From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sun Dec 16 00:16:44 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Dec 16 00:22:28 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <32080.6853.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <32080.6853.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AD3E89AA-09B6-4FFF-989C-4354C9BADBA6@dc.rr.com>
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
>
> http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
>
> "Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som
> serius wrk.
>
> Ala n
>
> Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts,
> sizes.... - realli just a draft)
> Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
>
> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
>> Search.
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/c456946a/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sun Dec 16 01:37:33 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sun Dec 16 01:43:15 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <AD3E89AA-09B6-4FFF-989C-4354C9BADBA6@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <994710.9734.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes.... - realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/14715494/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sun Dec 16 01:49:22 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Dec 16 01:55:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
References: <994710.9734.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <016201c83f7d$7ff7b060$b5c16018@DL01>
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes.... - realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/c334db2e/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sun Dec 16 01:58:42 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:04:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <016201c83f7d$7ff7b060$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <52996.83535.qm@web45808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
SUMone a'round ("here") might mix* up the soup with the salt-in-the-soup
-- funni
* (stirrrd or shakn?)
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes.... - realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/2b937c8d/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:26:06 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:31:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712140553u5141fecfye7d6ebfa7d92a7a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <798687.27001.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<008d01c83e53$50cfc320$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712140553u5141fecfye7d6ebfa7d92a7a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W188AF53DD46386F1F5A71DC610@phx.gbl>
different sized wholes! Thanks Irene.
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:53:33 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2I: Don, the whole note encompasses all the other durations of meter that is constructed in multiples of 4. The half note is the 'whole' for 2/4 meter; the dotted half for 3/4. "Wholes", then, come in different sizes.
On Dec 14, 2007 8:14 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Maybe it is not dl, not a person -- maybe it's reason itself. Is it possible to see that reason as refreshing?
Is it possible that participating in reason, participation in ratio means participating in wholeness? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
O mio, what a change of heart. I jumping on (all over) Don L "all-of-a-suddn" (...."SO refreshing to hear a reasonable"....). I, tell us, did you open anewother book > tree > universe _ _ _ )
AlanIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Yes, quite often. And you've articulated very well where I was coming from. It's SO refreshing to hear a reasonable voice!You know, we do ratio in music, too. A quarter note is twice the length of an eighth note. Use the eighth as the steady unit of measure, and one uses augmentation to double it. Reversed, it's called diminution. It's one of many strategies used to develop a motif. Musicians certainly stand under that kind of knowledge i.e. protection.
On Dec 13, 2007 8:24 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net > wrote:
My understanding is that 2+2=4. That is, I stand under the position taught regarding numbers, math, etc, common to us all.
Bohm says words are images.
Maybe in that sense, understanding an articulated, identified position might be seen as protecting one from making the same mistakes over and over. If for example, if you had erred and told your teacher on a test that 2+2=6 and the teacher had articulated the right answers, you might then say I understand -- meaning I stand under what was taught.
Those teaching try to get students to understand -- stand under the position taught. I do. Don't you? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
standing under an articulated position.I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position like some kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not trying to be funny, dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image literally flashed through my mind. A roof has the purpose of protecting one from rain or excessive sun. How would the idea of protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you 'get' it, you don't keep making the same mistake?
On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDon't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. ALIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending thismessage to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (orcan be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on atop-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no oneresponded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populatedhand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day Ire-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/42e0d8b1/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:29:30 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:35:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Standing Under Understanding
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712140611j2ed15e2bu21bbb88afd730fed@mail.gmail.com>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
<006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com>
<012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com>
<004701c83e48$0ddd8d50$b5c16018@DL01>
<005601c83e4a$32d7bac0$b5c16018@DL01>
<006501c83e4e$12030c60$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712140611j2ed15e2bu21bbb88afd730fed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W1591A4D526E37431601922DC610@phx.gbl>
We live in several dimensions simultaneously and think nothing of it. We KNOW we're a conduit for something else.
like a nest of wholes within a Russian doll. (time of course has three dimensions)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:11:23 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Standing Under UnderstandingDoes a musician participate in "ratio" if or when FEELING a motif out of balance, e.g, re tempo, structure, etc? -- dlI: Absolutely, Don. Although I initially was speaking of tempo only. In Structure-Architecture, both symmetrical i.e. multiples of 4 + 4 measures in the Period-Phrase, and asymmetrical i.e. 2 + 4, 1 + 3, any combination that the composer - improviser chooses works for particular meanings.I think, although it may not be an accurate statement, that I am using ratio in terms of measurement. But yes, that could be applicable to all your examples below. Even if the measure is erratic. Music, well performed, is never a exact replica of measurement. Music notation is merely a guide. A really great example of that is the music notation software program Finale. You can play the music on the keyboard and it will come out as notation, but ONLY if you extract all feeling, and play the notes precisely measured. And music is ALL about meaning. If you wanted to portray a robot musically, that's one way you'd do it. You paint. Well, we design musical lines and shapes. The strategies and possibilities are countless.So if the person who asked how one learns to improvise is reading this, maybe s/he begins to see a little. Improvisation is simply instantaneous musical composition. Much harder than composing by writing. And you need the same skills, but the ability to do it instantaneously. So all those who don't believe in 'will', try learning to improvise! Oh yes, and it's requisite to get that knowledge and skills on 'automatic', so you can free up the mind to receive 'inspiration' and transmit it instantly into musical meaning. It's like not having to think about how to walk. We live in several dimensions simultaneously and think nothing of it. We KNOW we're a conduit for something else.
On Dec 14, 2007 7:37 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
we do ratio in music ...
One thing ratio means is proportion, "not just mathematical proportion" (db). Do we do ratio also when composing an email in the sense of FEELING and responding to the meaning/intention of other's emails?
Thought occurs of swimming as "doing ratio " in the sense of participating in the FEEL of being buoyant.
Maybe a visual artist participates in "ratio" when FEELING visual balance of light and dark.
Does a musician participate in "ratio" if or when FEELING a motif out of balance, e.g, re tempo, structure, etc? -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:09 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Standing Under Understanding
(was noname 2)
You know, we do ratio in music, too.
I have never had much thought of ratio in music, but woke this morning seeing that ratio in music might be a way to explain ratio as structure and specifically as how feeling may be structured.
For example, could we say that an eight note as a FEEL is "twice the FEEL of an eighth note FEEL"?
And, if so, is ratio-nal to the ratio of FEELS created by music? -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
You know, we do ratio in music, too.
Very interesting to hear someone speak of "doing ratio" as using reason, i.e., seeing and using ratio as structure of experienced actuality. I'm understanding db to do the same in WIO, where he contrasts the experience of FEELS created with the ratio in music as measures of experience instead of the more common use of word/images to create FEELS ... measures of experience. I believe he indicates the musician could not participate in the FEELS created by notes as measures of ratio if he was thinking in images, What a grand fellow I am when doing this music, etc.
I've always had problems with musical measure creating FEELS because instead of feeling the musical measure -- I tend to see the image of the measure ... something like that. I do music, a bit of guitar with harmonica. But I have to struggle with reading notes, I believe, because I tend to experience eye FEELS instead of ear FEELS. As you see, I tend to use the visual bold and underline to symbolize FEELS for one thingK and the visual italics and bold to symbolize FEELS for other thingKs.
A quarter note is twice the length of an eighth note.
What is IT that is "twice the length"? FEELS? I tend to experience a linear measuring device and clearly see that a quarter inch is twice the length of an eighth inch, but no FEELS associated with music. -- dl
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Yes, quite often. And you've articulated very well where I was coming from. It's SO refreshing to hear a reasonable voice!You know, we do ratio in music, too. A quarter note is twice the length of an eighth note. Use the eighth as the steady unit of measure, and one uses augmentation to double it. Reversed, it's called diminution. It's one of many strategies used to develop a motif. Musicians certainly stand under that kind of knowledge i.e. protection.
On Dec 13, 2007 8:24 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net > wrote:
My understanding is that 2+2=4. That is, I stand under the position taught regarding numbers, math, etc, common to us all.
Bohm says words are images.
Maybe in that sense, understanding an articulated, identified position might be seen as protecting one from making the same mistakes over and over. If for example, if you had erred and told your teacher on a test that 2+2=6 and the teacher had articulated the right answers, you might then say I understand -- meaning I stand under what was taught.
Those teaching try to get students to understand -- stand under the position taught. I do. Don't you? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
standing under an articulated position.I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position like some kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not trying to be funny, dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image literally flashed through my mind. A roof has the purpose of protecting one from rain or excessive sun. How would the idea of protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you 'get' it, you don't keep making the same mistake?
On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDon't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. ALIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending thismessage to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (orcan be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on atop-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no oneresponded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populatedhand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day Ire-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia
-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/3ca0dd27/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:30:07 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:35:51 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Standing Under Understanding
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712140615j4c84fb84vf1a76b66aa295298@mail.gmail.com>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
<006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com>
<012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com>
<004701c83e48$0ddd8d50$b5c16018@DL01>
<005601c83e4a$32d7bac0$b5c16018@DL01>
<006f01c83e4f$74ca4290$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712140615j4c84fb84vf1a76b66aa295298@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W226AB44A2735AC63B5D7A0DC610@phx.gbl>
as if you learn to paint!
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:15:07 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Standing Under UnderstandingIt seems clear that students cannot learn while talking about their self, i.e., while identifying. At present I have a student who identifies as an artist, who says he's an artist, but he cannot stop talking about his self long enough to learn to paint.I: Could that not be a problem of proportion - ratio?
On Dec 14, 2007 7:47 AM, Don Lay < donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Maybe one way to understand understanding is that it is a subordination of visual self image-processes to other processes.
For example, when a student does not understand, does she have difficulty subordinating identity processes to learning processes? Bohm says that identity may prevent learning.
It seems clear that students cannot learn while talking about their self, i.e., while identifying. At present I have a student who identifies as an artist, who says he's an artist, but he cannot stop talking about his self long enough to learn to paint. -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:09 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Standing Under Understanding
(was noname 2)
You know, we do ratio in music, too.
I have never had much thought of ratio in music, but woke this morning seeing that ratio in music might be a way to explain ratio as structure and specifically as how feeling may be structured.
For example, could we say that an eight note as a FEEL is "twice the FEEL of an eighth note FEEL"?
And, if so, is ratio-nal to the ratio of FEELS created by music? -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
You know, we do ratio in music, too.
Very interesting to hear someone speak of "doing ratio" as using reason, i.e., seeing and using ratio as structure of experienced actuality. I'm understanding db to do the same in WIO, where he contrasts the experience of FEELS created with the ratio in music as measures of experience instead of the more common use of word/images to create FEELS ... measures of experience. I believe he indicates the musician could not participate in the FEELS created by notes as measures of ratio if he was thinking in images, What a grand fellow I am when doing this music, etc.
I've always had problems with musical measure creating FEELS because instead of feeling the musical measure -- I tend to see the image of the measure ... something like that. I do music, a bit of guitar with harmonica. But I have to struggle with reading notes, I believe, because I tend to experience eye FEELS instead of ear FEELS. As you see, I tend to use the visual bold and underline to symbolize FEELS for one thingK and the visual italics and bold to symbolize FEELS for other thingKs.
A quarter note is twice the length of an eighth note.
What is IT that is "twice the length"? FEELS? I tend to experience a linear measuring device and clearly see that a quarter inch is twice the length of an eighth inch, but no FEELS associated with music. -- dl
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Yes, quite often. And you've articulated very well where I was coming from. It's SO refreshing to hear a reasonable voice!You know, we do ratio in music, too. A quarter note is twice the length of an eighth note. Use the eighth as the steady unit of measure, and one uses augmentation to double it. Reversed, it's called diminution. It's one of many strategies used to develop a motif. Musicians certainly stand under that kind of knowledge i.e. protection.
On Dec 13, 2007 8:24 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net > wrote:
My understanding is that 2+2=4. That is, I stand under the position taught regarding numbers, math, etc, common to us all.
Bohm says words are images.
Maybe in that sense, understanding an articulated, identified position might be seen as protecting one from making the same mistakes over and over. If for example, if you had erred and told your teacher on a test that 2+2=6 and the teacher had articulated the right answers, you might then say I understand -- meaning I stand under what was taught.
Those teaching try to get students to understand -- stand under the position taught. I do. Don't you? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
standing under an articulated position.I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position like some kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not trying to be funny, dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image literally flashed through my mind. A roof has the purpose of protecting one from rain or excessive sun. How would the idea of protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you 'get' it, you don't keep making the same mistake?
On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDon't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. ALIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending thismessage to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (orcan be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on atop-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no oneresponded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populatedhand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day Ire-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia
-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/16d3cf3a/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:34:40 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:40:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <015d01c83e83$6e87ca90$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl><006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com><012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com><004701c83e48$0ddd8d50$b5c16018@DL01>
<002c01c83e5c$6443fdf0$d076480c@HOME>
<015d01c83e83$6e87ca90$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W27D8FEABFCF9BEEDD532F7DC610@phx.gbl>
it is just as you say Don. i have watched people who can dance but seeing is not understanding.
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:59:03 -0500
Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in your body when you listen to it? -- Susan
Although I am intrigued by Irene's idea that "I do" (next post), I believe it is not adequate to say I do. Maybe something "in there" in tas blocks out the experience of feeling music.
Maybe my experience is such that tas blocks the FEELS that music would otherwise create. I recall being on leave from Marine Corp boot camp and a girl tried to teach me how to dance. She said to listen to and feel the music, but I could not at that time.
Now, although I like a wide range of music, I do not think of that as feeling it.
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in your body when you listen to it?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
What is IT that is "twice the length"? FEELS? I tend to experience a linear measuring device and clearly see that a quarter inch is twice the length of an eighth inch, but no FEELS associated with music. -- dl
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/4f48f3a2/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:38:36 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:44:20 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712141139k5bbc6ecwcb65a97bc313f29f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <798687.27001.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<008d01c83e53$50cfc320$b5c16018@DL01>
<00b001c83e55$e9a9f0f0$b5c16018@DL01>
<6A4BC518-E2A2-4BD6-B7C1-0867DA967BA4@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712141139k5bbc6ecwcb65a97bc313f29f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W3062B80A4111FAEE2B3DE4DC610@phx.gbl>
everything is a metaphor
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:39:54 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Finally?Is there an underlying assumption here that what dl and I have talked about all morning is meaningless? Can you not see music at least as a metaphor?
On Dec 14, 2007 2:32 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Finally something on this topic that intrigues me. Can you expand a bit? What might ego process as structure be like? I know about Bohm's "structure process" which means simply that anything that looks like a structure is fundamentally still a process and that ego is really an egoic process, but what about this participation idea? Do people generally not participate? Or am I missing something?
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Don Lay wrote:
If we say that "Reason makes the self a self" (Tillich), we participate in the processes which comprise self instead of just the identified, self image.
Could we say that participation in "ego process as structure" does not necessitate the kind of identification processes that separates function and content? -- dl
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/6798f60a/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sun Dec 16 02:39:36 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:45:19 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <52996.83535.qm@web45808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <569075.13823.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Talking about soups: taste this, for a break:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/hearandnow/pip/rrci9/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/musicmatters/pip/h74nb/
Might shake/stir some of your thingy buds a wee
--f_ _ _i::
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
SUMone a'round ("here") might mix* up the soup with the salt-in-the-soup
-- funni
* (stirrrd or shakn?)
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes.... - realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/09b2994b/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:41:38 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:47:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <01b001c83e8a$8595b8d0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
<006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W788BD7654E5F48F14C2D7DC670@phx.gbl>
<01b001c83e8a$8595b8d0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W13949761D2412D7089120BDC610@phx.gbl>
it seems coherent and reasonable Don but it doesn't seem right. it doesn't click somehow. what is it you would stand under and feel that way? (I know this is my problem but I don't think it is specific to me)
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:50:04 -0500
I don't know, but have thought it indicates awareness of language as word/image/identity system and that saying I understand is to subordinate presence to what the language directs attention toward.
That is, since using language may direct awareness to a mental scenario or something not present, then saying I understand means showing that unseeable thought processes are acceptable. Does that seem coherent, reasonable?
If I we said to the teacher, I stand over and above that idea, ... ?? -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
yes. i get that, that is often said. but why standing under? why not sitting on top? or lying in the middle? I wonder if it is something to do with the sky.
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:59 -0500
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDon't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. ALIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending thismessage to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (orcan be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on atop-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no oneresponded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populatedhand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day Ire-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/44b658b2/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:48:56 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:54:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712141154i60302eai50f5585922a6f2bb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20071213.213129.1072.22.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<BAY123-W803887E9C0EBA1222A31CDC670@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712141154i60302eai50f5585922a6f2bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W3319791DA19E305BE251DBDC610@phx.gbl>
what?
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:54:42 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2I: We certainly have to be careful of skin cancer and light! Previously, it was sunburn. We aren't leaves. One size doesn't fit all.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:51 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
do our leaves get eaten by light before they fall?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2From: ae.dropper@juno.com
DIALOGUE DANCEA dialogue circle of trees, dancing treeswe do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woodswith the light filtering through our autumn leavesand we are dancing - our roots are our feetand our millions of toes, dancing.A wind comes and some of our leaves fallfrom some of our fingers, our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,one explication for every implicationour roots hidden, unknownbut known constantly as thatwhich ever refuses namingwhile the naming plays with itselfsomewhere out of reach of the dance itself. -- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per- son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon " >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt". From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this viewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet, >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with >our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch'). I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes. So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia--
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/92b36b00/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:51:37 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:57:20 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712141219y4d8a9c28of8abe1d1081a0a2a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
<006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
<1788EE0C-4765-4428-8E02-74DF64A517FC@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W7756777997D5245C68D93DC670@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712141219y4d8a9c28of8abe1d1081a0a2a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W2526D51F90231BBE3A1FCCDC610@phx.gbl>
what? a tree, not a person? I hope the apples and onions aren't listening.
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:19:15 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2I: Same thing. A tree isn't a person. Apples and onions.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:57 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
or a tree
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:06:49 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgMaybe, but only if you've got an umbrella
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Don Lay wrote:
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDon't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per- son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon " >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt". From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this viewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet, >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with >our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch'). I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes. So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/6da48262/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:54:05 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 02:59:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <024c01c83e90$033fba60$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl><006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com>
<012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W14B5DEF9CCCB6A64FBBA6DC670@phx.gbl>
<024c01c83e90$033fba60$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W82BB63A44EBD6D867AD20DC610@phx.gbl>
why under though? that is the problem I have with it. thanks for persevering and not telling me to shut up.
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:29:22 -0500
I don't know.
Maybe one must imagine an articulated position and then imagine standing under that position.
Sometimes people say "I see" instead of "I understand". I suppose when they say "I see", the meaning is that they imagine it and refer to seeing it mentally or in tas. -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
stand under though? it doesn't seem an obvious metaphor...
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:24:29 -0500
My understanding is that 2+2=4. That is, I stand under the position taught regarding numbers, math, etc, common to us all.
Bohm says words are images.
Maybe in that sense, understanding an articulated, identified position might be seen as protecting one from making the same mistakes over and over. If for example, if you had erred and told your teacher on a test that 2+2=6 and the teacher had articulated the right answers, you might then say I understand -- meaning I stand under what was taught.
Those teaching try to get students to understand -- stand under the position taught. I do. Don't you? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
standing under an articulated position.I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position like some kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not trying to be funny, dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image literally flashed through my mind. A roof has the purpose of protecting one from rain or excessive sun. How would the idea of protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you 'get' it, you don't keep making the same mistake?
On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDon't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. ALIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending thismessage to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (orcan be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on atop-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no oneresponded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populatedhand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day Ire-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/1306cd85/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:56:01 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:01:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <99C8D5CC-214C-469E-97EB-DFE034BA0730@dc.rr.com>
References: <798687.27001.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<008d01c83e53$50cfc320$b5c16018@DL01>
<00b001c83e55$e9a9f0f0$b5c16018@DL01>
<6A4BC518-E2A2-4BD6-B7C1-0867DA967BA4@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712141139k5bbc6ecwcb65a97bc313f29f@mail.gmail.com>
<99C8D5CC-214C-469E-97EB-DFE034BA0730@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W111A3E067544924849AEEADC610@phx.gbl>
Jazz? Too many notes.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:40:31 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgmy query relates specifically to the line I quoted in DonL's post. It doesn't relate to your comments about music either as metaphor or as something that reveals levels of process that words don't. But speaking of music, I think you tend to give the jazz musicians a short shrift. I would though like to be pointed toward some examples of some non-jazz collective improvisations, if there are any such recordings.
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
Finally?Is there an underlying assumption here that what dl and I have talked about all morning is meaningless? Can you not see music at least as a metaphor?
On Dec 14, 2007 2:32 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Finally something on this topic that intrigues me. Can you expand a bit? What might ego process as structure be like? I know about Bohm's "structure process" which means simply that anything that looks like a structure is fundamentally still a process and that ego is really an egoic process, but what about this participation idea? Do people generally not participate? Or am I missing something?
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Don Lay wrote:
If we say that "Reason makes the self a self" (Tillich), we participate in the processes which comprise self instead of just the identified, self image.
Could we say that participation in "ego process as structure" does not necessitate the kind of identification processes that separates function and content? -- dl
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -- Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/1f511898/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 02:58:20 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:04:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <C38841D4.F9A0%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
References: <D7E83AF8-B62E-4B80-A446-B2DA85656FCC@dc.rr.com>
<C38841D4.F9A0%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W149E34E8583594A2E157EDC610@phx.gbl>
yes it seems more immediately comprehensible. apparently 'fathom' originally meant something like grasp. the image was a person with arms widespread (six foot wide).
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:21:08 -0700Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2From: lynne@lifedirectionscoach.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
I once read that comprehend, which we often use as a synonym for understand, comes from the French comprendre (com - with, and prendre - take or grasp). So there ends up a kind of union or communion between subject and object. This makes much more sense to me than standing under something.LynneOn 12/14/07 1:33 PM, "donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Damn, this topic turned up in an exchange between Bohm and a German friend. Unfortunately, my copies of this lie at the bottom of a box, six thousand miles away. But I do recall that he spoke about using the word "understanding" in the sense of "verstehen". Perhaps some of our German speaking friends here can help to expand this. What does verstehen mean and what other sorts of understanding might there be? As I recall when I looked understand up in my etymological dictionary it didn't seem very helpful.donOn Dec 14, 2007, at 11:39 AM, rob mooney wrote:
yes. i get that, that is often said. but why standing under? why not sitting on top? or lying in the middle? I wonder if it is something to do with the sky.
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:59 -0500 it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position. Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message ----- From: rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2 it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDon't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding. don
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/3bd553cf/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 03:00:18 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:06:02 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <20071214.181521.1072.75.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071214.181521.1072.75.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W204200B6C24F1782FC3B74DC610@phx.gbl>
that synopsizes it!
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:14:32 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Wouldn't you know that comedectomies would get comedectomized?
-- funny
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:40:56 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
i'll be surprised and disappointed if you find it. I just made it up. I think.
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:34:52 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2I: Stop blamiing Mom. Go look it up on an online dictionary. Merriam Webster for starters.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:30 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
comedectomies
Mom, among a few others, has locked up too the dictionary book. Other wise I would be in there, in a heart beat, to unlook it up ;->
Alanrob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
some are comedectomies
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funniesI: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com > writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like. Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience. WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain. If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is negligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out >these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post: "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of list Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet, >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally, >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. = I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch'). I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- -- Irene
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/2f51f6f9/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 03:01:26 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:07:10 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <20071214.183112.1072.77.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071214.183112.1072.77.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W5BA6498C07F930CC1E263DC610@phx.gbl>
i think you call it rhyme (muhwahhaha!!)
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:31:05 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2From: ae.dropper@juno.com
So what could we call a cancerous growth on a line of poetry?
Metricaloma? Or wait, wasn't that a low calorie milkshake in the 50's
-- funny
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:54:42 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: We certainly have to be careful of skin cancer and light! Previously, it was sunburn. We aren't leaves. One size doesn't fit all.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:51 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
do our leaves get eaten by light before they fall?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2From: ae.dropper@juno.com
DIALOGUE DANCEA dialogue circle of trees, dancing treeswe do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woodswith the light filtering through our autumn leavesand we are dancing - our roots are our feetand our millions of toes, dancing.A wind comes and some of our leaves fallfrom some of our fingers, our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,one explication for every implicationour roots hidden, unknownbut known constantly as thatwhich ever refuses namingwhile the naming plays with itselfsomewhere out of reach of the dance itself. -- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per- son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon " >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt". From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this viewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet, >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with >our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch'). I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes. So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia--
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/20ef6860/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 03:02:58 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:08:41 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Standing Under Understanding
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712141942v6f333de2i25a066790b5f781f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com>
<012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com>
<004701c83e48$0ddd8d50$b5c16018@DL01>
<005601c83e4a$32d7bac0$b5c16018@DL01>
<006f01c83e4f$74ca4290$b5c16018@DL01>
<15312071-70F2-46EC-9FFA-BAE8EE624E94@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712141136l2740cc36ib65d515d883dcc4a@mail.gmail.com>
<3D118E88-7E10-4232-A461-BC0975DA32E3@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712141942v6f333de2i25a066790b5f781f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W423623720B5EE2C05D21BEDC610@phx.gbl>
irene why do you talk so big?
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:42:47 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Standing Under UnderstandingI: I don't consider what I said "blurting", and if my explanation isn't covered in 'suspension', perhaps the idea needs reexamining.
On Dec 14, 2007 3:25 PM, donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: Always appreciate suggestions, but quite frequently - as is the case with dl atm - my remarks are piggybacking off his. And I think, vice versa. I don't believe suspension means inhibit, unless it's a reflex to tell someone they're wrong without giving a reason why. Or unless you're inhibiting a virtual punch in the nose. I think it means suspend ideas out in public where we can all have a crack at them.
No, it means to suspend your thought/phrase/ intended utterance up on the wall where you can have a good look at it and perhaps refine it, fill it out or see its meaning. It also means to stop and consider what you are about to blurt out. It means that one should be aware that any utterance is implicitly a request for a response. So it makes sense to to try to say what you actually want to say, rather than carry on your internal dialogue out in the world where it is likely to be misunderstood or to mislead since it has not been refined within your own psyche.
doninfo: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/9cd919da/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 03:05:48 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:11:32 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
In-Reply-To: <007d01c83f29$2aff69d0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl><006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com><012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com><004701c83e48$0ddd8d50$b5c16018@DL01><002c01c83e5c$6443fdf0$d076480c@HOME><c47283890712140625g32e8d2b3j4231bc159453df8@mail.gmail.com><016c01c83e83$e2951c80$b5c16018@DL01><00d501c83e8b$e363bd80$d076480c@HOME><021f01c83e8d$af389150$b5c16018@DL01>
<014001c83e8e$fdafe3a0$d076480c@HOME>
<007d01c83f29$2aff69d0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W42710F527C727839F4C3EBDC610@phx.gbl>
I like music, but not to the degree that when I hear it, I must stop everything and dance. -- dl
oh that hurts. you amuse me Don.
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experienceDate: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:45:40 -0500
But I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending. -- Susan
When people "block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience", is that an example of what db references as fragmentation? They are somehow fragmented to such a degree that they cannot feel music?
I've seen psychopaths on TV as having no feeling regarding a crime they had committed. I've also heard of people talking about music therapy for the mentally ill. Maybe that would help psychopaths feel, or become able to feel and therefore be normal.
Maybe a similar situation obtains regarding people who block out feeling or block out the pleasure of experiencing visual art, paintings, etc.
I like visual art, musical art, dance and other expressions of art. I like music, but not to the degree that when I hear it, I must stop everything and dance. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as you do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that people have different preferences and those preferences are what guide our choices. But I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. -- Susan
A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color must be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must be felt that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than is making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as meaning very much.
Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the visual experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is the meaning? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking, some like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some feels sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the internal movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's part of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don, when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step cuts in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens to the size of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when you change from those three modes of moving. Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed in order to become aware.
On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in your body when you listen to it?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/1f97b32a/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 03:03:51 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:14:21 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] fooled - was SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
Message-ID: <20071215.211200.3184.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending. (df)
The character that is "fooled" is the character[istic] that is relevantly
acted and pretended. "Relevantly" because it pretends not to be acting
and
pretending, i.e., pretends unawareness of pretending. The 'acted and
pretended'
[characters and characteristics] always "miss a lot." Miss a lot of every
moment*.
Especially the "fooled" ones.
The "fooled" ones are interesting in that one can get a LOT of mileage
out of
living the question "Why did this character want to be fooled?" (And
finding the
qualities and operative values of the particular character - the "fooled"
one in
this case - is the living of this question.
*Most of the moment is missed with the attempt to make the impermanent
permanent. It is like thinking to enjoy this beautiful day of sailing by
throwing
in the anchor.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:16:44 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes....
- realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/1afdf2ff/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 03:11:55 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:14:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
Message-ID: <20071215.211200.3184.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Is there such a thing as a POV without identity? -- dl
no
(and is this "my" point of view?")
no (it is just a point of view).
So yes.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:49:22 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV
without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes....
- realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/140e3b69/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 03:09:12 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:14:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
In-Reply-To: <20071215.123618.1072.85.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071215.123618.1072.85.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W34563BA0AABDE24D706677DC610@phx.gbl>
how many will turn up in london? how many are there really?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:34:23 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experienceFrom: ae.dropper@juno.com
This inspires me to say something too.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:52:40 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Hey folks, howdie! I just wanted to put a few words our in order to say something. Anything. Will do, no ;-)
Alan
(0-k)) -- & now back to the (other) animals.
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dlI: Me, too. But for Bohm, I'm going to take a chance. Hope you come. DOWN
On Dec 15, 2007 10:45 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
CORRECTION:
That should have been: pom pom, popom-popom, pom pom popom.
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
Irene: Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
dl: Very interesting expression. My friend Tom, an English teacher, said something similar regarding a ballet performance. When he talked of it, he became animated with a tune, pom . pom, pom-pom, pom . pom, pom-pom, his body moving rhythmically with each note as dancers do.
All dancers don't, but Tom was. And you don't have to dance to be the music. My pianist last night didn't dance with feet through space. This introduces another idea. I picked up a book at the Harvard Book Store called 'Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think". Typing on a computer certainly blocks that. How might that affect dialogue?
Irene: You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
dl: This reminds me of db in WIO talking about the piano player. Also, a computer programmer friend says he goes to work in the morning and begins writing code and looks up hours later to find it quitting time. He says it is a selfless experience in the sense of being unaware of ordinary self-concerns. Maybe that's true of dancers, etc, while "being the music".
I: Yes. When he finished all 30 variations and the two statements of the theme last night, he sat silently for so long; he wasn't in this world and had to come back. The audience was completely silent, reading his face for a signal that the time was right to applaud. When the signal came, the applause was deafening, and everyone rose to their feet. Then he stood up, faced us, and picked up a copy of the Goldberg with a gesture that said "The applause belongs to Bach, not to me." And that brings me to another thought inspired by the concert. Why can't we think of all the various "I's" & "me's", selves, personas as variations on a theme, all of which are integrated to make one single work of art? You raise interesting questions about loss of affect and music therapy. I'd like to explore that, but I need to do some Googling first. If you have any ideas or information on it - or anyone else does - please post them. How's Florida? What's on tap for the Holidays? Tomorrow night there's a Fool's Mass at St John the Divine.
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.I: Sorry I disappeared on you. Doorbell rang; Had an improv session scheduled, then we went to hear the Goldberg. I wish you could have been there. If you ever get a chance to hear Jeffrey Kahane in person, you would see as he performed, how the body does more than reflect the emotions and meanings of music. Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music. You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music. Words can't really describe this. If we ever meet in person, I can show you how to experience it. How about London in April for the Bohm Conference?
On Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as you do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that people have different preferences and those preferences are what guide our choices. But I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. -- Susan
A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color must be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must be felt that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than is making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as meaning very much.
Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the visual experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is the meaning? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking, some like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some feels sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the internal movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's part of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don, when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step cuts in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens to the size of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when you change from those three modes of moving. Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed in order to become aware.
On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in your body when you listen to it?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogueinfo: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/b90b2374/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 03:13:07 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:18:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] between us
In-Reply-To: <F543964A-833F-4921-ABCB-8DF90B030C34@dc.rr.com>
References: <c47283890712151141g1ac53d51l6b9700d1f06cede7@mail.gmail.com>
<F543964A-833F-4921-ABCB-8DF90B030C34@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W38F92D3BA94855AF3BA53EDC610@phx.gbl>
oh. a ball game. now i understand.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] between usDate: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:32:17 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgI agree. It sounds like Basil's suggestion. He's many a numbers man and they don't get along well with philosophers.
Anyway, its their ball game.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
Why is the Bohm Conference separating the philosophers and physicists? Isn't that not only fragmentation, but a continuation of the criticisms I have read in many places? I understand why each might want to be with those who are really fluent in their expertise, but a joint session seems necessary as well. Bohm's work in the two domains complimented each other. "Between us' because I'm not part of the 'group', but can't help thinking.-- Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/54702796/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sun Dec 16 03:50:36 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:56:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] fooled - was SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <20071215.211200.3184.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071215.211200.3184.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <92DB38AC-0DB9-4147-876A-2ED552F0FD3A@dc.rr.com>
What?
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:03 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending. (df)
>
> The character that is "fooled" is the character[istic] that is
> relevantly
> acted and pretended. "Relevantly" because it pretends not to be
> acting and
> pretending, i.e., pretends unawareness of pretending. The 'acted
> and pretended'
> [characters and characteristics] always "miss a lot." Miss a lot of
> every moment*.
> Especially the "fooled" ones.
>
> The "fooled" ones are interesting in that one can get a LOT of
> mileage out of
> living the question "Why did this character want to be
> fooled?" (And finding the
> qualities and operative values of the particular character - the
> "fooled" one in
> this case - is the living of this question.
>
> *Most of the moment is missed with the attempt to make the impermanent
> permanent. It is like thinking to enjoy this beautiful day of
> sailing by throwing
> in the anchor.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:16:44 -0800 donald factor
> <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
> Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
>> Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
>>
>> http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
>>
>> "Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som
>> serius wrk.
>>
>> Ala n
>>
>> Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts,
>> sizes.... - realli just a draft)
>> Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
>>
>> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>> Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
>>
>> don
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with
>>> Yahoo! Search.
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/3024eb27/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sun Dec 16 03:52:26 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Dec 16 03:58:11 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] between us
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W38F92D3BA94855AF3BA53EDC610@phx.gbl>
References: <c47283890712151141g1ac53d51l6b9700d1f06cede7@mail.gmail.com>
<F543964A-833F-4921-ABCB-8DF90B030C34@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W38F92D3BA94855AF3BA53EDC610@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <746D96DE-4345-4954-8699-8C3E39071315@dc.rr.com>
Don't you know? Its all a ball game, but with different shaped balls.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:13 PM, rob mooney wrote:
> oh. a ball game. now i understand.
>
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] between us
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:32:17 -0800
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> I agree. It sounds like Basil's suggestion. He's many a numbers man
> and they don't get along well with philosophers.
> Anyway, its their ball game.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> Why is the Bohm Conference separating the philosophers and
> physicists? Isn't that not only fragmentation, but a continuation
> of the criticisms I have read in many places? I understand why
> each might want to be with those who are really fluent in their
> expertise, but a joint session seems necessary as well. Bohm's
> work in the two domains complimented each other.
>
> "Between us' because I'm not part of the 'group', but can't help
> thinking.
>
> --
> Irene
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/22c5f04b/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sun Dec 16 04:30:09 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Dec 16 04:35:50 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl><006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01><BAY123-W788BD7654E5F48F14C2D7DC670@phx.gbl>
<01b001c83e8a$8595b8d0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W13949761D2412D7089120BDC610@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <01ad01c83f93$f5d77660$b5c16018@DL01>
I know this is my problem but I don't think it is specific to me. -- Rob
I think it's more interesting than problematic.
I've long use thate word with the intention to mean that I accept and stand under the meaning of a particular position. It does not mean I will not change a moment later.
It is strange with words, how their definitions and meanings change. Some people say words have no meaning, that only people do. Some say that meaning has two aspects, logical and psychological. But who TF actually knows what's going on? Not me.
I always read your posts. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 8:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it seems coherent and reasonable Don but it doesn't seem right. it doesn't click somehow. what is it you would stand under and feel that way? (I know this is my problem but I don't think it is specific to me)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:50:04 -0500
I don't know, but have thought it indicates awareness of language as word/image/identity system and that saying I understand is to subordinate presence to what the language directs attention toward.
That is, since using language may direct awareness to a mental scenario or something not present, then saying I understand means showing that unseeable thought processes are acceptable. Does that seem coherent, reasonable?
If I we said to the teacher, I stand over and above that idea, ... ?? -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
yes. i get that, that is often said. but why standing under? why not sitting on top? or lying in the middle? I wonder if it is something to do with the sky.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:59 -0500
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/c5219de9/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 04:43:06 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 04:45:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] fooled - was SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
Message-ID: <20071215.224316.3184.24.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The "what?" [character] is missing a lot.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:50:36 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
What?
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:03 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending. (df)
The character that is "fooled" is the character[istic] that is relevantly
acted and pretended. "Relevantly" because it pretends not to be acting
and
pretending, i.e., pretends unawareness of pretending. The 'acted and
pretended'
[characters and characteristics] always "miss a lot." Miss a lot of every
moment*.
Especially the "fooled" ones.
The "fooled" ones are interesting in that one can get a LOT of mileage
out of
living the question "Why did this character want to be fooled?" (And
finding the
qualities and operative values of the particular character - the "fooled"
one in
this case - is the living of this question.
*Most of the moment is missed with the attempt to make the impermanent
permanent. It is like thinking to enjoy this beautiful day of sailing by
throwing
in the anchor.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:16:44 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes....
- realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/480f1d1a/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 04:37:32 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 04:45:45 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Understand - was: noname 2
Message-ID: <20071215.224316.3184.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Funny Pete -
I see you are leaving this one alone this time.
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:41:38 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
writes:
it seems coherent and reasonable Don but it doesn't seem right. it
doesn't click somehow. what is it you would stand under and feel that
way? (I know this is my problem but I don't think it is specific to me)
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:50:04 -0500
I don't know, but have thought it indicates awareness of language as
word/image/identity system and that saying I understand is to subordinate
presence to what the language directs attention toward.
That is, since using language may direct awareness to a mental scenario
or something not present, then saying I understand means showing that
unseeable thought processes are acceptable. Does that seem coherent,
reasonable?
If I we said to the teacher, I stand over and above that idea, ... ?? --
dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
yes. i get that, that is often said. but why standing under? why not
sitting on top? or lying in the middle? I wonder if it is something to do
with the sky.
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:59 -0500
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no
satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being
Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no
satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful?
Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
"understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than
one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance,
thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc
(which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees
into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation
of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one
get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact,
it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that.
AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
"intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that
it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt
that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess,
is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you
do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and
out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no
one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
--
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day
I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/b788f1a7/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 04:39:03 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 04:45:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
Message-ID: <20071215.224316.3184.21.ae.dropper@juno.com>
what? (Rob)
the naming plays with itself
somewhere out of reach
of the dance itself.
do our leaves
get eaten by light
before they fall?
we certainly have
to be careful of
skin cancer
and light!
previously,
it was sunburn.
we aren't leaves.
one size
doesn't fit all.
funni, rob, irene
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:48:56 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
writes:
what?
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:54:42 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: We certainly have to be careful of skin cancer and light!
Previously, it was sunburn. We aren't leaves. One size doesn't fit
all.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:51 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
do our leaves get eaten by light before they fall?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
DIALOGUE DANCE
A dialogue circle of trees, dancing trees
we do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woods
with the light filtering through our autumn leaves
and we are dancing - our roots are our feet
and our millions of toes, dancing.
A wind comes and some of our leaves fall
from some of our fingers,
our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,
one explication for every implication
our roots hidden, unknown
but known constantly as that
which ever refuses naming
while the naming plays with itself
somewhere out of reach
of the dance itself.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful?
Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
"understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than
one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance,
thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc
(which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees
into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation
of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one
get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact,
it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that.
AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
"intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that
it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt
that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess,
is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you
do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and
out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no
one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
--
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day
I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
Charades!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/cb199d62/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 04:41:37 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 04:45:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Message-ID: <20071215.224316.3184.22.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Watch it when you stand under an understanding onion.
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:51:37 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
writes:
what? a tree, not a person? I hope the apples and onions aren't
listening.
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:19:15 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Same thing. A tree isn't a person. Apples and onions.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:57 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
or a tree
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:06:49 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Maybe, but only if you've got an umbrella
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Don Lay wrote:
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no
satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being
Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no
satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful?
Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
"understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than
one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance,
thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc
(which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees
into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation
of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one
get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact,
it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that.
AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
"intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that
it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt
that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess,
is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you
do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and
out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no
one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
--
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day
I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
Charades!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/01c131e6/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 04:42:49 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 04:45:51 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Message-ID: <20071215.224316.3184.23.ae.dropper@juno.com>
There's an old (1920) Websters unabridged, 8 inches thick, that i had to
get rid of a couple of years ago. It had an immediately comprehensible
etymology of understanding in it. So it's possible. Meanwhile Funny
Pete's first message to this list was on the etymology of understanding
and then his speculations about this. Should I resend this?
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:58:20 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
writes:
yes it seems more immediately comprehensible. apparently 'fathom'
originally meant something like grasp. the image was a person with arms
widespread (six foot wide).
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:21:08 -0700
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
From: lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
I once read that comprehend, which we often use as a synonym for
understand, comes from the French comprendre (com - with, and prendre -
take or grasp). So there ends up a kind of union or communion between
subject and object. This makes much more sense to me than standing under
something.
Lynne
On 12/14/07 1:33 PM, "donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Damn, this topic turned up in an exchange between Bohm and a German
friend. Unfortunately, my copies of this lie at the bottom of a box, six
thousand miles away. But I do recall that he spoke about using the word
"understanding" in the sense of "verstehen". Perhaps some of our German
speaking friends here can help to expand this. What does verstehen mean
and what other sorts of understanding might there be? As I recall when I
looked understand up in my etymological dictionary it didn't seem very
helpful.
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:39 AM, rob mooney wrote:
yes. i get that, that is often said. but why standing under? why not
sitting on top? or lying in the middle? I wonder if it is something to do
with the sky.
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:59 -0500
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no
satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being
Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no
satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful?
Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
"understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than
one way to understand understanding.
don
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/53d7c35d/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sun Dec 16 04:56:53 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Dec 16 05:02:35 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl><006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com><012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01><BAY123-W14B5DEF9CCCB6A64FBBA6DC670@phx.gbl>
<024c01c83e90$033fba60$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W82BB63A44EBD6D867AD20DC610@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <01cf01c83f97$b202f910$b5c16018@DL01>
Just now the thought occurs that under expresses both subordination and perhaps a degree of subservience. Maybe it expresses the idea of that what has been articulated is accepted (temporarily) and the one understanding is ready for conclusion, etc.
I can accept that understand means standing under, but maybe that's only because of my interest in language.
What is the meaning and/or relationship of the ideas of standing under and standing out (exist)? I have long been intrigued with the Greek root of existence as emerging out, exist because the question always presents: standing out of what?
I'm coming to understand that the meaning relates to the Greek logos. That is, a thing cannot exist, cannot stand out without FIRST STANDING IN (Tillich!).
I believe Tillich refers to Aristotle's notion of potential, i.e., that something must first "stand in" essentially or in Essence as potential before it can stand out or exist actually. I've been working at and trying to understand this for a long time. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
why under though? that is the problem I have with it. thanks for persevering and not telling me to shut up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:29:22 -0500
I don't know.
Maybe one must imagine an articulated position and then imagine standing under that position.
Sometimes people say "I see" instead of "I understand". I suppose when they say "I see", the meaning is that they imagine it and refer to seeing it mentally or in tas. -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
stand under though? it doesn't seem an obvious metaphor...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:24:29 -0500
My understanding is that 2+2=4. That is, I stand under the position taught regarding numbers, math, etc, common to us all.
Bohm says words are images.
Maybe in that sense, understanding an articulated, identified position might be seen as protecting one from making the same mistakes over and over. If for example, if you had erred and told your teacher on a test that 2+2=6 and the teacher had articulated the right answers, you might then say I understand -- meaning I stand under what was taught.
Those teaching try to get students to understand -- stand under the position taught. I do. Don't you? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
standing under an articulated position.
I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position like some kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not trying to be funny, dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image literally flashed through my mind. A roof has the purpose of protecting one from rain or excessive sun. How would the idea of protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you 'get' it, you don't keep making the same mistake?
On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/ee61a3af/attachment-0001.html
From donlay at knology.net Sun Dec 16 05:06:04 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Dec 16 05:11:44 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
References: <20071215.224316.3184.21.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <025101c83f98$fa99ee30$b5c16018@DL01>
Brilliance!!!
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:39 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
what? (Rob)
the naming plays with itself
somewhere out of reach
of the dance itself.
do our leaves
get eaten by light
before they fall?
we certainly have
to be careful of
skin cancer
and light!
previously,
it was sunburn.
we aren't leaves.
one size
doesn't fit all.
funni, rob, irene
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:48:56 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:54:42 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: We certainly have to be careful of skin cancer and light! Previously, it was sunburn. We aren't leaves. One size doesn't fit all.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:51 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
do our leaves get eaten by light before they fall?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
DIALOGUE DANCE
A dialogue circle of trees, dancing trees
we do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woods
with the light filtering through our autumn leaves
and we are dancing - our roots are our feet
and our millions of toes, dancing.
A wind comes and some of our leaves fall
from some of our fingers,
our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,
one explication for every implication
our roots hidden, unknown
but known constantly as that
which ever refuses naming
while the naming plays with itself
somewhere out of reach
of the dance itself.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/c649446f/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sun Dec 16 05:07:12 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Dec 16 05:12:54 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
References: <20071215.224316.3184.23.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <026a01c83f99$248521b0$b5c16018@DL01>
Please do!
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
There's an old (1920) Websters unabridged, 8 inches thick, that i had to get rid of a couple of years ago. It had an immediately comprehensible etymology of understanding in it. So it's possible. Meanwhile Funny Pete's first message to this list was on the etymology of understanding and then his speculations about this. Should I resend this?
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:58:20 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
yes it seems more immediately comprehensible. apparently 'fathom' originally meant something like grasp. the image was a person with arms widespread (six foot wide).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:21:08 -0700
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
From: lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
I once read that comprehend, which we often use as a synonym for understand, comes from the French comprendre (com - with, and prendre - take or grasp). So there ends up a kind of union or communion between subject and object. This makes much more sense to me than standing under something.
Lynne
On 12/14/07 1:33 PM, "donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Damn, this topic turned up in an exchange between Bohm and a German friend. Unfortunately, my copies of this lie at the bottom of a box, six thousand miles away. But I do recall that he spoke about using the word "understanding" in the sense of "verstehen". Perhaps some of our German speaking friends here can help to expand this. What does verstehen mean and what other sorts of understanding might there be? As I recall when I looked understand up in my etymological dictionary it didn't seem very helpful.
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:39 AM, rob mooney wrote:
yes. i get that, that is often said. but why standing under? why not sitting on top? or lying in the middle? I wonder if it is something to do with the sky.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:59 -0500
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/3c63f090/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 05:12:48 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 05:23:10 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] fooled - was SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
Message-ID: <20071215.232052.3184.29.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Well you had me fooled. (df)
Awareness doesn't 'miss' such things. Only the image (of self) 'misses'
such things. And again and again and again and again and again. These
"images"
filter out just about everything immediate..
I'll take a stab at the characteristic that misses such things. It is
the condition that says something like "I must not conclude." Or
"It is good to doubt." Or just use that as a hypothetical. And imagine
it as "absolute necessity." In such a situation the "necessity" would
prevent any consciousness that would begin to resemble concluding.
But these things are usually a combination of beliefs and no one can
begin to guess another's mixture. Well, you can sometimes begin.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:43:06 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
The "what?" [character] is missing a lot.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:50:36 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
What?
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:03 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending. (df)
The character that is "fooled" is the character[istic] that is relevantly
acted and pretended. "Relevantly" because it pretends not to be acting
and
pretending, i.e., pretends unawareness of pretending. The 'acted and
pretended'
[characters and characteristics] always "miss a lot." Miss a lot of every
moment*.
Especially the "fooled" ones.
The "fooled" ones are interesting in that one can get a LOT of mileage
out of
living the question "Why did this character want to be fooled?" (And
finding the
qualities and operative values of the particular character - the "fooled"
one in
this case - is the living of this question.
*Most of the moment is missed with the attempt to make the impermanent
permanent. It is like thinking to enjoy this beautiful day of sailing by
throwing
in the anchor.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:16:44 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes....
- realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/661a8c77/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 05:18:24 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 05:23:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Message-ID: <20071215.232052.3184.30.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Please do! (dl)
German is my first language. So that part comes naturally. :-)
Some more words:
Einverstaendnis (agreement, consent) is the noun of einverstanden
(agreed).
literally: [of] one understanding
Uebereinstimmung (consensus)
literally: [of] one voice about [something]
I should have mentioned that ver- is cognate with for- or fore-, as in
forget or forsake.
Pat's mention of a dictionary made me find this:
http://www.etymonline.com/
it says:
understand
O.E. understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably lit.
"stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand). If
this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath,"
but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar
"among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see
inter-). But the exact notion is unclear. Perhaps the ult. sense is "be
close to," cf. Gk. epistamai "I know how, I know," lit. "I stand upon."
Similar formations are found in O.Fris. (understonda), M.Dan.
(understande), while other Gmc. languages use compounds meaning "stand
before" (cf. Ger. verstehen, represented in O.E. by forstanden ). For
this concept, most I.E. languages use fig. extensions of compounds that
lit. mean "put together," or "separate," or "take, grasp."
-- Peter
On Apr 1, 2007, at 23:31 , ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
if a concept is metaphorically placed into a room, then perhaps being
able
to enter and stand in that room gives one access to knowledge of that
concept. (peter)
It's this kind of thing that I love about words, about language.
There really is access to their original sense in words, but it is only
by
immersion in them. They don't seem to lose their seed qualities, but they
DO get
covered by time's contributions; and perhaps by their protections
from all that. But it is not lost.
And neither is it rigid. Words almost pulsate. Like they have hearts.
What dictionary[s] are you using, Peter?
pat
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 22:09:11 -0400 Peter Renzland <peter@dancing.org>
writes:
An undertaking is an enterprise. Entertain?
Could it be that this "under" is just a rendering of "entre"?
German: verstehen
ver- is a prefix that means becoming. It can also mean altered. Or
mis-. Or dis-.
"stand" in German is "stehen"
gestehen: confess
(note that German has "Unterstand" which simply means shelter --
something you can stand under.)
so, maybe verstehen means to stand in another's place.
(understand another's POV or feeling)
what about understanding a concept, etc.?
well, let's recall that concepts were long ago mapped into places.
consider the "memory palace".
we still say "in the first place", etc.
so, if a concept is metaphorically placed into a room, then perhaps being
able to enter and stand in that room gives one access to knowledge of
that concept.
This is pretty wild speculation, but I like it better than "standing
under the spout where the knowledge comes out".
Peter :-)
PS: I wish I could _understand_ why some mail-software doesn't enable its
users to quote included material. ;-(
On Apr 1, 2007, at 20:25 , Donald Lay wrote:
the question of how to characterize this experience based on the
'possibility in question'that 'there is no "understanding" between any of
us'. -- pat.
I may see the logic of this. Then however, what of the possibility of
understanding between us and the whole, Being?
If we say that understanding literally means standing under -- do we
stand under the whole, or do we stand under "an understanding of the
whole"? -- dl
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 7:36 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] case in point
The first one was mine. The second one was mine. The first was a response
of resonance
with what kari had said. The second was just a description of my
experience with Tom [and others],
along with the question of how to characterize this experience based on
the 'possibility in question'
that 'there is no "understanding" between any of us'
pat.
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:26:01 -0700 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
On Apr 1, 2007, at 7:22 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
And then our "objections" to what other's say are simply
"objections" to our own thoughts. How's that sound? I like it.
In Pat's post she did not reference the above as a quote from someone
elses Irenes? post, so I naturally assumed it was hers. Since while
plowing through the large number of posts, I did not recall seeing that
sentence in a post from Irene.
So it might mean that without that sentence the meaning of the rest of
Pat's post would be different. Let's see/
And then how do we characterize the wonderful feel-e
ing "resonance" that occurs among certain combinations
of people? We think and feel that we hear and understand them,
and in a very consistent way, and they also think and feel heard and
understood, and it is mutual. And they LOVE to converse with one another
and they almost need not speak, and sometimes go for long periods
together
not speaking at all, just enjoying the presence, and when the speaking
begins again,
it seems to emerge directly from the silence, with NO s
Yes. My apologies. I can now see that Pat was questioning the idea rather
than emphasizing it. And I am keen to see Irene's response.
But, please, when you use a quote from another post, please reference it
as a quote. It makes knowing what I am responding to much easier.
Thanks
don
On Apr 1, 2007, at 7:22 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
And then our "objections" to what other's say are simply
"objections" to our own thoughts. How's that sound? I like it.
And then how do we characterize the wonderful feel-
ing "resonance" that occurs among certain combinations
of people? We think and feel that we hear and understand them,
and in a very consistent way, and they also think and feel heard and
understood, and it is mutual. And they LOVE to converse with one another
and they almost need not speak, and sometimes go for long periods
together
not speaking at all, just enjoying the presence, and when the speaking
begins again,
it seems to emerge directly from the silence, with NO sense of an
interruption of the
wonderful silence?
pat
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Karilen Mays
<tubakari@yahoo.com> writes:
this is a slightly different way of saying something along the lines of
what i was actually thinking when i sent the message i sent a moment ago
as a reply to irene.
interesting don!
it is possible that no one ever really understands anyone else...is it
possible that people meet each other from where and who they are and
think they are...and through that meeting, something different from
understanding happens?
and is that just one big lie or story?
maybe in terms of constant flow and unfoldment of meanings...maybe we
just riff of off each other, tacitly enfolding you and what you say and
me and what I say...
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 5:32:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: My mine? Your mine? Our mine?
Thought'smine?Bohm on Identity and Illusion
On Mar 31, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Donald Lay wrote:
> I'm trying to "get clear" about how the experience of or in mind
> goes from rest to imagination, or maybe it is from rest to
> identified thought or language activity unique to "my" brain, and
> how this relates to the Greek notion of logos and db's ideas of
> dilogue. It seems db provides a way to 'see' this, pages 50 -52,
> especially the idea of the "totality of ratios".
>
> Ofcourse, the meanings of these pages appear to me inseparable from
> the entirety of the essay as well as the entirety of what I have
> read of db.
>
> Now I'm really gone. db
>
>
>
This is why Bohm often spoke about the need to digest hisideas. This
would mean that by reading them or hearing them they would have to be
made part of the whole of your part of the thought process that would
obviously come out as something rather different but with
similarities to what went in. In other words the ideas ingested when
digested and combined with the contents already at work in the system
take on a new life of their own. This process would involve
understanding but also imagination. I mean if you think about it,
without our ability to imagine a future there could be no movement
into it and certainly no understanding. I imagine that someone will
read this post and that what is written here will enter their mental
digestive system and cause something to happen, in much the way that
a corned beef sandwich would effect my body. Of course, this raises a
serious question: is there any way to ever really understand
another's thoughts in the terms in which he understood them? I
wonder, and I also wonder if it worthwhile to even try. I suppose
that if we were able to spend a great deal of time trying our
interpretations out on the speaker and then listening to his
suggestions and then trying again, and so on until he says, "You've
got it" that might work. But would that really be all that
valuable? I mean in terms of the constant flow of meanings and
unfoldment of new meanings that would be going on anyway?
don
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:07:12 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
Please do!
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
There's an old (1920) Websters unabridged, 8 inches thick, that i had to
get rid of a couple of years ago. It had an immediately comprehensible
etymology of understanding in it. So it's possible. Meanwhile Funny
Pete's first message to this list was on the etymology of understanding
and then his speculations about this. Should I resend this?
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:58:20 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
writes:
yes it seems more immediately comprehensible. apparently 'fathom'
originally meant something like grasp. the image was a person with arms
widespread (six foot wide).
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:21:08 -0700
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
From: lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
I once read that comprehend, which we often use as a synonym for
understand, comes from the French comprendre (com - with, and prendre -
take or grasp). So there ends up a kind of union or communion between
subject and object. This makes much more sense to me than standing under
something.
Lynne
On 12/14/07 1:33 PM, "donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Damn, this topic turned up in an exchange between Bohm and a German
friend. Unfortunately, my copies of this lie at the bottom of a box, six
thousand miles away. But I do recall that he spoke about using the word
"understanding" in the sense of "verstehen". Perhaps some of our German
speaking friends here can help to expand this. What does verstehen mean
and what other sorts of understanding might there be? As I recall when I
looked understand up in my etymological dictionary it didn't seem very
helpful.
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:39 AM, rob mooney wrote:
yes. i get that, that is often said. but why standing under? why not
sitting on top? or lying in the middle? I wonder if it is something to do
with the sky.
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:59 -0500
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no
satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being
Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no
satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful?
Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
"understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than
one way to understand understanding.
don
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/a2cfcc2c/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Sun Dec 16 06:24:09 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Sun Dec 16 06:29:54 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <016201c83f7d$7ff7b060$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <432619.17492.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Don Lay. Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton. Thought can BE funny. Thought can DO funny things (incl "funnies"). Zum bei-spiel, spiel being (doing) "play": Take, for example, Pedro -- one Predro. That is ("one") thought right there. Then Carreno, "another". Minister is a thought, too. So is venezuelan. Many thought, folks, many, munch. I, another yet, wants to focus on this, tho: The throught for one Pedro to do revolution AND to do luxury goods at the same time. Now, this is A thought..... No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller shoes to fill. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes.... - realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/7a868609/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 09:06:31 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 09:12:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] between us
In-Reply-To: <746D96DE-4345-4954-8699-8C3E39071315@dc.rr.com>
References: <c47283890712151141g1ac53d51l6b9700d1f06cede7@mail.gmail.com>
<F543964A-833F-4921-ABCB-8DF90B030C34@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W38F92D3BA94855AF3BA53EDC610@phx.gbl>
<746D96DE-4345-4954-8699-8C3E39071315@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W40CB0F55A1CDA74D6388A2DC610@phx.gbl>
and you have to stand under the balls. now i see.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] between usDate: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:52:26 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDon't you know? Its all a ball game, but with different shaped balls.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:13 PM, rob mooney wrote:
oh. a ball game. now i understand.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] between usDate: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:32:17 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgI agree. It sounds like Basil's suggestion. He's many a numbers man and they don't get along well with philosophers.
Anyway, its their ball game.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
Why is the Bohm Conference separating the philosophers and physicists? Isn't that not only fragmentation, but a continuation of the criticisms I have read in many places? I understand why each might want to be with those who are really fluent in their expertise, but a joint session seems necessary as well. Bohm's work in the two domains complimented each other. "Between us' because I'm not part of the 'group', but can't help thinking.-- Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/d06f2653/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 10:13:02 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 10:18:50 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
In-Reply-To: <20071215.224316.3184.21.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071215.224316.3184.21.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W407A9457E0BE8D06A139D8DC610@phx.gbl>
Naming plays games with itself.Somewhere out of reach it dancesnine dances by itself.
And if we do not leave our light
we will be eaten by it long
before it shines.
Run apple certainties under
the spout, what memories they
bind in cankered light.
And we are leaves as always,
fallen from the sunburn tree.
Till shade and calamine find us.
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:39:03 -0500From: ae.dropper@juno.comSubject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
what? (Rob)
the naming plays with itselfsomewhere out of reach of the dance itself.
do our leaves
get eaten by light
before they fall?
we certainly have
to be careful of
skin cancer
and light!
previously,
it was sunburn.
we aren't leaves.
one size
doesn't fit all.
funni, rob, irene
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:48:56 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
what?
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:54:42 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2I: We certainly have to be careful of skin cancer and light! Previously, it was sunburn. We aren't leaves. One size doesn't fit all.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:51 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
do our leaves get eaten by light before they fall?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2From: ae.dropper@juno.com
DIALOGUE DANCEA dialogue circle of trees, dancing treeswe do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woodswith the light filtering through our autumn leavesand we are dancing - our roots are our feetand our millions of toes, dancing.A wind comes and some of our leaves fallfrom some of our fingers, our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,one explication for every implicationour roots hidden, unknownbut known constantly as thatwhich ever refuses namingwhile the naming plays with itselfsomewhere out of reach of the dance itself. -- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per- son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon " >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt". From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this viewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet, >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with >our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch'). I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes. So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia--
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/14ffda02/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 11:14:45 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 11:20:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W407A9457E0BE8D06A139D8DC610@phx.gbl>
References: <20071215.224316.3184.21.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<BAY123-W407A9457E0BE8D06A139D8DC610@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W1774A6C80D0151F641E82CDC610@phx.gbl>
Once God had smote enough for another day and He saw
that it was good. After a bit of thought he took his finger
and wrote down some ponderous consonants on a couple
of blocks of stone. How could this ever be a good sign?
-- smitey
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/d2bd964c/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 13:14:42 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sun Dec 16 13:20:32 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W407A9457E0BE8D06A139D8DC610@phx.gbl>
References: <20071215.224316.3184.21.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<BAY123-W407A9457E0BE8D06A139D8DC610@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c47283890712160414y7f2a4660nb99e4e7edc684297@mail.gmail.com>
I: Word music Improvisation. Have a great day, everybody.
On Dec 16, 2007 4:13 AM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Naming plays games with itself.
> Somewhere out of reach it dances
> nine dances by itself.
>
>
>
> And if we do not leave our light
>
> we will be eaten by it long
>
> before it shines.
>
>
>
> Run apple certainties under
>
> the spout, what memories they
>
> bind in cankered light.
>
>
>
> And we are leaves as always,
>
> fallen from the sunburn tree.
>
> Till shade and calamine find us.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:39:03 -0500
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
>
> what? (Rob)
>
> the naming plays with itself
> somewhere out of reach
> of the dance itself.
>
>
> do our leaves
> get eaten by light
> before they fall?
>
> we certainly have
> to be careful of
> skin cancer
> and light!
>
> previously,
> it was sunburn.
> we aren't leaves.
> one size
> doesn't fit all.
>
>
> funni, rob, irene
>
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:48:56 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> writes:
>
> what?
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:54:42 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> I: We certainly have to be careful of skin cancer and light! Previously,
> it was sunburn. We aren't leaves. One size doesn't fit all.
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 2:51 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> do our leaves get eaten by light before they fall?
>
> ------------------------------
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:42 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>
>
> DIALOGUE DANCE
> A dialogue circle of trees, dancing trees
> we do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woods
> with the light filtering through our autumn leaves
> and we are dancing - our roots are our feet
> and our millions of toes, dancing.
> A wind comes and some of our leaves fall
> from some of our fingers,
> our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,
> one explication for every implication
> our roots hidden, unknown
> but known constantly as that
> which ever refuses naming
> while the naming plays with itself
> somewhere out of reach
> of the dance itself.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
> writes:
>
> Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just
> so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
> "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one
> way to understand understanding.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
>
> Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for
> instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat
> etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking
> trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic
> manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively"
> help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In
> fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
> living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
>
> From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
>
>
> to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
> Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
> quote):
> >...<
> Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
> ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
> WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
>
> Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
>
> I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
> (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
> If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
> choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
> To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
> have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
> son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
> Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
> negligent.
> And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
> acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
> *
> " >JPL:
> >"Shout, shout, let it all out
> >these are the things I can do without,
> >come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
> " >>Wm:
> >>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
> William
> *
> Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
> "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: Re: purpose of list
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello All,
>
> I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
> message to check for echo.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: inside out
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would share another thought that I found interesting.
>
> The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
> that
> it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
> can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
> contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
> seen
> from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
>
> My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
> form or on the un-form that borders it.
>
> The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
> represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
> viewing angle has been intriguing.
>
> Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
>
> From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
> Subject: Re:intentional dying
>
> Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
> kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
> dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
> 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
> right:
>
> > ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
> >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
> >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
> about
> >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
> >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
> would
> >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
> Normally,
> >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
> with
> >our work. =
>
> I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
>
> sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
> get
> back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
>
> with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
> forget
> -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
> rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
>
> *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
> because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
> lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
>
> I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
> Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
> not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
> I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
> is
> we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
> people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
> terms
> -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
> away
> the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
> no
> obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
> takes.
> So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
> through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
> the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
> top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out
> a
> lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
> enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
>
> responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
> have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
> --
> and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
> hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
> unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
>
> Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
> short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
> *me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
> common
> humanity.
> I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
>
> note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
> (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
> someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
>
> re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
> speaking
> to one of its authors!
>
>
> >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
> the
> >one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
> >
> >The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
> >directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
> >universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
>
> Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
> lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
> of
> birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
> so
> no full living either. No?
>
> I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
> >
> >is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
> >
> >julia
>
>
>
> -- <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
> Charades! <http://www.searchcharades.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
> Charades! <http://www.searchcharades.com>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/a5dc69d6/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 13:57:01 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 13:59:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
Message-ID: <20071216.075733.3184.36.ae.dropper@juno.com>
No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller
shoes to fill. AL
And another foot[s] of snow.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:24:09 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman
<landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Don Lay. Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at
a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it
was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes
and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton. Thought can
BE funny. Thought can DO funny things (incl "funnies"). Zum bei-spiel,
spiel being (doing) "play": Take, for example, Pedro -- one Predro. That
is ("one") thought right there. Then Carreno, "another". Minister is a
thought, too. So is venezuelan. Many thought, folks, many, munch. I,
another yet, wants to focus on this, tho: The throught for one Pedro to
do revolution AND to do luxury goods at the same time. Now, this is A
thought..... No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to
fry, smaller shoes to fill. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV
without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes....
- realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/9c429c02/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 13:53:53 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sun Dec 16 13:59:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Assumptions and Improvisation
Message-ID: <c47283890712160453q5d0112b2kdaed11b0a2da9398@mail.gmail.com>
DF's last post on this topic yesterday contained so many enfolded, implied -
most likely unintentionally - assumptions, that to answer him, it would
take the kind of in depth work a music historian and musicologist could turn
into a doctoral dissertation. However, for starters, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_improvisation
It compares jazz and classical improvisation traditions.
The invention of the printing press, and the cultural assumptions of
European society had a great deal to do with relegating the genius of the
likes of Bach to the category of the disrespect it has-had for oral
tradition.
In the Wiki article, Eric Barnhill is mentioned. He is a fellow Dalcrozian,
and studied with my Dalcroze teacher. He has his own website with original
audio samples. Not mentioned is David Darling, cellist, and his
organization Music for People whose purpose is to bring improvisation in all
musical genres back to the people. Music for People can also be Googled.
His workshops are attended by many, and are presented world wide. Neither
is mentioned Paul Winter, currently in residence at St john the Divine here
in NYC. I've attended many beautiful improvisation concerts of his. He is
in a stylistic category of his own. And a recent acquaintance of mine whose
name I'd have to go pull up whose ensemble, The Mad Coyote (I think it's
called) can be Googled and who performs in various venues. Just recently
here in the Village.
Classical musicians are rising up in revolt!
In closing, let me say that I have been working on this for many years.
Have done a lot of research, and have studied a great many 'methods', both
jazz and classical, and some Indian. As I teach myself, I'm putting together
my own 'method' that integrates what I consider to be the best of jazz and
classical approaches, and intend to include Salsa, if I live that long!
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/a3dc858d/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 13:55:19 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sun Dec 16 14:01:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <20071216.075733.3184.36.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071216.075733.3184.36.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712160455o7a23ecaja948aa70f9de7648@mail.gmail.com>
I: It's raining here. Later. I'm gone.
On Dec 16, 2007 7:57 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller
> shoes to fill. AL
>
> And another foot[s] of snow.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:24:09 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman <
> landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Hi Don Lay. Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at
> a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it
> was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes and
> a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton. Thought can BE
> funny. Thought can DO funny things (incl "funnies"). Zum bei-spiel, spiel
> being (doing) "play": Take, for example, Pedro -- one Predro. That is
> ("one") thought right there. Then Carreno, "another". Minister is a thought,
> too. So is venezuelan. Many thought, folks, many, munch. I, another yet,
> wants to focus on this, tho: The throught for one Pedro to do revolution AND
> to do luxury goods at the same time. Now, this is A thought..... No time (a
> thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller shoes to fill.
> AL
>
>
> *Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>* wrote:
>
> Is it necessity that a *POV* be *identified*?
>
> Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV
> without identity? -- dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
>
> It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
>
> The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
>
> -- funny
>
>
>
> *donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
>
> Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
> don
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
> Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
>
> http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
>
> "Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
>
> Ala n
>
> Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes....
> - realli just a draft)
> Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
>
> *donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
>
> Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
> don
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
>
>
>
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/b6574bcd/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 14:12:20 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 14:15:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
Message-ID: <20071216.081225.3184.38.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Naming plays games with itself.
Somewhere out of reach it dances
nine dances by itself
in "couples" made of three.
And if we do not leave our light
we will be eaten by it long
before it shines and dies again
so leave our light alone.
Run apple certainties under
the spout, what memories they
bind in cankered onion light
from lampshades worn as hats.
And we are leaves as always,
fallen from the sunburn tree.
Till shade and calamine find us
shovelling a foot of snow
before the plows
before the dogs....
before the rain and sleet
will come
before the sun
was even born
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:14:42 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
I: Word music Improvisation. Have a great day, everybody.
On Dec 16, 2007 4:13 AM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Naming plays games with itself.
Somewhere out of reach it dances
nine dances by itself.
And if we do not leave our light
we will be eaten by it long
before it shines.
Run apple certainties under
the spout, what memories they
bind in cankered light.
And we are leaves as always,
fallen from the sunburn tree.
Till shade and calamine find us.
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:39:03 -0500
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
what? (Rob)
the naming plays with itself
somewhere out of reach
of the dance itself.
do our leaves
get eaten by light
before they fall?
we certainly have
to be careful of
skin cancer
and light!
previously,
it was sunburn.
we aren't leaves.
one size
doesn't fit all.
funni, rob, irene
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:48:56 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
writes:
what?
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:54:42 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: We certainly have to be careful of skin cancer and light!
Previously, it was sunburn. We aren't leaves. One size doesn't fit
all.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:51 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
do our leaves get eaten by light before they fall?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
DIALOGUE DANCE
A dialogue circle of trees, dancing trees
we do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woods
with the light filtering through our autumn leaves
and we are dancing - our roots are our feet
and our millions of toes, dancing.
A wind comes and some of our leaves fall
from some of our fingers,
our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,
one explication for every implication
our roots hidden, unknown
but known constantly as that
which ever refuses naming
while the naming plays with itself
somewhere out of reach
of the dance itself.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful?
Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
"understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than
one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance,
thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc
(which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees
into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation
of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one
get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact,
it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that.
AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
"intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that
it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt
that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess,
is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you
do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and
out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no
one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
--
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day
I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
Charades!
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/69807853/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 14:16:30 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 14:22:19 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
In-Reply-To: <20071216.081225.3184.38.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071216.081225.3184.38.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W299C65AEEF610B2623587EDC610@phx.gbl>
whoo that was fun, Funny
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:12:20 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poemFrom: ae.dropper@juno.com
Naming plays games with itself.Somewhere out of reach it dancesnine dances by itself
in "couples" made of three.
And if we do not leave our light
we will be eaten by it long
before it shines and dies again
so leave our light alone.
Run apple certainties under
the spout, what memories they
bind in cankered onion light
from lampshades worn as hats.
And we are leaves as always,
fallen from the sunburn tree.
Till shade and calamine find us
shovelling a foot of snow
before the plows
before the dogs....
before the rain and sleet
will come
before the sun
was even born
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:14:42 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: Word music Improvisation. Have a great day, everybody.
On Dec 16, 2007 4:13 AM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Naming plays games with itself.Somewhere out of reach it dancesnine dances by itself.
And if we do not leave our light
we will be eaten by it long
before it shines.
Run apple certainties under
the spout, what memories they
bind in cankered light.
And we are leaves as always,
fallen from the sunburn tree.
Till shade and calamine find us.
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:39:03 -0500
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
what? (Rob)
the naming plays with itselfsomewhere out of reach of the dance itself.
do our leaves
get eaten by light
before they fall?
we certainly have
to be careful of
skin cancer
and light!
previously,
it was sunburn.
we aren't leaves.
one size
doesn't fit all.
funni, rob, irene
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:48:56 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
what?
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:54:42 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2I: We certainly have to be careful of skin cancer and light! Previously, it was sunburn. We aren't leaves. One size doesn't fit all.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:51 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
do our leaves get eaten by light before they fall?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2From: ae.dropper@juno.com
DIALOGUE DANCEA dialogue circle of trees, dancing treeswe do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woodswith the light filtering through our autumn leavesand we are dancing - our roots are our feet and our millions of toes, dancing.A wind comes and some of our leaves fallfrom some of our fingers, our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,one explication for every implicationour roots hidden, unknown but known constantly as thatwhich ever refuses namingwhile the naming plays with itselfsomewhere out of reach of the dance itself. -- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT to: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per- son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon " >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt". From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this viewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet, >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with >our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch'). I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes. So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia--
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/d3f08585/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sun Dec 16 14:33:33 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sun Dec 16 14:39:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <20071216.075733.3184.36.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <975755.18907.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Here is a description of the strangest organism I ever had. It was
inspired by the idea of women doing leg lifts in a roman
chair. Extreme exertion. Now add cold, electricity and fear...
Scene. Mountains. After a few hours of hiking to well over twelve
thousand feet, cross country, (from Big Pine, Fifth Lake to Jigsaw
pass eastside, Sierra Neveda), the sky getting darker and darker as
vast thunderheads roil over the high remote pass that over looks
Bishop Pass just at mid-day. Cold wind blowing. Hadn't seen anybody
for hours---been up and hiking since early morning. Place looks like
some desolate scene in Prometheus Bound, in the Caucasus. Here is
the view looking back at the descent: Look::
I stop to figure out how to descend. The cliff at the edge is steep,
and just barely angled back enough to carefully pick my way down third
class about seven hundred of feet of various gullies with scree to a high
plateau and Bishop pass below with the regular trail to Dusy
Basin. The veiw is spectacular, wind rushing up the face.
Very scary. I am standing at the pass looking down. Wind blowing,
darkness at noon. Suddenly all my skin is tingling, crawling like I
was afraid, or something. Weird electric things are dancing around my
balls and pubic hair. I can't stand it, and open my pants to pee or
something. I try peeing. Nothing. My penis seems to be crawling around
on its own, semi-hard. I realize I am having an organism and a wad of
cum splats out on the rocks.
Never seen that before. Now I am really freaked out. All my hair is
standing on end and ant-like electric charges are crawling all over
me. I finally figure it out. I am in a extreme electrically charged
area, and lightening is going to strike here. The potentials are
building up. I am right in the middle of an electric storm.
God almighty. I just slide down the first fifty feet into the steep
gully, almost straight down into a series of corners and drops. I
can't get down one section, so I lower my backpack on a nylon cord,
and climb down. I am scrambling to get down lower. I am cowering near
the gully face when a gigantic explosion hits about five hundred feet
below and a hundred yards out from my wet, cold stance. The light is
so bright, I can see the bolt as an electric purple after image
with my eyes open. I jump in a complete panic and scream. Gotta get
down. Then I find a place that is more secure, less exposed and I pull
out an ensolite pad and sit on it, and try to relax. I can't relax. I
try to light a cigarette and it just crumbles in my shaking fingers. I
am quivering like an animal about to be slaughtered. The smell of
ozone is extreme, like cooked relays.
I can't sit still, so I try to get down slowly,... Another smaller
bolt cuts loose like a mortar exploding below, leaving a smoking spot
on wet rocks. Several more strikes below, with long standing
branches. More steam and ozone, more jumping and screaming, more
creepy crawly feelings. More icy rain and hale that I barely feel.
Finally get off the steep cliff and race to a low ravine. The worst of
the storm is over. In the distance some other hikers are standing
around a small fire drying off and chatting. (Long before prohibitions
against wood fires, early seventies)
Never been more scared in my entire life, or scared for so long. It
must have more than two or three hours of terror. When I finally look
at my watch, it is well after three. The day is over, as if it never
happened.
And oof again.
--funny
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller shoes to fill. AL
And another foot[s] of snow.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:24:09 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Don Lay. Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton. Thought can BE funny. Thought can DO funny things (incl "funnies"). Zum bei-spiel, spiel being (doing) "play": Take, for example, Pedro -- one Predro. That is ("one") thought right there. Then Carreno, "another". Minister is a thought, too. So is venezuelan. Many thought, folks, many, munch. I, another yet, wants to focus on this, tho: The throught for one Pedro to do revolution AND to do luxury goods at the same time. Now, this is A thought..... No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller shoes to fill. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes.... - realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/7691a85d/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 14:47:08 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 14:48:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
Message-ID: <20071216.084716.3184.42.ae.dropper@juno.com>
A piece of writing to end all reading.
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:33:33 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Here is a description of the strangest organism I ever had. It was
inspired by the idea of women doing leg lifts in a roman
chair. Extreme exertion. Now add cold, electricity and fear...
Scene. Mountains. After a few hours of hiking to well over twelve
thousand feet, cross country, (from Big Pine, Fifth Lake to Jigsaw
pass eastside, Sierra Neveda), the sky getting darker and darker as
vast thunderheads roil over the high remote pass that over looks
Bishop Pass just at mid-day. Cold wind blowing. Hadn't seen anybody
for hours---been up and hiking since early morning. Place looks like
some desolate scene in Prometheus Bound, in the Caucasus. Here is
the view looking back at the descent: Look::
I stop to figure out how to descend. The cliff at the edge is steep,
and just barely angled back enough to carefully pick my way down third
class about seven hundred of feet of various gullies with scree to a high
plateau and Bishop pass below with the regular trail to Dusy
Basin. The veiw is spectacular, wind rushing up the face.
Very scary. I am standing at the pass looking down. Wind blowing,
darkness at noon. Suddenly all my skin is tingling, crawling like I
was afraid, or something. Weird electric things are dancing around my
balls and pubic hair. I can't stand it, and open my pants to pee or
something. I try peeing. Nothing. My penis seems to be crawling around
on its own, semi-hard. I realize I am having an organism and a wad of
cum splats out on the rocks.
Never seen that before. Now I am really freaked out. All my hair is
standing on end and ant-like electric charges are crawling all over
me. I finally figure it out. I am in a extreme electrically charged
area, and lightening is going to strike here. The potentials are
building up. I am right in the middle of an electric storm.
God almighty. I just slide down the first fifty feet into the steep
gully, almost straight down into a series of corners and drops. I
can't get down one section, so I lower my backpack on a nylon cord,
and climb down. I am scrambling to get down lower. I am cowering near
the gully face when a gigantic explosion hits about five hundred feet
below and a hundred yards out from my wet, cold stance. The light is
so bright, I can see the bolt as an electric purple after image
with my eyes open. I jump in a complete panic and scream. Gotta get
down. Then I find a place that is more secure, less exposed and I pull
out an ensolite pad and sit on it, and try to relax. I can't relax. I
try to light a cigarette and it just crumbles in my shaking fingers. I
am quivering like an animal about to be slaughtered. The smell of
ozone is extreme, like cooked relays.
I can't sit still, so I try to get down slowly,... Another smaller
bolt cuts loose like a mortar exploding below, leaving a smoking spot
on wet rocks. Several more strikes below, with long standing
branches. More steam and ozone, more jumping and screaming, more
creepy crawly feelings. More icy rain and hale that I barely feel.
Finally get off the steep cliff and race to a low ravine. The worst of
the storm is over. In the distance some other hikers are standing
around a small fire drying off and chatting. (Long before prohibitions
against wood fires, early seventies)
Never been more scared in my entire life, or scared for so long. It
must have more than two or three hours of terror. When I finally look
at my watch, it is well after three. The day is over, as if it never
happened.
And oof again.
--funny
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller
shoes to fill. AL
And another foot[s] of snow.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:24:09 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman
<landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Don Lay. Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at
a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it
was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes
and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton. Thought can
BE funny. Thought can DO funny things (incl "funnies"). Zum bei-spiel,
spiel being (doing) "play": Take, for example, Pedro -- one Predro. That
is ("one") thought right there. Then Carreno, "another". Minister is a
thought, too. So is venezuelan. Many thought, folks, many, munch. I,
another yet, wants to focus on this, tho: The throught for one Pedro to
do revolution AND to do luxury goods at the same time. Now, this is A
thought..... No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to
fry, smaller shoes to fill. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV
without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes....
- realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/24b0ec03/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 14:43:40 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 14:49:29 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
In-Reply-To: <20071216.081225.3184.38.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071216.081225.3184.38.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W3333C9E31AC681B747F70DC610@phx.gbl>
Naming plays its oldest game.Somehow out of reach it dancesnine dances to itself. Nine dances
all in couples made of three.
And if we do not leave our light
we will be eaten by it long
before it shines and dies again
so leave our light alone to be.
Run apple certainties under
the spout, what memories they
bind in cankered onion light
from lullabies of thunder.
And we are leaves as always,
fallen from the sunburn tree.
Till shame and calamine find us
shovelling blossom snow
Before the no, before the go,
before the be became, we will
become before the sun
has ever been born below.
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:12:20 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poemFrom: ae.dropper@juno.com
Naming plays games with itself.Somewhere out of reach it dancesnine dances by itself
in "couples" made of three.
And if we do not leave our light
we will be eaten by it long
before it shines and dies again
so leave our light alone.
Run apple certainties under
the spout, what memories they
bind in cankered onion light
from lampshades worn as hats.
And we are leaves as always,
fallen from the sunburn tree.
Till shade and calamine find us
shovelling a foot of snow
before the plows
before the dogs....
before the rain and sleet
will come
before the sun
was even born
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:14:42 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: Word music Improvisation. Have a great day, everybody.
On Dec 16, 2007 4:13 AM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Naming plays games with itself.Somewhere out of reach it dancesnine dances by itself.
And if we do not leave our light
we will be eaten by it long
before it shines.
Run apple certainties under
the spout, what memories they
bind in cankered light.
And we are leaves as always,
fallen from the sunburn tree.
Till shade and calamine find us.
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:39:03 -0500
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our poem
what? (Rob)
the naming plays with itselfsomewhere out of reach of the dance itself.
do our leaves
get eaten by light
before they fall?
we certainly have
to be careful of
skin cancer
and light!
previously,
it was sunburn.
we aren't leaves.
one size
doesn't fit all.
funni, rob, irene
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:48:56 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
what?
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:54:42 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2I: We certainly have to be careful of skin cancer and light! Previously, it was sunburn. We aren't leaves. One size doesn't fit all.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:51 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
do our leaves get eaten by light before they fall?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2From: ae.dropper@juno.com
DIALOGUE DANCEA dialogue circle of trees, dancing treeswe do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woodswith the light filtering through our autumn leavesand we are dancing - our roots are our feet and our millions of toes, dancing.A wind comes and some of our leaves fallfrom some of our fingers, our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,one explication for every implicationour roots hidden, unknown but known constantly as thatwhich ever refuses namingwhile the naming plays with itselfsomewhere out of reach of the dance itself. -- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT to: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per- son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon " >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt". From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this viewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet, >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with >our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch'). I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes. So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia--
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/6a5dcfb3/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sun Dec 16 14:51:54 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sun Dec 16 14:57:44 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <20071216.084716.3184.42.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <14597.75914.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
o _ _ _ k
http://tinyurl.com/232orj
f _ _ _ i
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
A piece of writing to end all reading.
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:33:33 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Here is a description of the strangest organism I ever had. It was
inspired by the idea of women doing leg lifts in a roman
chair. Extreme exertion. Now add cold, electricity and fear...
Scene. Mountains. After a few hours of hiking to well over twelve
thousand feet, cross country, (from Big Pine, Fifth Lake to Jigsaw
pass eastside, Sierra Neveda), the sky getting darker and darker as
vast thunderheads roil over the high remote pass that over looks
Bishop Pass just at mid-day. Cold wind blowing. Hadn't seen anybody
for hours---been up and hiking since early morning. Place looks like
some desolate scene in Prometheus Bound, in the Caucasus. Here is
the view looking back at the descent: Look::
I stop to figure out how to descend. The cliff at the edge is steep,
and just barely angled back enough to carefully pick my way down third
class about seven hundred of feet of various gullies with scree to a high
plateau and Bishop pass below with the regular trail to Dusy
Basin. The veiw is spectacular, wind rushing up the face.
Very scary. I am standing at the pass looking down. Wind blowing,
darkness at noon. Suddenly all my skin is tingling, crawling like I
was afraid, or something. Weird electric things are dancing around my
balls and pubic hair. I can't stand it, and open my pants to pee or
something. I try peeing. Nothing. My penis seems to be crawling around
on its own, semi-hard. I realize I am having an organism and a wad of
cum splats out on the rocks.
Never seen that before. Now I am really freaked out. All my hair is
standing on end and ant-like electric charges are crawling all over
me. I finally figure it out. I am in a extreme electrically charged
area, and lightening is going to strike here. The potentials are
building up. I am right in the middle of an electric storm.
God almighty. I just slide down the first fifty feet into the steep
gully, almost straight down into a series of corners and drops. I
can't get down one section, so I lower my backpack on a nylon cord,
and climb down. I am scrambling to get down lower. I am cowering near
the gully face when a gigantic explosion hits about five hundred feet
below and a hundred yards out from my wet, cold stance. The light is
so bright, I can see the bolt as an electric purple after image
with my eyes open. I jump in a complete panic and scream. Gotta get
down. Then I find a place that is more secure, less exposed and I pull
out an ensolite pad and sit on it, and try to relax. I can't relax. I
try to light a cigarette and it just crumbles in my shaking fingers. I
am quivering like an animal about to be slaughtered. The smell of
ozone is extreme, like cooked relays.
I can't sit still, so I try to get down slowly,... Another smaller
bolt cuts loose like a mortar exploding below, leaving a smoking spot
on wet rocks. Several more strikes below, with long standing
branches. More steam and ozone, more jumping and screaming, more
creepy crawly feelings. More icy rain and hale that I barely feel.
Finally get off the steep cliff and race to a low ravine. The worst of
the storm is over. In the distance some other hikers are standing
around a small fire drying off and chatting. (Long before prohibitions
against wood fires, early seventies)
Never been more scared in my entire life, or scared for so long. It
must have more than two or three hours of terror. When I finally look
at my watch, it is well after three. The day is over, as if it never
happened.
And oof again.
--funny
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller shoes to fill. AL
And another foot[s] of snow.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:24:09 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Don Lay. Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton. Thought can BE funny. Thought can DO funny things (incl "funnies"). Zum bei-spiel, spiel being (doing) "play": Take, for example, Pedro -- one Predro. That is ("one") thought right there. Then Carreno, "another". Minister is a thought, too. So is venezuelan. Many thought, folks, many, munch. I, another yet, wants to focus on this, tho: The throught for one Pedro to do revolution AND to do luxury goods at the same time. Now, this is A thought..... No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller shoes to fill. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes.... - realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/fc8d6104/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 15:05:12 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 15:07:05 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Assumptions and Improvisation
Message-ID: <20071216.090526.3184.45.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I can feel those final grains of self aggrandizement
flying out of my pores from the morning readings..
But alas - never say final.
"Final" is only the beginning
of the next layer of subtlety
of these glorifications of me.
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:53:53 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
DF's last post on this topic yesterday contained so many enfolded,
implied - most likely unintentionally - assumptions, that to answer
him, it would take the kind of in depth work a music historian and
musicologist could turn into a doctoral dissertation. However, for
starters, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_improvisation
It compares jazz and classical improvisation traditions.
The invention of the printing press, and the cultural assumptions of
European society had a great deal to do with relegating the genius of the
likes of Bach to the category of the disrespect it has-had for oral
tradition.
In the Wiki article, Eric Barnhill is mentioned. He is a fellow
Dalcrozian, and studied with my Dalcroze teacher. He has his own website
with original audio samples. Not mentioned is David Darling, cellist,
and his organization Music for People whose purpose is to bring
improvisation in all musical genres back to the people. Music for People
can also be Googled. His workshops are attended by many, and are
presented world wide. Neither is mentioned Paul Winter, currently in
residence at St john the Divine here in NYC. I've attended many
beautiful improvisation concerts of his. He is in a stylistic category
of his own. And a recent acquaintance of mine whose name I'd have to go
pull up whose ensemble, The Mad Coyote (I think it's called) can be
Googled and who performs in various venues. Just recently here in the
Village.
Classical musicians are rising up in revolt!
In closing, let me say that I have been working on this for many years.
Have done a lot of research, and have studied a great many 'methods',
both jazz and classical, and some Indian. As I teach myself, I'm putting
together my own 'method' that integrates what I consider to be the best
of jazz and classical approaches, and intend to include Salsa, if I live
that long!
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/16a8da30/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Dec 16 15:09:09 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Dec 16 15:10:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
Message-ID: <20071216.090913.3184.47.ae.dropper@juno.com>
funny doesn't web.
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:51:54 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
o _ _ _ k
http://tinyurl.com/232orj
f _ _ _ i
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
A piece of writing to end all reading.
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:33:33 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Here is a description of the strangest organism I ever had. It was
inspired by the idea of women doing leg lifts in a roman
chair. Extreme exertion. Now add cold, electricity and fear...
Scene. Mountains. After a few hours of hiking to well over twelve
thousand feet, cross country, (from Big Pine, Fifth Lake to Jigsaw
pass eastside, Sierra Neveda), the sky getting darker and darker as
vast thunderheads roil over the high remote pass that over looks
Bishop Pass just at mid-day. Cold wind blowing. Hadn't seen anybody
for hours---been up and hiking since early morning. Place looks like
some desolate scene in Prometheus Bound, in the Caucasus. Here is
the view looking back at the descent: Look::
I stop to figure out how to descend. The cliff at the edge is steep,
and just barely angled back enough to carefully pick my way down third
class about seven hundred of feet of various gullies with scree to a high
plateau and Bishop pass below with the regular trail to Dusy
Basin. The veiw is spectacular, wind rushing up the face.
Very scary. I am standing at the pass looking down. Wind blowing,
darkness at noon. Suddenly all my skin is tingling, crawling like I
was afraid, or something. Weird electric things are dancing around my
balls and pubic hair. I can't stand it, and open my pants to pee or
something. I try peeing. Nothing. My penis seems to be crawling around
on its own, semi-hard. I realize I am having an organism and a wad of
cum splats out on the rocks.
Never seen that before. Now I am really freaked out. All my hair is
standing on end and ant-like electric charges are crawling all over
me. I finally figure it out. I am in a extreme electrically charged
area, and lightening is going to strike here. The potentials are
building up. I am right in the middle of an electric storm.
God almighty. I just slide down the first fifty feet into the steep
gully, almost straight down into a series of corners and drops. I
can't get down one section, so I lower my backpack on a nylon cord,
and climb down. I am scrambling to get down lower. I am cowering near
the gully face when a gigantic explosion hits about five hundred feet
below and a hundred yards out from my wet, cold stance. The light is
so bright, I can see the bolt as an electric purple after image
with my eyes open. I jump in a complete panic and scream. Gotta get
down. Then I find a place that is more secure, less exposed and I pull
out an ensolite pad and sit on it, and try to relax. I can't relax. I
try to light a cigarette and it just crumbles in my shaking fingers. I
am quivering like an animal about to be slaughtered. The smell of
ozone is extreme, like cooked relays.
I can't sit still, so I try to get down slowly,... Another smaller
bolt cuts loose like a mortar exploding below, leaving a smoking spot
on wet rocks. Several more strikes below, with long standing
branches. More steam and ozone, more jumping and screaming, more
creepy crawly feelings. More icy rain and hale that I barely feel.
Finally get off the steep cliff and race to a low ravine. The worst of
the storm is over. In the distance some other hikers are standing
around a small fire drying off and chatting. (Long before prohibitions
against wood fires, early seventies)
Never been more scared in my entire life, or scared for so long. It
must have more than two or three hours of terror. When I finally look
at my watch, it is well after three. The day is over, as if it never
happened.
And oof again.
--funny
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller
shoes to fill. AL
And another foot[s] of snow.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:24:09 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman
<landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Don Lay. Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at
a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it
was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes
and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton. Thought can
BE funny. Thought can DO funny things (incl "funnies"). Zum bei-spiel,
spiel being (doing) "play": Take, for example, Pedro -- one Predro. That
is ("one") thought right there. Then Carreno, "another". Minister is a
thought, too. So is venezuelan. Many thought, folks, many, munch. I,
another yet, wants to focus on this, tho: The throught for one Pedro to
do revolution AND to do luxury goods at the same time. Now, this is A
thought..... No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to
fry, smaller shoes to fill. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV
without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes....
- realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/9e516c41/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sun Dec 16 15:35:35 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sun Dec 16 15:41:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <20071216.090913.3184.47.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <126804.15483.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
funnydoesntweb@juno.com = funni
f~~~i @ http://www.upgrade-cepis.org/issues/2007/2/upg-8-2Presentation-F1.png
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
funny doesn't web.
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:51:54 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
o _ _ _ k
http://tinyurl.com/232orj
f _ _ _ i
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
A piece of writing to end all reading.
-- funny
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:33:33 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Here is a description of the strangest organism I ever had. It was
inspired by the idea of women doing leg lifts in a roman
chair. Extreme exertion. Now add cold, electricity and fear...
Scene. Mountains. After a few hours of hiking to well over twelve
thousand feet, cross country, (from Big Pine, Fifth Lake to Jigsaw
pass eastside, Sierra Neveda), the sky getting darker and darker as
vast thunderheads roil over the high remote pass that over looks
Bishop Pass just at mid-day. Cold wind blowing. Hadn't seen anybody
for hours---been up and hiking since early morning. Place looks like
some desolate scene in Prometheus Bound, in the Caucasus. Here is
the view looking back at the descent: Look::
I stop to figure out how to descend. The cliff at the edge is steep,
and just barely angled back enough to carefully pick my way down third
class about seven hundred of feet of various gullies with scree to a high
plateau and Bishop pass below with the regular trail to Dusy
Basin. The veiw is spectacular, wind rushing up the face.
Very scary. I am standing at the pass looking down. Wind blowing,
darkness at noon. Suddenly all my skin is tingling, crawling like I
was afraid, or something. Weird electric things are dancing around my
balls and pubic hair. I can't stand it, and open my pants to pee or
something. I try peeing. Nothing. My penis seems to be crawling around
on its own, semi-hard. I realize I am having an organism and a wad of
cum splats out on the rocks.
Never seen that before. Now I am really freaked out. All my hair is
standing on end and ant-like electric charges are crawling all over
me. I finally figure it out. I am in a extreme electrically charged
area, and lightening is going to strike here. The potentials are
building up. I am right in the middle of an electric storm.
God almighty. I just slide down the first fifty feet into the steep
gully, almost straight down into a series of corners and drops. I
can't get down one section, so I lower my backpack on a nylon cord,
and climb down. I am scrambling to get down lower. I am cowering near
the gully face when a gigantic explosion hits about five hundred feet
below and a hundred yards out from my wet, cold stance. The light is
so bright, I can see the bolt as an electric purple after image
with my eyes open. I jump in a complete panic and scream. Gotta get
down. Then I find a place that is more secure, less exposed and I pull
out an ensolite pad and sit on it, and try to relax. I can't relax. I
try to light a cigarette and it just crumbles in my shaking fingers. I
am quivering like an animal about to be slaughtered. The smell of
ozone is extreme, like cooked relays.
I can't sit still, so I try to get down slowly,... Another smaller
bolt cuts loose like a mortar exploding below, leaving a smoking spot
on wet rocks. Several more strikes below, with long standing
branches. More steam and ozone, more jumping and screaming, more
creepy crawly feelings. More icy rain and hale that I barely feel.
Finally get off the steep cliff and race to a low ravine. The worst of
the storm is over. In the distance some other hikers are standing
around a small fire drying off and chatting. (Long before prohibitions
against wood fires, early seventies)
Never been more scared in my entire life, or scared for so long. It
must have more than two or three hours of terror. When I finally look
at my watch, it is well after three. The day is over, as if it never
happened.
And oof again.
--funny
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller shoes to fill. AL
And another foot[s] of snow.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:24:09 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Don Lay. Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton. Thought can BE funny. Thought can DO funny things (incl "funnies"). Zum bei-spiel, spiel being (doing) "play": Take, for example, Pedro -- one Predro. That is ("one") thought right there. Then Carreno, "another". Minister is a thought, too. So is venezuelan. Many thought, folks, many, munch. I, another yet, wants to focus on this, tho: The throught for one Pedro to do revolution AND to do luxury goods at the same time. Now, this is A thought..... No time (a thought, too) to pursue this now. Bigger fish to fry, smaller shoes to fill. AL
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Is it necessity that a POV be identified?
Is it necessity that POV be personified? Is there such a thing as a POV without identity? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
It is (a bit) like with those tricki POVs:
The more you can get (keep!) up (& down!!), the wilder the "ride" (trip)
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3k3
-- funny
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Well you had me fooled. Talk about acting and pretending.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes.... - realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/146daaa2/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sun Dec 16 20:36:38 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sun Dec 16 20:42:32 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Assumptions and Improvisation
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712160453q5d0112b2kdaed11b0a2da9398@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c47283890712160453q5d0112b2kdaed11b0a2da9398@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20739337-5807-446A-A370-DA2686551E14@dc.rr.com>
When I think of improvisation, I think of the collective
improvisation central to jazz, based on the chord and rhythm
progressions of a particular song that the group has begun playing. I
think of it as a musical dialogue. Individual improvisation is
something else. From what little I know about classical improvisation
it is simply composing at the piano or other instrument, inventing
variations on a pre-existing piece of music or making up a cadenza or
such and not writing it down. It is a very different category from
jazz improvisation in which each improvised section can never be
repeated. Almost anyone who plays an instrument can and does
improvise in this sense. It is usually called doodling. I am not much
of a pianist, but many times, just for fun, I have played around at
the piano in this way, and occasionally have come up with stuff that
sounded pretty good. Anyway, to me, all improvisation is based on
some pre-existing score or theme.but what impresses me most is that
jazz musicians seem to be able to do it together aaaand to come up
with something fresh and new each time they take off on the same
piece. That it, the good ones can do it. I have yet to hear of
collective classical improvisation. But maybe you could point me to
some.
don
don
On Dec 16, 2007, at 4:53 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> DF's last post on this topic yesterday contained so many enfolded,
> implied - most likely unintentionally - assumptions, that to
> answer him, it would take the kind of in depth work a music
> historian and musicologist could turn into a doctoral
> dissertation. However, for starters, see
>
> http://en.wikipedia.Sorg/wiki/Musical_improvisation
>
> It compares jazz and classical improvisation traditions.
>
> The invention of the printing press, and the cultural assumptions
> of European society had a great deal to do with relegating the
> genius of the likes of Bach to the category of the disrespect it
> has-had for oral tradition.
>
> In the Wiki article, Eric Barnhill is mentioned. He is a fellow
> Dalcrozian, and studied with my Dalcroze teacher. He has his own
> website with original audio samples. Not mentioned is David
> Darling, cellist, and his organization Music for People whose
> purpose is to bring improvisation in all musical genres back to the
> people. Music for People can also be Googled. His workshops are
> attended by many, and are presented world wide. Neither is
> mentioned Paul Winter, currently in residence at St john the Divine
> here in NYC. I've attended many beautiful improvisation concerts
> of his. He is in a stylistic category of his own. And a recent
> acquaintance of mine whose name I'd have to go pull up whose
> ensemble, The Mad Coyote (I think it's called) can be Googled and
> who performs in various venues. Just recently here in the Village.
> Classical musicians are rising up in revolt!
>
> In closing, let me say that I have been working on this for many
> years. Have done a lot of research, and have studied a great many
> 'methods', both jazz and classical, and some Indian. As I teach
> myself, I'm putting together my own 'method' that integrates what I
> consider to be the best of jazz and classical approaches, and
> intend to include Salsa, if I live that long!
>
> --
> Irene
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/73867749/attachment.html
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Sun Dec 16 21:57:16 2007
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Sun Dec 16 22:03:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
Message-ID: <BLU109-W40FE06935818AAAA01465FB7610@phx.gbl>
In the attached article, the author writes, ?in the 'implicate' order ere is no space, time, causality, matter, or mind.? (Note: I am guessing ?ere? is a typo for ?there?.)
In the implicate order there is no space, time, causality, matter, or mind. ?? Is this statement true?
Regina
??
Consciousness and sufism: A new paradigm for western scientists
R.A.Haag (331 West Colonial Highway, Hamilton, VA 20158, USA)
Scientists seeking to understand 'consciousness' appear to ignore colleagues who say that the qualities ascribed to external reality only dwell within us and that what we conceive of as 'reality' is enfolded in human consciousness. Reality is a manifestation of our thoughts and not a property of the external world, but involves our presence as conscious observers. The universe achieves a concrete existence as a result of our perceptions. Our concept of the reality created by our brain and senses cause us not only to misunderstand consciousness, but render us unable even to imagine what it might be.
Neuroscientists are just beginning to examine the misapprehensions of our senses and how these lead us to act and think as though we have an accurate understanding of consciousness. However we may perceive reality in the waking state of consciousness, it is not the autonomous separate 'things' our senses behold. Pribram and Bohm's holographic analog for the 'implicate' order beyond our senses illustrates how reality is an illusion. They argue that our minds not only enfold matter, but our bodies and the entire material universe as well and that the cosmos, matter, life, and consciousness itself are all projections of 'the ground of all that is', in ways which scientists have yet to discover, though Pribram speculates that the mystics may have discovered a way to see the implicate order, by learning how to 'abrogate the brain's retrieval systems and neuroelectrical codes.' Such scientific speculations challenge many cherished concepts, including language itself, because in the 'implicate' order ere is no space, time, causality, matter, or mind.
Because human thought is a by-product of our brain and senses, it is ever changing and limited and, thus, the Sufis say that the old subject-verb-object paradigm is not a valid paradigm for scientists to understand ultimate questions. Our sensory prison and language cause us to live on the surface of things and to not be aware of absolute reality. To understand consciousness, scientists must learn a totally different paradigm. Instead of always trying to satisfy themselves by studying the natural world, scientists must come to learn how to investigate inwardly. They must stop equating sensory experiences with true knowledge, which can be acquired only by directly cognizing infinite existence through focusing attention and energy on a specific point in the heart to activate a hitherto unsuspected capacity or 'knowing'. Knowing humanity in all its hidden dimensions must be the fundamental principle for all endeavors in science and religion. Sufism, the science of Self-knowledge, is the tradition Pribram thought might exist to teach humanity how to abrogate the brain to behold the implicate order.
The Sufis say that both true science and true religion are but reciprocal stages of the same search for truth about existence itself. One focuses on what we take to be the 'outer', the other on 'inner' reality, but these are simply artificial boundaries created by our 'feeling' mind. To know the unity underlying science and religion, the reality of existence, requires a different paradigm--heart consciousness. And, Sufism is that reality.
Source:
http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Tucson/5.htm
05.02-- Abstract No:824
_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/5bc95e26/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Sun Dec 16 22:14:42 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Sun Dec 16 22:20:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
References: <BLU109-W40FE06935818AAAA01465FB7610@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <009a01c84028$ae324a20$3377480c@HOME>
I would say there is definitely mind. Although it might not be what you and I would call mind.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Regina Bensch-Coe
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
In the attached article, the author writes, ?in the 'implicate' order ere is no space, time, causality, matter, or mind.? (Note: I am guessing ?ere? is a typo for ?there?.)
In the implicate order there is no space, time, causality, matter, or mind. ?? Is this statement true?
Regina
??
Consciousness and sufism: A new paradigm for western scientists
R.A.Haag (331 West Colonial Highway, Hamilton, VA 20158, USA)
Scientists seeking to understand 'consciousness' appear to ignore colleagues who say that the qualities ascribed to external reality only dwell within us and that what we conceive of as 'reality' is enfolded in human consciousness. Reality is a manifestation of our thoughts and not a property of the external world, but involves our presence as conscious observers. The universe achieves a concrete existence as a result of our perceptions. Our concept of the reality created by our brain and senses cause us not only to misunderstand consciousness, but render us unable even to imagine what it might be.
Neuroscientists are just beginning to examine the misapprehensions of our senses and how these lead us to act and think as though we have an accurate understanding of consciousness. However we may perceive reality in the waking state of consciousness, it is not the autonomous separate 'things' our senses behold. Pribram and Bohm's holographic analog for the 'implicate' order beyond our senses illustrates how reality is an illusion. They argue that our minds not only enfold matter, but our bodies and the entire material universe as well and that the cosmos, matter, life, and consciousness itself are all projections of 'the ground of all that is', in ways which scientists have yet to discover, though Pribram speculates that the mystics may have discovered a way to see the implicate order, by learning how to 'abrogate the brain's retrieval systems and neuroelectrical codes.' Such scientific speculations challenge many cherished concepts, including language itself, because in the 'implicate' order ere is no space, time, causality, matter, or mind.
Because human thought is a by-product of our brain and senses, it is ever changing and limited and, thus, the Sufis say that the old subject-verb-object paradigm is not a valid paradigm for scientists to understand ultimate questions. Our sensory prison and language cause us to live on the surface of things and to not be aware of absolute reality. To understand consciousness, scientists must learn a totally different paradigm. Instead of always trying to satisfy themselves by studying the natural world, scientists must come to learn how to investigate inwardly. They must stop equating sensory experiences with true knowledge, which can be acquired only by directly cognizing infinite existence through focusing attention and energy on a specific point in the heart to activate a hitherto unsuspected capacity or 'knowing'. Knowing humanity in all its hidden dimensions must be the fundamental principle for all endeavors in science and religion. Sufism, the science of Self-knowledge, is the tradition Pribram thought might exist to teach humanity how to abrogate the brain to behold the implicate order.
The Sufis say that both true science and true religion are but reciprocal stages of the same search for truth about existence itself. One focuses on what we take to be the 'outer', the other on 'inner' reality, but these are simply artificial boundaries created by our 'feeling' mind. To know the unity underlying science and religion, the reality of existence, requires a different paradigm--heart consciousness. And, Sufism is that reality.
Source:
http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Tucson/5.htm
05.02-- Abstract No:824
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/e33bbb62/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Sun Dec 16 23:17:58 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Sun Dec 16 23:23:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
In-Reply-To: <009a01c84028$ae324a20$3377480c@HOME>
References: <BLU109-W40FE06935818AAAA01465FB7610@phx.gbl>
<009a01c84028$ae324a20$3377480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W2028A87A3370F0B33650FBDC610@phx.gbl>
there is asking and saying at any rate
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate OrderDate: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:14:42 -0700
I would say there is definitely mind. Although it might not be what you and I would call mind.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Regina Bensch-Coe
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
In the attached article, the author writes, ?in the 'implicate' order ere is no space, time, causality, matter, or mind.? (Note: I am guessing ?ere? is a typo for ?there?.) In the implicate order there is no space, time, causality, matter, or mind. ?? Is this statement true? Regina??Consciousness and sufism: A new paradigm for western scientistsR.A.Haag (331 West Colonial Highway, Hamilton, VA 20158, USA)Scientists seeking to understand 'consciousness' appear to ignore colleagues who say that the qualities ascribed to external reality only dwell within us and that what we conceive of as 'reality' is enfolded in human consciousness. Reality is a manifestation of our thoughts and not a property of the external world, but involves our presence as conscious observers. The universe achieves a concrete existence as a result of our perceptions. Our concept of the reality created by our brain and senses cause us not only to misunderstand consciousness, but render us unable even to imagine what it might be.Neuroscientists are just beginning to examine the misapprehensions of our senses and how these lead us to act and think as though we have an accurate understanding of consciousness. However we may perceive reality in the waking state of consciousness, it is not the autonomous separate 'things' our senses behold. Pribram and Bohm's holographic analog for the 'implicate' order beyond our senses illustrates how reality is an illusion. They argue that our minds not only enfold matter, but our bodies and the entire material universe as well and that the cosmos, matter, life, and consciousness itself are all projections of 'the ground of all that is', in ways which scientists have yet to discover, though Pribram speculates that the mystics may have discovered a way to see the implicate order, by learning how to 'abrogate the brain's retrieval systems and neuroelectrical codes.' Such scientific speculations challenge many cherished concepts, including language itself, because in the 'implicate' order ere is no space, time, causality, matter, or mind.Because human thought is a by-product of our brain and senses, it is ever changing and limited and, thus, the Sufis say that the old subject-verb-object paradigm is not a valid paradigm for scientists to understand ultimate questions. Our sensory prison and language cause us to live on the surface of things and to not be aware of absolute reality. To understand consciousness, scientists must learn a totally different paradigm. Instead of always trying to satisfy themselves by studying the natural world, scientists must come to learn how to investigate inwardly. They must stop equating sensory experiences with true knowledge, which can be acquired only by directly cognizing infinite existence through focusing attention and energy on a specific point in the heart to activate a hitherto unsuspected capacity or 'knowing'. Knowing humanity in all its hidden dimensions must be the fundamental principle for all endeavors in science and religion. Sufism, the science of Self-knowledge, is the tradition Pribram thought might exist to teach humanity how to abrogate the brain to behold the implicate order.The Sufis say that both true science and true religion are but reciprocal stages of the same search for truth about existence itself. One focuses on what we take to be the 'outer', the other on 'inner' reality, but these are simply artificial boundaries created by our 'feeling' mind. To know the unity underlying science and religion, the reality of existence, requires a different paradigm--heart consciousness. And, Sufism is that reality. Source:http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Tucson/5.htm05.02-- Abstract No:824
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071216/d57ba3f8/attachment.html