBB9BAFC78A82E0@phx.gbl> Dear Matti~ You are a Play'Mate. The Play, one Play: Tedium is not the disease of being bored because there's nothing to do, but the more serious disease of feeling that there's nothing worth doing. Fernando Pessoa Love & Mittens, Kirsten -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld >From: Matti Vaittinen <Matti.Vaittinen@uta.fi> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:37:52 +0300 > >I assume Peter likes this group. I have (also - many years) studied >philosophy in university and I have noticed, among the students of >philosophy, that there is a particular type of "student-personality" who >are very intelligent but cynical, mostly very negative in their comments >about a wide variety of issues in life. What is striking is the >combination of "negativity" and the "bright shining intelligence." The >result of this, - the outcome can often be just amazing, often >simultaneously quite offending (meaning: offending some commonly and >deeply held values and assumptions, perhaps concerning beauty, love, >politics, the family, relationships etc.) and yet also entertaining, >amusing, laughable. This kind of person can produce arguments that are >both insulting and funny (and I don't mean the "insulting dog" kind of >thing in the Conan O'Brien Show - this is still different, although >similar). The net result can be such that one (i.e. "I") feels that one >likes this person while at the same time one would like to give him a >"lesson", even a physical one, kick his ass, so to speak. But the thing >is, you can't "beat" their intelligence, and whatever you say won't change >anything, won't make a difference, probably make oneself feel only worse. >Those people are not healthy to be around with for long periods of time - >this is my limited view. The thing is: you can't do much about it. >Either you take it, or you leave the scene. - Now, if Peter thinks I am >talking about h i m , he is mistaken: I am not talking about _you_ . I >have never met you, I don't know "you." This is merely an association. >However, the imperssion is that of a cynic. Also, I doubt Peter has got a > face-to-face dialogue experience. I would be surprised if he had. >Karilen gave a very good account (a couple of months ago) of an actual >dialogue weekend seminar, what kind of experience it can be. In that >respect, Peter seems to be an outsider: he's not interested, he does not >respect "dialogue." Many years ago there was (i think) another Peter, >from Holland, and he wrote and contributed a lot in here. He said he >would n e v e r go and attend a face-to-face dialogue group, he couldn't >stand it. However, "our" Peter has said that he wants to enquire the mind, >and I suppose his assumption is that this inquiry can take place here, >virtually. But I think you need more flesh for that, provoking emotions >and stirring up people does not give good food for dialogue and make it >enough for it to become "flesh" in that respect, in here. Anyway, Peter >likes "us" and, "we" like "Kirsten" , perhaps in a perverse way > ;-) > >Let our dull lives continue!! > > >Best, > >no offense, > > > >matti > > > > > > > >Lainaus Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>: > >>>Objection to the content here is because of >>>[some elaboration on or complication of] the thought >>>that "This makes me unhappy." >>> >>>Objections? >>> >>>pat >> >>Not an objection, but perhaps an oversimplification. >> >>I think that just about anything can be reduced to its lowest common >>denominator, but in that reduction a great deal of meaning gets lost. >>So, it is not the content, in and of itself, that I sometimes find >>objectionable but the meaning of that content. We know what words >>denote. but we have also to intuit the connotation that they carry in >>any particular context. Without this tacit level of understanding, >>there would be no possibility of communication. But to do this we have >>to approach each question with more of an artistic hand than just an >>analytical or literalist understanding. >> >>So sometimes I find the "tone " of someone's remarks objectionable >>because they imply an attitude that distracts us from the seriousness >>of our search for understanding. Peter Krauss's behaviour, first under >>his own name and later as gas, was an example of this. And now Kirsten, >>whoever Kirsten may be, is another, perhaps, so far, less extreme >>example. >> >>I would suggest, though, that our inquiry here is not meant to be an >>inquiry into whatever someone wants to have happen as if it were a >>kid's playground with one of them wanting to be king or queen of the >>sandpile, nor is it an anything goes sort of exercise. That is what >>Krauss wanted to make it. Rather its an inquiry into some of the more >>subtle and, dare I say, significant realms of human consciousness or >>what Bohm called "the totality of all that is." And that's what I >>value here. So, I feel that such a search needs to be treated >>delicately and seriously. And when it is not, then, yes, it does make >>me feel unhappy. >> >>don >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>info: >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >>dialogue facilitator: >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>admin@david-bohm.net >> >>_______________________________________________ > > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Sep 15 18:01:22 2006 From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com) Date: Sat Sep 16 18:55:42 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content Message-ID: <20060915.120124.2248.3.ae.dropper@juno.com> Before I can go any further with this I would like to have a look at your "this makes me unhappy" thought. (don) This is a [mostly] implicit thought that is first felt and then, if worded, would be able to draw from a huge variety of wordings, all sharing the meaning "this makes me unhappy." The question being asked here is "Is the "this" of the thought "this makes me unhappy" a truth' or is it just a thought, just an assumption, just an image? Simple inquiry. Simple but profound. Done, not in a speculative way, but in a moment when the feeling arises, whether it "arises" in a session of "homework"* as suggested by bohm, or whether it arises throughout the day, or in a dialogue circle. There is no suggestion intended that such inquiry is in any way required. It is not "required." For some, it is spontaneous, and occurs in a situation of deep despair (as it did with housewife, real estate agent, definitely non-psycotherapist, bk). * (From Self, Society & Proprioception, on "Homework." "The point is, now, to be able to see that this is what's going on. That we are producing feelings out of thought. Everybody knows you can whip up feelings by certain shouts and cries and clamors and marches and songs, political rallies, etc. It's well known that feelings can in this way be whipped up, essentially by actions directed by thought, so that such a response need not be a surprise. What about this sort of feeling as compared with deep feelings? At the moment that it is happening a person might not be able to tell the difference. You have a crowd shouting and screaming and a great leader in front and so on. So that establishes the principle that feelings can be produced artificially. But what I was talking about is much more common than this. It doesn't require a demagogue or some unusual set of shouts, screams, and cries to do it. Rather, one simply has to notice that the meaning of a thought tends to be carried out in terms of feelings all over the body. In order to demonstrate this, you may take the case of getting angry. This is a feeling that is not as difficult to look at as say fear or pleasure --deceptive feelings of pleasure--which you know too can be produced by thought, a seductive thought. You see, a person may first get an outburst of anger and then cool down --it simmers down, but it's still there. You may put it in abeyance because something more important comes up, but it's still there ready to come up. My suggestion is to call it up on purpose by trying to find the words that express the reason for being angry. Thus, you may say, "I'm angry, and I have good reason because he did this and that and that." You will find that you are getting still angrier. Usually you'll say, "I shouldn't get angry, so I'd better stop this." But now we're going to use this on purpose, not for the sake of getting angry, because we're going to suspend the angry feelings, neither by stopping them, not letting them come out. Is that clear what I mean? LN: Yes, but there are some difficulties with suspending. DB: Well you see, it's not being done right in the heat of your original outburst of anger, but still, you're not calling it up to get rid of the angry feelings. Your first impulse might be to try and go out and insult the person and do something, and in earlier times, you might even have hit the person. And now you say don't do any of those things, but let the feeling come up and watch what's going on. We're regarding it as a sort of test display of the process, you understand? So then you'll see these angry feelings which will produce tension in the solar plexus and the belly and the chest, and affect your breathing and heartbeat, and all sorts of things. You'll be able to see a sort of movement of responses all over the body, such as tension of the jaw, in the neck. LN: Now let me raise one of the difficulties that commonly occurs here. Even if one waits a bit beyond the heat of the moment, there still comes up a very strong resistance to acknowledging that one is actually in this state. DB: Yes, that's part of our sociocultural conditioning, which says that you shouldn't be angry, and not only that, you yourself have seen by clear thought that it's leading you astray. You see, both reason, and society, and everything is telling you, you shouldn't be angry. Now there's a serious mistake in there. Of course, it's right that you shouldn't be angry, if only because it is very destructive to your deeper interests. But the attempt to say you shouldn't be angry is simply not affecting the anger, it's just trying to impose another pattern on top of the anger. This will come out as we go along, but the first point is to realize that such resistance is false and that this falseness will come out as we go through this process and pay attention to it. The falseness of the sociocultural as well as the personal judgment. DB: Yes. This is very tricky, because in some ways the judgment appears to be right. But there's a fundamental, deeper falseness in it. So we also have to give attention to our tendency to say "I shouldn't be angry, I must stop being angry", and we will see that this too, has to be suspended. In this process one will begin to get certain feelings, at first perhaps very faintly because of all the resistance, and later more strongly -you'll see the play of these feelings all over the body, because the action is being suspended. If you actually *did* something, you would no longer notice the feelings... if you went out and hit somebody or punched him in the nose, or insulted him, or otherwise tried to get redress for your anger. You might momentarily feel a lot better, because the tension would go (until the other person retaliated in a similar way). But now, when action is suspended, you can see that the words are calling up the feelings, and you'll be able to get a sense that there's some sort of mechanical connection between the words and the feelings. For example, you may find that the words may be, "He shouldn't have done this; he shouldn't treat me that way; he hasn't due regard for me, he's always doing that; he's never taking my rights into account. It's not the first time." So you may notice the feelings coming up rather mechanically, and that those feelings are producing mechanical pressure, making it very hard to look at those thoughts and see whether they're right or not. LN: Let's go very slowly here. You say they produce mechanical responses, and mechanical feelings. Now it seems to be a very thin line, because when you do what you suggest, if it's really activation these responses you are talking about, they don't *feel* mechanical. DB: No, but you can see a certain mechanical quality in the sense that the word is followed by the feeling. And you'll see there is a little something also in that pressure of the feeling to avoid examining the meaning of the words, to avoid seeing whether you really have a good reason to be angry. LN: A resistance to seeing the connection. DB: Yes, that's right. You see, if it were really a straightforward process, there would be no resistance to examining it. Now you can begin to suspect that it looks a little mechanical." pat ~~ What do you mean by this? From what you write, Pat, it seems that you take such a thought is evidence of that old devil TAS at work once again. You suggest that complication is its modus operandi - an avoidance tactic. And you imply that the simplest description of something is better than one that includes all the subtleties and complexities that fill out its meaning. But do you really believe that? Or am I to believe that you believe that unhappiness is in some way a product of this unintelligent, mechanical system distracting us from - what? - catching it in the act of making us unhappy? And then you bring "power" into it. And say that somehow we must not allow anyone else to make us unhappy because that puts the control of happiness outside of our selves. So it is not onlyTAS distracting us by making us unhappy but it is also those others doing it to us. I guess we have to be very careful, not to get caught in this dreadful condition of victimhood, or of feeling unhappy, even about ourselves. All of this brings to mind the word, "compassion". Literally, from its etymology, the word means to suffer together. It means to be able to "feel someone else's pain". Without the ability to be compassionate, to feel the pain of another, I do not believe that we can be fully human. Would you recommend dialogue or trying to gain a deeper understanding of the "totality" as a means to a pain free life? As for Katie, she is a psychotherapist who works with groups and uses her own version of a therapeutic approach known as cognitive therapy which uses this sort of note taking and questionnaires to call attention to the sorts of stuff that conventional therapies take months to dredge up. It is good stuff but it is still psychotherapy. Dialogue as Bohm described it was not meant to be psychotherapy. don On 15 Sep 2006, at 00:09, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: >> Objection to the content here is because of >> [some elaboration on or complication of] the thought >> that "This makes me unhappy." >> >> Objections? >> >> pat > > Not an objection, but perhaps an oversimplification. (don) > > Can an objection to content based on the content's > "oversimplification" > be seen in any way, as a "complication" of a "this makes me unhappy" > thought [as suggested in the initial question]? > > "Complication" can be seen to be the primary avoidance > tactic [by thought] when inquiring into the workings of thought. > > Incidentally, thanks Regina for the words about Byron Katie. Her work > is the best by far example I've ever seen of undistracted [by > complication] > inquiry into deep assumptions. One of the first things facilitators of > "the > work" will notice and give attention to is called "cross talk," which > is something we can all notice thought doing as a distraction from > simple inquiry. Getting the beliefs and assumptions onto paper > in the clearest and simplest wording possible, is an invaluable > help to the inquiry. > > The question that is of prime interest in Katie's "Work" > and in a Bohm inspired dialogue is: Is it the person that > is making me unhappy (or the person's words or actions) > or is it the thought* about the person (or about the person's > words or actions) that is "making me unhappy?" It is a strictly > technical question. And it points to "a difference that makes > a difference." > > It is a critical 'life' question too because seeing > what is actually happening in thought will make the > difference between other people [seemingly] holding the power > to control our "happiness," or not "holding that control. What are > the implications of a state of affairs where it is generally believed > that other people control our mood buttons? Do we need look far > to see such implications? > > *It is such thoughts that are exposed to inquiry when > looking for implicit beliefs or assumptions beneath > the reflexes that guide our behavior. > > pat > > > > I think that just about anything can be reduced to its lowest common > denominator, but in that reduction a great deal of meaning gets lost. > So, it is not the content, in and of itself, that I sometimes find > objectionable but the meaning of that content. We know what words > denote. but we have also to intuit the connotation that they carry in > any particular context. Without this tacit level of understanding, > there would be no possibility of communication. But to do this we > have to approach each question with more of an artistic hand than > just an analytical or literalist understanding. > > So sometimes I find the "tone " of someone's remarks objectionable > because they imply an attitude that distracts us from the seriousness > of our search for understanding. Peter Krauss's behaviour, first > under his own name and later as gas, was an example of this. And now > Kirsten, whoever Kirsten may be, is another, perhaps, so far, less > extreme example. > > I would suggest, though, that our inquiry here is not meant to be an > inquiry into whatever someone wants to have happen as if it were a > kid's playground with one of them wanting to be king or queen of the > sandpile, nor is it an anything goes sort of exercise. That is what > Krauss wanted to make it. Rather its an inquiry into some of the more > subtle and, dare I say, significant realms of human consciousness or > what Bohm called "the totality of all that is." And that's what I > value here. So, I feel that such a search needs to be treated > delicately and seriously. And when it is not, then, yes, it does make > me feel unhappy. > > don -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060915/d263401c/attachment.html From benschcoe at hotmail.com Fri Sep 15 20:28:17 2006 From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe) Date: Sat Sep 16 21:20:36 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <20060915.012854.896.3.franis_franis@juno.com> Message-ID: <BAY123-F6D30CD12C8B911C973C86B72E0@phx.gbl> I'd love more of that. I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of SF,) if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere near. I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit! (Franis) Ditto. If anyone is in the western Massachusetts area, let’s visit. Franis, when are you going to HI? I will be there in December. Also, has anyone read the story on proprioception: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/dancersbody/body/proprioception.shtmlo Regina >From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:28:54 -0700 > >Rodger: Possibly some further consideration should go into the list, re: >how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names. >The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by >way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R > >I'd like to know more of who I'm talking with, because I think when >people are more personal, they take more care in how they say what they >mean. I've gone to the trouble of traveling to meet some of these people >on this Dialouge group, and it was enlightening. The most interesting >was how some people merely continued the conversation however we'd left >off in Dialogue, and some assummed they were meeting me for the first >time, as if what we'd been writing made no difference at all. It was >surprising! > >I'd love more of that. >I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of SF,) >if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere near. >I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit! > >- Franis > > >_______________________________________________ >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 franis_franis at juno.com Fri Sep 15 21:45:16 2006 From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel) Date: Sat Sep 16 22:41:01 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] proprioception (meeting) Message-ID: <20060915.124517.592.0.franis_franis@juno.com> I believe that pat lives near Boston - is that true, Pat? I have gotten the impression that Pat attends many, many dialogue groups there, so your area is a rich site for Dialoguing. I'll be in HI by mid-December - the Big Island, visiting my boyfriend, who will probably sublet out his place because he'll be house-sitting. Perhaps we can meet there? Probably a very difficult article to write. I also found out that proprioceptive sensors exist in the back of the neck and in each of the extremities. Makes me think of myself as a radio controlled puppet. ;o) I liked also the Exploratorium experiment to close your eyes and put your hands over your head and touch each of your fingers together, touching your nose in between each finger attempt. Because you have proprioceptors in your fingers that send back to your brain, if you wiggle your fingers, it's easier to touch them together. The eyes have more to do with balance than you would imagine. If you stand on one foot with your eyes open, and then close them, the difference in how difficult it is to balance is striking. Oh yeah, you have that link correct, but for some reason the bbc site wants you to search their site for "proprioception" instead of allowing you to directly access the link. Franis On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:28:17 -0400 "Regina Bensch-Coe" <benschcoe@hotmail.com> writes: > > I'd love more of that. > I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of > SF,) > if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere > near. > I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit! (Franis) > > > Ditto. If anyone is in the western Massachusetts area, let’s visit. > Franis, > when are you going to HI? I will be there in December. > > Also, has anyone read the story on proprioception: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/dancersbody/body/proprioception.shtmlo > > Regina > > > >From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, > Issue 15 > >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:28:54 -0700 > > > >Rodger: Possibly some further consideration should go into the > list, re: > >how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo > names. > >The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses > by > >way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R > > > >I'd like to know more of who I'm talking with, because I think when > >people are more personal, they take more care in how they say what > they > >mean. I've gone to the trouble of traveling to meet some of these > people > >on this Dialouge group, and it was enlightening. The most > interesting > >was how some people merely continued the conversation however we'd > left > >off in Dialogue, and some assummed they were meeting me for the > first > >time, as if what we'd been writing made no difference at all. It > was > >surprising! > > > >I'd love more of that. > >I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of > SF,) > >if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere > near. > >I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit! > > > >- Franis > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 franis_franis at juno.com Fri Sep 15 21:49:30 2006 From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel) Date: Sat Sep 16 22:45:38 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception Message-ID: <20060915.124931.592.1.franis_franis@juno.com> Here's the article below... On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:28:17 -0400 "Regina Bensch-Coe" <benschcoe@hotmail.com> writes: > Also, has anyone read the story on proprioception: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/dancersbody/body/proprioception.shtmlo > > Regina > Here's the article: The Science of Proprioception The volume of sensory information which the brain receives is enormous: it comes from the muscles, the joints, the tendons, and touch. To avoid overloading, the brain copes with all this hierarchically. It has learnt to ignore the signals it has come to expect, such as the stretching of our skin when we walk, or the sensation of the soles of our feet on the ground. These signals are dealt with in the unconscious parts of our brain, 'lower down' in the system. Information only reaches the 'higher' parts of the system - the conscious parts - when the experience is new or unexpected. Every movement we make starts in our brain. Once we've decided to make a movement, the motor cortex in the brain sends out a command to the appropriate muscles to make them move. But it doesn't stop there. Within 60 milliseconds, a message is sent back from the body's sensors to report back on how the movement went. Was it right? Did it succeed? Based on this information, the brain responds by sending an updated command to improve the movement which generates yet more feedback. In small children and in people learning a new movement skill, you can actually see the results of this, as their ankles wobble and their balance sways. This 'loop' system - message out, message in and so on - is how we control movement, make it more accurate, more precise, smoother and more elegant. Experts in movement, like dancers, learn to short cut this loop system by sending more accurate commands to their muscles and by better predicting the consequences of their movement commands. They learn, through practice, that when you lift your left leg, for instance, you need to shift your body to the right to compensate. And they learn to make fast and accurate corrections without conscious thought. While strong muscles and flexibility might appear to make a good dancer, it is more likely their enhanced ability to deal with feedback which makes them unique. By far the most dominant of all the feedback our brains receive is the information we get from our eyes. But visual information is processed far slower than proprioceptive information, reaching the brain approximately 70 milliseconds after the information from the body. So although dancers traditionally rehearse in front of mirrors, a dancer relying on information about the state of her body from her reflection is always going to be more wobbly, less controlled, than a dancer listening to her body. Most people don't even know they have this extraordinary and vital sense. One way of understanding proprioception is by looking at someone who has lost it and see the problems he finds in doing things. His witness statement allows you to understand something about how you use proprioception. Ian Waterman - Learning to walk again Ian Waterman learning to walk again Ian is among only ten people in the world known to have lost his ability to co-ordinate any kind of movement unconsciously. His proprioception was impaired after he suffered a viral infection in his twenties. While his brain could send messages to his muscles to make them move, It didn't get any feedback to verify whether the movement had been completed or not. He could make movements - he just couldn't control them. And as controlling movement is what allows us to function, he was effectively locked in a paralysed world. After some years, frustrated with needing 24 hours assistance, he discovered that if he used the only feedback system he had left - vision - he could, with great effort, make his body move. Eventually he managed to sit up in bed on his own by watching his body and concentrating on making it move. "…I looked where my legs were before I started. I looked where my arms were. I looked where my body was and then I started to sit-up very gradually. And I was so euphoric at having sat-up for the first time that I almost fell out the bed because I lost the concentration..." It took Ian a year to learn to stand on his own, and then he learnt to walk and gradually added more movements to his repertoire. Basically he learnt to choreograph each everyday movement: "I started to develop other movements as well such as lifting a leg, moving an arm, and then putting some of these together, and gradually bit by bit, you know if you have enough basic movements you have the building blocks to structure more radical movement, and you can actually move around and be fairly safe hopefully. I fell over an awful lot in the process but it was a case of finding these building blocks and then building on that." Ian Waterman is the only sufferer of this rare condition who has taught himself to walk. From tubakari at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 23:15:02 2006 From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays) Date: Sun Sep 17 00:07:22 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <BAY123-F6D30CD12C8B911C973C86B72E0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <20060915211502.73224.qmail@web52914.mail.yahoo.com> Im in the Seattle area. Every since Ive been here, I have been meeting people from the internet. So far it has worked out amazingly well. Drop me a line if anyone is this way. Have a great day, kari ----- Original Message ---- From: Regina Bensch-Coe <benschcoe@hotmail.com> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:28:17 AM Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 I'd love more of that. I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of SF,) if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere near. I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit! (Franis) Ditto. If anyone is in the western Massachusetts area, lets visit. Franis, when are you going to HI? I will be there in December. Also, has anyone read the story on proprioception: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/dancersbody/body/proprioception.shtmlo Regina >From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:28:54 -0700 > >Rodger: Possibly some further consideration should go into the list, re: >how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names. >The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by >way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R > >I'd like to know more of who I'm talking with, because I think when >people are more personal, they take more care in how they say what they >mean. I've gone to the trouble of traveling to meet some of these people >on this Dialouge group, and it was enlightening. The most interesting >was how some people merely continued the conversation however we'd left >off in Dialogue, and some assummed they were meeting me for the first >time, as if what we'd been writing made no difference at all. It was >surprising! > >I'd love more of that. >I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of SF,) >if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere near. >I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit! > >- Franis > > >_______________________________________________ >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/20060915/7cfd630e/attachment.html From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Sep 15 23:20:51 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Sun Sep 17 00:13:20 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content In-Reply-To: <20060915.120124.2248.3.ae.dropper@juno.com> References: <20060915.120124.2248.3.ae.dropper@juno.com> Message-ID: <EC81A8DD-EA84-4061-8F6C-576127511911@donfactor.demon.co.uk> On 15 Sep 2006, at 17:01, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: > Before I can go any further with this I would like to have a look at > your "this makes me unhappy" thought. (don) > > The question being asked here > is "Is the "this" of the thought "this makes me unhappy" > a truth' or is it just a thought, just an assumption, just > an image? This may be a fair question but it somehow misses the point. I mean, I could say that any attribution is an assumption or an image. I could go further and say with equal confidence that any perception is, if not exactly an assumption or an image, it is almost certainly based on one - even if that assumption was only assumed a moment before I noticed it. On that basis, this sort of a question distracts from any inquiry into the meaning of the unhappy feeling. Do you see what I mean? It avoids looking directly at the feeling by attributing it to an image or assumption. Because any feeling is based on an assumption or image as is any thing or idea that we percieve. If we accept that this is the case, then we have to conclude that this approach does little more than to avoid the key question: Is this feeling valid? > > Simple inquiry. Simple but profound. Done, not in a > speculative way, but in a moment when the feeling arises, > whether it "arises" in a session of "homework"* as suggested > by bohm, or whether it arises throughout the day, or in a > dialogue circle. Yes, but it doesn't address the actual situation. It is a kind of inquiry that is, at least in part, looking at the theory in a way that is preconceived to meant that it must be a part of some engram. And therefore, could only have limited value. At least that becomes the starting point. But with such a starting point there is little chance of the inquiry going any further. > > There is no suggestion intended that such inquiry is in any > way required. It is not "required." For some, it is spontaneous, > and occurs in a situation of deep despair (as it did with > housewife, real estate agent, definitely non-psycotherapist, bk). Of course, not. But I would say that there can be great value in following through and taking seriously the meaning of an initial percept. Of course. I don't say that we must stop there. But at least from this sort of a beginning we can look at potential consequences or paths that the feeling might open or close for us while not have to preconceive an idea that any such feeling will be invalid. In regard to the following quotation. My own view is that having read this and a lot of other similar material, not only by DB. These ideas have entered the domain that I call my consciousness, or my memory store, so, they already have an effect on what meanings unfold. I mean, any first year psychology student knows that thinking and feeling are closely linked parts of the same process and that past experience plays a big role in it. The overall process is called perception, and perception, as DB has pointed out, is a high level creative act. What is probably not so widely recognised is that there is a lot more to such creativity than is obvious. But to counsel people to simply write their feelings or intuitions off as being little more than the work of a mechanical and therefore unintelligent system is, to say the least, unwise. But maybe, Pat, we are speaking to different sorts of people when we express these different opinions. I tend to treat my readers as having at least the same level of insight and experience as I have. While I think, possibly you are speaking more to those who haven't yet picked up on lot of this. But then this is just another of my conjectures or preconceptions. don > > * (From Self, Society & Proprioception, on "Homework." > "The point is, now, to be able to see that this is what's going on. > That we are producing feelings out of thought. Everybody knows you > can whip up feelings by certain shouts and cries and clamors and > marches and songs, political rallies, etc. It's well known that > feelings can in this way be whipped up, essentially by actions > directed by thought, so that such a response need not be a > surprise. What about this sort of feeling as compared with deep > feelings? At the moment that it is happening a person might not be > able to tell the difference. You have a crowd shouting and > screaming and a great leader in front and so on. So that > establishes the principle that feelings can be produced > artificially. But what I was talking about is much more common than > this. It doesn't require a demagogue or some unusual set of shouts, > screams, and cries to do it. > Rather, one simply has to notice that the meaning of a thought > tends to be carried out in terms of feelings all over the body. In > order to demonstrate this, you may take the case of getting angry. > This is a feeling that is not as difficult to look at as say fear > or pleasure --deceptive feelings of pleasure--which you know too > can be produced by thought, a seductive thought. You see, a person > may first get an outburst of anger and then cool down --it simmers > down, but it's still there. You may put it in abeyance because > something more important comes up, but it's still there ready to > come up. My suggestion is to call it up on purpose by trying to > find the words that express the reason for being angry. Thus, you > may say, "I'm angry, and I have good reason because he did this and > that and that." You will find that you are getting still angrier. > Usually you'll say, "I shouldn't get angry, so I'd better stop > this." But now we're going to use this on purpose, not for the sake > of getting angry, because we're going to suspend the angry > feelings, neither by stopping them, not letting them come out. Is > that clear what I mean? > > LN: Yes, but there are some difficulties with suspending. > > DB: Well you see, it's not being done right in the heat of your > original outburst of anger, but still, you're not calling it up to > get rid of the angry feelings. Your first impulse might be to try > and go out and insult the person and do something, and in earlier > times, you might even have hit the person. And now you say don't do > any of those things, but let the feeling come up and watch what's > going on. We're regarding it as a sort of test display of the > process, you understand? So then you'll see these angry feelings > which will produce tension in the solar plexus and the belly and > the chest, and affect your breathing and heartbeat, and all sorts > of things. You'll be able to see a sort of movement of responses > all over the body, such as tension of the jaw, in the neck. > > LN: Now let me raise one of the difficulties that commonly occurs > here. Even if one waits a bit beyond the heat of the moment, there > still comes up a very strong resistance to acknowledging that one > is actually in this state. > > DB: Yes, that's part of our sociocultural conditioning, which says > that you shouldn't be angry, and not only that, you yourself have > seen by clear thought that it's leading you astray. You see, both > reason, and society, and everything is telling you, you shouldn't > be angry. Now there's a serious mistake in there. Of course, it's > right that you shouldn't be angry, if only because it is very > destructive to your deeper interests. But the attempt to say you > shouldn't be angry is simply not affecting the anger, it's just > trying to impose another pattern on top of the anger. This will > come out as we go along, but the first point is to realize that > such resistance is false and that this falseness will come out as > we go through this process and pay attention to it. The falseness > of the sociocultural as well as the personal judgment. > > DB: Yes. This is very tricky, because in some ways the judgment > appears to be right. But there's a fundamental, deeper falseness in > it. So we also have to give attention to our tendency to say "I > shouldn't be angry, I must stop being angry", and we will see that > this too, has to be suspended. In this process one will begin to > get certain feelings, at first perhaps very faintly because of all > the resistance, and later more strongly -you'll see the play of > these feelings all over the body, because the action is being > suspended. If you actually *did* something, you would no longer > notice the feelings... if you went out and hit somebody or punched > him in the nose, or insulted him, or otherwise tried to get redress > for your anger. You might momentarily feel a lot better, because > the tension would go (until the other person retaliated in a > similar way). But now, when action is suspended, you can see that > the words are calling up the feelings, and you'll be able to get a > sense that there's some sort of mechanical connection between the > words and the feelings. > > For example, you may find that the words may be, "He shouldn't have > done this; he shouldn't treat me that way; he hasn't due regard for > me, he's always doing that; he's never taking my rights into > account. It's not the first time." So you may notice the feelings > coming up rather mechanically, and that those feelings are > producing mechanical pressure, making it very hard to look at those > thoughts and see whether they're right or not. > > LN: Let's go very slowly here. You say they produce mechanical > responses, and mechanical feelings. Now it seems to be a very thin > line, because when you do what you suggest, if it's really > activation these responses you are talking about, they don't *feel* > mechanical. > > DB: No, but you can see a certain mechanical quality in the sense > that the word is followed by the feeling. And you'll see there is a > little something also in that pressure of the feeling to avoid > examining the meaning of the words, to avoid seeing whether you > really have a good reason to be angry. > > LN: A resistance to seeing the connection. > > DB: Yes, that's right. You see, if it were really a straightforward > process, there would be no resistance to examining it. Now you can > begin to suspect that it looks a little mechanical." > > > pat > > > ~~ > > > > > > What do you mean by this? From what you write, Pat, it seems that you > take > such a thought is evidence of that old devil TAS at work once again. > You suggest > that complication is its modus operandi - an avoidance tactic. > > And you imply that the simplest description of something is better > than one > that includes all the subtleties and complexities that fill out its > meaning. > But do you really believe that? > > Or am I to believe that you believe that unhappiness is in some way a > product of this unintelligent, mechanical system distracting us from > - what? - > catching it in the act of making us unhappy? > > And then you bring "power" into it. And say that somehow we must not > allow > anyone else to make us unhappy because that puts the control of > happiness > outside of our selves. So it is not onlyTAS distracting us by making > us unhappy > but it is also those others doing it to us. I guess we have to be > very careful, not > to get caught in this dreadful condition of victimhood, or of feeling > unhappy, > even about ourselves. > > All of this brings to mind the word, "compassion". Literally, from > its etymology, > the word means to suffer together. It means to be able to "feel > someone else's > pain". Without the ability to be compassionate, to feel the pain of > another, I do > not believe that we can be fully human. > > Would you recommend dialogue or trying to gain a deeper > understanding of > the "totality" as a means to a pain free life? > > As for Katie, she is a psychotherapist who works with groups and uses > her own version of a therapeutic approach known as cognitive therapy > which uses this sort of note taking and questionnaires to call > attention to > the sorts of stuff that conventional therapies take months to > dredge up. > It is good stuff but it is still psychotherapy. Dialogue as Bohm > described it > was not meant to be psychotherapy. > > don > > > On 15 Sep 2006, at 00:09, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: > > >> Objection to the content here is because of > >> [some elaboration on or complication of] the thought > >> that "This makes me unhappy." > >> > >> Objections? > >> > >> pat > > > > Not an objection, but perhaps an oversimplification. (don) > > > > Can an objection to content based on the content's > > "oversimplification" > > be seen in any way, as a "complication" of a "this makes me unhappy" > > thought [as suggested in the initial question]? > > > > "Complication" can be seen to be the primary avoidance > > tactic [by thought] when inquiring into the workings of thought. > > > > Incidentally, thanks Regina for the words about Byron Katie. Her > work > > is the best by far example I've ever seen of undistracted [by > > complication] > > inquiry into deep assumptions. One of the first things > facilitators of > > "the > > work" will notice and give attention to is called "cross talk," > which > > is something we can all notice thought doing as a distraction from > > simple inquiry. Getting the beliefs and assumptions onto paper > > in the clearest and simplest wording possible, is an invaluable > > help to the inquiry. > > > > The question that is of prime interest in Katie's "Work" > > and in a Bohm inspired dialogue is: Is it the person that > > is making me unhappy (or the person's words or actions) > > or is it the thought* about the person (or about the person's > > words or actions) that is "making me unhappy?" It is a strictly > > technical question. And it points to "a difference that makes > > a difference." > > > > It is a critical 'life' question too because seeing > > what is actually happening in thought will make the > > difference between other people [seemingly] holding the power > > to control our "happiness," or not "holding that control. What are > > the implications of a state of affairs where it is generally > believed > > that other people control our mood buttons? Do we need look far > > to see such implications? > > > > *It is such thoughts that are exposed to inquiry when > > looking for implicit beliefs or assumptions beneath > > the reflexes that guide our behavior. > > > > pat > > > > > > > > I think that just about anything can be reduced to its lowest common > > denominator, but in that reduction a great deal of meaning gets > lost. > > So, it is not the content, in and of itself, that I sometimes find > > objectionable but the meaning of that content. We know what words > > denote. but we have also to intuit the connotation that they > carry in > > any particular context. Without this tacit level of understanding, > > there would be no possibility of communication. But to do this we > > have to approach each question with more of an artistic hand than > > just an analytical or literalist understanding. > > > > So sometimes I find the "tone " of someone's remarks objectionable > > because they imply an attitude that distracts us from the > seriousness > > of our search for understanding. Peter Krauss's behaviour, first > > under his own name and later as gas, was an example of this. And now > > Kirsten, whoever Kirsten may be, is another, perhaps, so far, less > > extreme example. > > > > I would suggest, though, that our inquiry here is not meant to > be an > > inquiry into whatever someone wants to have happen as if it were a > > kid's playground with one of them wanting to be king or queen of the > > sandpile, nor is it an anything goes sort of exercise. That is what > > Krauss wanted to make it. Rather its an inquiry into some of the > more > > subtle and, dare I say, significant realms of human consciousness or > > what Bohm called "the totality of all that is." And that's what I > > value here. So, I feel that such a search needs to be treated > > delicately and seriously. And when it is not, then, yes, it does > make > > me feel unhappy. > > > > 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/20060915/48059b4b/attachment.html