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