From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 16 00:14:52 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 17 01:20:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <013101c708ef$ecfc9290$d478480c@HOME>
References: <20061115.112739.2144.81.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<00e101c708d5$d5e50200$d478480c@HOME>
<5ABA5113-C97B-4D65-BB3E-E1A7912A16C9@dc.rr.com>
<013101c708ef$ecfc9290$d478480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <34B76C37-8BDB-4974-915C-E71DD11DC26B@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> For me, beliefs were simply not involved in this, it was simply a
> matter of fact for me.
But isn't that what beliefs are to the person who holds the belief -
just a matter of fact?
I do take your point about tribal people using war for different
purposes than we do and that
they do not necessarily involve anger or hate. But it is interesting
how anger and hate have since
become attached to the idea that there is a necessity to engage in
battle.
When I say "we" here I mean, culturally.
But taking this back to the reasons for feeling an emotion, I didn't
mean to imply that there were valid
reasons. The reason, to use one of Bohm's favorite neologisms was
part of a process he called "felts".
Felts are feeling that reside in memory and are called up when some
similar situation occurs that may
or may not require that emotion, but the reflex calls forth the felt.
So, we have thoughts and felts, that
appear to us as present thinking and feeling but on reflection are not.
BTW, the exercise you described is one that has been used in acting
schools for years. You use your
memory to call up the required emotional state, but you do this
consciously.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/26414bd5/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 16 00:21:10 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 17 01:26:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <C180CE5F.8084%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
References: <C180CE5F.8084%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <2342C0B6-90AF-4280-B596-6ECAA435D86E@dc.rr.com>
Yes, but that "have to be" is not the only thing. For instance, often
I will write a post and then when I read it over I find myself
saying to myself that it was either clever or witty or wise, and the
endorphins will flow for a bit as they are doing right now. But there
are other times when I know that I am having difficulties and that I
have to take the risk of appearing foolish and pretty stupid, which
doesn't do much for the endorphin flow, at least not immediately. But
having survived the feared outcome, and perhaps having gained a
little cup full of meaning, the pleasure returns. So there is that too.
don
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Lynne Tolk wrote:
> Maybe it?s not so much the ?rightness? as the degree of ?have to
> be? attached to it. I remember an anthro course, long ago, where
> we studied a couple of African societies, separated by a mountain.
> One society had very flexible roles and was extremely peaceful ?
> rape and murder didn?t happen and they did not go off looking for
> war. The other had rigid role stereotypes, rape and murder were
> commonplace and war was a given. It impressed me so much I still
> remember it.
>
> Lynne
>
> On 11/15/06 1:03 PM, "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the "I have to be right" thought is a key. I think it may
>> underly just about all the painful thoughts/actions that are
>> initiated everyday and everywhere. I can easily figure out where
>> it came from - school, parents, etc. - but is it possible that
>> this has always been the case? Did tribal people in ancient times
>> have to be right? I mean, there is both a personal and cultural
>> level to this kind of thought.
>>
>> On re-reading the above it may also cause similar effects with
>> pleasurable emotions. lIke "I am right" or "I have been proved
>> right," etc.
>>
>> Whatever, rightness seems very important, Somehow it also seems
>> to relate to Good and Evil. Rightness and Wrongness.
>>
>> don
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/50b2c65d/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Thu Nov 16 00:21:27 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Fri Nov 17 01:26:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <20061115232127.62577.qmail@web52910.mail.yahoo.com>
I am cutting and pasting some lines from Susan's message and putting my replies into them.
Susan: Hi Gill. Yes, I'm enjoying this conversation immensely and feel very grateful to have someone who is willing to stay with the process.
Kari: I am enjoying this with you all!
Susan: So, how to do that? I decided that for me, intimacy happens when I am able to be what I think of as "authentically me".
Kari: Yeah! Being who we are without fear...is great freedom. That is what we all want I think. To confidently and easily just be ourselves, whatever that may be. It is important to come in contact with people who support this in various ways if we are too be happy.
Susan: For me, that involves being willing to spontaneously put myself out there as openly and honestly as possible. To allow myself to respond to things in a way that shows who I am in the moment warts and all. And it also means allowing others to have what ever
response to me that feels right to them......
Kari: Susan!!! This is beautiful. I think that by being ourselves and allowing others to do the same is very powerful and necessary for peace. It is obvious how wonderful it is on the explicate level...on another level, I think when each of us enacts Being in this way, it creates morphogenic fields or does something similar, therefore energetically making it easier for others to relax into who they are. This is so cool! I am really excited to read these words that you typed.
Susan: For me, what's happened is that my ideas of intimacy have changed. I now feel intimately connected to people in a very different way and with people that I never would have dreamed that I could have felt intimate with.
Kari: I was marveling at the depth of whatever it is that is occurring between this group via email just last night and having a similar thought/feeling.
Susan: And I would like to thank you for finally sharing what your perspectives are and for putting yourself out there.
Kari: Thank you both/all!
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:27:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
As I've said before, when I approach this subject I start with Bohm's idea of people being able to discuss what's important to them. I also think of the idea of personal responsibility. So, from there, I come to ideas about the feeling of warmth, connection, and understanding. In my exploration of my own thoughts and assumptions I've learned that for me, all of those ideas have a common connection with the idea of intimacy. So, I've discovered that when I'm looking for those things in my relationships with other people what's important to me is intimacy. And I came to the decision that if that's what's important to me and I'm going to walk my talk of taking personal responsibility then I'm the one who has to create the intimacy I'm looking for. I also came to the conclusion that, again, if I'm going to walk my talk, I can not decide for other people that intimacy "should" be what's important to them. It has to be ok with me for other things to be more important to
them.
...and then staying with the process as long as they are willing, to see where that takes us. So I learned to let go of having any expectations of how others were going to respond to me.
In the process of trying this for some time here on this list and also on other lists that I belong to I have come to the tentative conclusion that perhaps the kind of understanding I used to look for may not be possible. But I've also discovered that it may not be as important as I used to think it was and I would say that at this point, I don't think it is a necessity.
And I'm not sure how to describe that so maybe I will have to leave that for another post when I've had more time to think about it.
Oh yes, I rarely feel disappointed with other people's response to me now although I do feel frustration at times and I welcome that feeling of frustration because I know that it's going to take me somewhere new and exciting.
There is much more in your post that's worth exploring for me but I think this is enough for me for now.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Gill Wyatt
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Hi Susan,
I?m understanding our differences I think and coming to respect my stance and yours.
For me when I talk about ?understanding my points? I?m referring to simply understanding what I say ... Its interesting ... You pick up on the word ?point? and it becomes ?get my point? whereas for me what was most important was ?understanding?. Are these the same? Perhaps it doesn?t matter.
But yes for me Its about talking (well writing here!!) and listening and it does seem important to understand what has been written ... Doesn?t dialogue occur from this close listening to each other and taking off the assumptions? ... Do we not need understanding ... And I would go further, from my stance in life I value empathy highly. To truly understand the other and be understood is such a gift. Mmm I?m re-reading my post before sending and I?m realising that there is more here ... I think I look for ?warmth? or maybe simply some ?sense of recognition? as well. I obviously don?t expect to find it but I think there might have been something of this here.
And I know that I do feel disappointed when that doesn?t occur. So yes I think I wanted to feel a warm understanding from you and of course I haven?t. Yet I do feel I have met an alive, interesting and vibrant woman.
I don?t think what we have been discussing is ?simply my way of interpreting? it seems to me that what we have been discussing is the meeting between ?my way of interpreting? AND ?your way of interpreting?. I?ve appreciated spending this time rediscovering the effect of my way of interpreting, the assumptions that are a part of who I am. I think you have also been saying that you have similarly been affirming who you are and what matters to you ... Is that not ?your way of interpreting?? ...
I can see what you mean by the ?us and them? in what Pat quoted. Yet I have witnessed this sort of process in so many groups. There are the ?helpers? or ?teachers? and those that need ?help? or ?teaching?. Over the years I have played both roles of this duality (maybe at the same time ... :-) !!). I know many of us don?t want to recreate that culture here but that sort of culture is embedded in the very air that we breath.
I do understand and agree when you say you are not responsible for my feelings and my interpretations ... Yet when we live in an interconnected universe and we need to take responsibility for our part for the state of the world on the grand scale and what we manifest in our personal lives on the smaller scale, I think it is so much more complex than what your statement infers.
Um ... I?m getting to enjoy this!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link
Compare mortgage rates for today.
Get up to 5 free quotes.
Www2.nextag.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/a4191a43/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 16 00:24:31 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 17 01:29:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <20061115.112739.2144.81.ae.dropper@juno.com><00e101c708d5$d5e50200$d478480c@HOME><5ABA5113-C97B-4D65-BB3E-E1A7912A16C9@dc.rr.com><013101c708ef$ecfc9290$d478480c@HOME>
<34B76C37-8BDB-4974-915C-E71DD11DC26B@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <016901c7090d$3803b3a0$d478480c@HOME>
I would say what actors do is not the same thing as I'm describing. Actors simply pull up a memory and get centered in it. Actors do not detach the emotion from the past event and then attach a new emotion (to the past and present events).
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
For me, beliefs were simply not involved in this, it was simply a matter of fact for me.
But isn't that what beliefs are to the person who holds the belief - just a matter of fact?
I do take your point about tribal people using war for different purposes than we do and that
they do not necessarily involve anger or hate. But it is interesting how anger and hate have since
become attached to the idea that there is a necessity to engage in battle.
When I say "we" here I mean, culturally.
But taking this back to the reasons for feeling an emotion, I didn't mean to imply that there were valid
reasons. The reason, to use one of Bohm's favorite neologisms was part of a process he called "felts".
Felts are feeling that reside in memory and are called up when some similar situation occurs that may
or may not require that emotion, but the reflex calls forth the felt. So, we have thoughts and felts, that
appear to us as present thinking and feeling but on reflection are not.
BTW, the exercise you described is one that has been used in acting schools for years. You use your
memory to call up the required emotional state, but you do this consciously.
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/93f68e69/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 16 00:35:48 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 17 01:41:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <016901c7090d$3803b3a0$d478480c@HOME>
References: <20061115.112739.2144.81.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<00e101c708d5$d5e50200$d478480c@HOME>
<5ABA5113-C97B-4D65-BB3E-E1A7912A16C9@dc.rr.com>
<013101c708ef$ecfc9290$d478480c@HOME>
<34B76C37-8BDB-4974-915C-E71DD11DC26B@dc.rr.com>
<016901c7090d$3803b3a0$d478480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <B62BE983-9BE7-4403-8398-12816A064124@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 15, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> I would say what actors do is not the same thing as I'm
> describing. Actors simply pull up a memory and get centered in
> it. Actors do not detach the emotion from the past event and then
> attach a new emotion (to the past and present events).
No, but that's just the difference between using the emotional memory
for another purpose and seeing that the emotion isn't really relevant
in the present circumstance. It's just using a similar idea for a
different purpose. What it does show is that much of our feeling
realm may actually be quite different from what we believe it
factually is.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/30d18c7e/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 16 00:54:37 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 17 01:59:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <20061115.112739.2144.81.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061115.112739.2144.81.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <6AC5D491-8645-46CD-9E97-6C3E02A7E051@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:27 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> We are nothing if not silly.
>
> pat
Thought you might like this. I am considering aking it my motto.
" nos es nusquam nisi leviculus "
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/7ceedde7/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Thu Nov 16 01:44:14 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Fri Nov 17 03:49:18 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <2342C0B6-90AF-4280-B596-6ECAA435D86E@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C181107E.8098%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
OK, but taking that risk, I think, requires some flexibility. Appearing
foolish may be unpleasant to you, and to some it may be devastating. I grew
up with the need to be right. I just tended to avoid those risks, but my
parents would get into some pretty nasty (verbal) battles.
Lynne
On 11/15/06 5:21 PM, "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> Yes, but that "have to be" is not the only thing. For instance, often I will
> write a post and then when I read it over I? find myself saying to myself that
> it was either clever or witty or wise, and the endorphins will flow for a bit
> as they are doing right now. But there are other times when I know that I am
> having difficulties and that I have to take the risk of appearing foolish and
> pretty stupid, which doesn't do much for the endorphin flow, at least not
> immediately. But having survived the feared outcome, and perhaps having gained
> a little cup full of meaning, the pleasure returns. So there is that too.
>
> don
>
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Lynne Tolk wrote:
>
>> Maybe it?s not so much the ?rightness? as the degree of ?have to be?
>> attached to it. ?I remember an anthro course, long ago, where we studied a
>> couple of African societies, separated by a mountain. ?One society had very
>> flexible roles and was extremely peaceful ? rape and murder didn?t happen and
>> they did not go off looking for war. ?The other had rigid role stereotypes,
>> rape and murder were commonplace and war was a given. ?It impressed me so
>> much I still remember it.
>>
>> Lynne
>>
>> On 11/15/06 1:03 PM, "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yes, the "I have to be right" thought is a key. I think it may underly just
>>> about all the painful thoughts/actions that are initiated everyday and
>>> everywhere.? I can easily figure out where it came from - school, parents,
>>> etc. - but is it possible that this has always been the case? Did tribal
>>> people in ancient times have to be right? I mean, there is both a personal
>>> and cultural level to this kind of thought.?
>>>
>>> On re-reading the above it may also cause similar effects with pleasurable
>>> emotions. lIke "I am right" or "I have been proved right," etc.
>>>
>>> Whatever, rightness seems very important,? Somehow it also seems to relate
>>> to Good and Evil. Rightness and Wrongness.
>>>
>>> don
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/f8945c95/attachment.html
From davidmillions at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 04:33:18 2006
From: davidmillions at gmail.com (David da Costa)
Date: Fri Nov 17 05:38:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Third post
Message-ID: <ed6f2a2c0611151933s43e47405k1d6d4c14876784a5@mail.gmail.com>
Understanding is not made of words. They pretend to translate the emotion
that rises upon us. Divided into card through which we gamble.
Conceiving a perspective for reality such as good, implies the subassumption
of an opposite or extreme, that will create a negative for the perspective,
in order to generate the patterns and purposes of the idea. To qualify it,
give it space and make it exist. Would we be capable of conceiving good
without bad? Perspective is a broken logic. It does not fit the whole of
reality. The uniqueness of each is imperative through the ambiguous plasma
and it?s unstepped plasticity. All and nothing infer. They are indisociable.
For human logics, reality is a paradox.
And a paradox perfection in god?s way.
Being is a vortice that unites past and future. The question answers, they
are one. This is my dog, I am his human.
If we are in evolution, is it logical to think that omnipotence is an
achievable adaptability? Or are we as close to total knowledge as we ever
were or will be?
(It gets sexual for some of the hardcore thinkers in this list. Beautiful.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061116/366d305b/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 16 04:51:16 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 17 05:57:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] No Dialogue, Chap 2, p. 20 & 21
Message-ID: <20061115.225117.2144.83.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Still in the process of correcting the scanned material from On Dialogue
for the new reading group. Here's some of it where anger is mentioned.
"We have been saying that people in any group will bring to it their
assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will
come up. Then what is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that
you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor
do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad. Normally
when you are angry you start to react outwardly, and you may just say
something nasty. Now suppose I try to suspend that reaction. Not only
will I now not insult that person outwardly, but I will suspend the
insult that I make inside of me. Even if I don't insult somebody
outwardly, I am insulting him inside. So I will suspend that, too. I hold
it back, I reflect it back. You may also think of it as suspended in
front of you so that you can look at it - sort of reflected back as if
you were in front of a mirror. In this way I can see things that I
wouldn't have seen if I had simply carried out that anger, or if I had
suppressed it and said, 'I'm not angry' or 'I shouldn't be angry.'
"So the whole group now becomes a mirror for each person. The effect you
have on the other person is a mirror, and also the effect the other
person has on you. Seeing this whole process is very helpful in bringing
out what's going on, because you can see that everybody's in the same
boat.
"What's required then is that we notice the connection between the
thoughts going on in the dialogue, the feelings in the body, and the
emotions. If you watch, you'll see from the body language, as well as
from the verbal language, that everybody's in much the same boat -
they're just on opposite sides. The group may even polarize so that two
very powerful groups are against each other. But one of the things we're
aiming for is that this should come out. We're not trying to suppress it.
"Therefore, you simply see what the assumptions and reactions mean - not
only your own, but the other people's as well. We are not trying to
change anybody's opinion. When this meeting is over, somebody may or may
not change his opinion. This is part of what I consider dialogue - for
people to realize what is on each other's minds without coming to any
conclusions or
20
judgments. Assumptions will come up. And if you hear somebody else who
has an assumption that seems outrageous to you, the natural response
might be to get angry, or get excited, or to react in some other way. But
suppose you suspend that activity. You may not even have known that you
had an assumption. It was only because he came up with the opposite one
that you find out that you have one. You may uncover other assumptions,
but we are all suspending them and looking at them all, seeing what they
mean.
"You have to notice your own reactions of hostility, or whatever, and you
can see by the way people are behaving what their reactions are. You may
find, as with anger, that it could go so far that the meeting could blow
up. If temperatures do rise, then those who are not completely caught up
in their particular opinions should come in to defuse the situation a bit
so that people could look at it. It mustn't go so far that you can't look
at it. The point is to keep it at a level where the opinions come out,
but where you can look at them. Then you may have to see that the other
person's hostility provokes your own. That's all part of the observation,
the suspension. You become more familiar with how thought works."
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/209f874c/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 16 07:12:01 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 17 08:17:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <20061115.100158.2144.73.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY117-F138EC21D74A6567C25B5E8A5E90@phx.gbl>
Yes, but 1997 posts aren't. Nothing from further than a year back is there.
I was just cross eyed last night when I posted to you. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:27:15 -0500
>
>Nov, 1997.
>
>pat
>
>Thanks, Pat k
>You know, that's from this November. It's in the archives.
>
>
> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
> >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:49:24 -0500
> >
> >It was a privilege to read last year's posts. So interesting, the same
> >topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by some of the
> >same people. There were some particularly beautiful ones.
> >
> >What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don? I gather BD has
> >been
> >around since 1992 or 3. k (k)
> >
> >k, I have a few saved from '97. Here's one or two..
> >
> > >From "William van den Heuvel" <heuvel@muc.de>
> >Date: 29 Nov 97 18:25:47 +0200
> >X-Status: Read
> >
> > >Dear William,
> > > I joined the dialogue list several days ago, and out of about 20
> > >messages I have sent, only about 2 got through. I've tried every
>address
> > >I can think of. You seem responsive so I am appealing to you for help.
>I
> > >am not only new to the List, I am new to e-mail, and even new to the
> > >computer. The only thing I am not new to is Bohm dialogue (if one can
> > >ever really be not new to that!) . I have read and enjoyed the web
> >pieces
> > >that you wrote, which somebody gave me a copy of.
> > >
> > >It is interesting to see how very frustrating it is when so many of my
> > >messages get returned! It would be an appropriate irony if this was an
> > >initiation to the dialogue list!
> > >
> > >All I need to know (and I need to know it clearly), is what I should
> >type
> > >in the To: Box, to get this mail to you all.
> > >
> > >Thanks so much, Pat ae.dropper@juno.com
> > >
> >
> >Hi Pat,
> >
> >You should have:
> >
> >bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> >
> >in the TO: box.
> >
> >Usually, the computer does this for you automatically after you press
>the
> >"Reply" button (or menu), which should be somewhere in your email
> >program.
> >This is what I normally do (replying). However, if you do type the
> >address
> >into the TO box yourself then make sure it is EXACTLY as written above.
> >Especially take note of the UNDERSCORE between "bohm" and"dialogue": For
> >instance, if you accidently type a hyphen (instead of an underscore)
>then
> >your message will be returned with an error message saying "no such
> >address", or "no such domain", or something like that.
> >
> >If you continue to have difficulties, please, try to send me a copy of
> >what
> >didn't work, together with a copy of the error message.
> >
> >Meanwhile, you can send me your stuff and I'll put it on the list for
> >you.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >William
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now.
http://ideas.live.com
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 16 07:18:18 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 17 08:23:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <20061115.090814.2144.68.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY117-F2550D36CEBD41194BCC250A5E90@phx.gbl>
Again, thanks k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:25:35 -0500
>
>Thanks, Pat k
>
>Here's another.
>
> >From "William van den Heuvel" <heuvel@muc.de>
> Sat, 13 Dec 1997 10:04:15 -0500 (EST)
>X-Status: Replied
>
>Pat:
> >... the terms Bohm uses are so packed with insight, the
> >thought of being able to actually USE some of those terms seems like a
> >long forgotten dream. Some people think of Bohm as a physicist, some
> >think of him as a philosopher, I think of him as a word-smith. I find
> >his use of language in handling subtle information unsurpassed anywhere.
> >Someone said of Plato "Here is the arrival of accuracy and intelligence.
> >He shall be as a god to me who can rightly divide and define." This
> >makes me think of Bohm.
>
>Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. Very inspiring...
>
> >I once tried to compile a glossary of Bohm's key terms...*Coherence and
> >Incoherence*. The ideas of Coherence and Incoherence are
> >not too hard to grasp at first glance. Coherence implies clarity and
> >Incoherence implies confusion. But Bohm breaks Incoherence down into
> >Primary and Secondary, and talks about how Primary Incoherence is not a
> >problem, but that the moment when one begins to feel anxious about the
> >Incoherence (the lack of clarity), Secondary Incoherence has begun, and
> >THAT is a problem. At this point anxiety can just continue to build on
> >itself with Tertiary Incoherence and on and on. A person can get very
> >very confused if Primary Incoherence is feared, if a person thinks
> >there is something wrong with it.
>
>Where you on this list when I submitted that stuff about the runaway
>"virtual loop"? That was the same idea.
>
> >*Necessity and Contingency* are another couple of his favorites. He
>talks
> >about how every thought is either a thought of Necessity or a thought of
> >Contingency. And these constantly rearrange themselves according to
> >circumstances. And then there is the thought of Absolute Necessity which
> >is stronger than the survival instinct, and will not yield for anything.
>
>This is also what was behind my recent stuff about "truth and reality"
>(implying Necessity) versus "fuzziology" (implying Contingency). Same
>thing
>in different words.
>
> >Now one might ask "why do all these concepts matter?" When one is
>sitting
> >in a dialogue circle, paying attention to the process of thought more
> >than the content, one realizes that "the process" is a very slippery
> >thing to observe. We seem to be compelled by the content. Well, what
>Bohm
> >does is come up with terms that indicate the contents of the process of
> >thought, and suddenly one is able to grasp process by means to these
> >"handles."
>
>Yes, these concepts are pointers that point to the process of thought
>itself instead of some other content. The pointers turns the process of
>thought into a self-reflective awareness, thus enabling the process of
>thought to become part of the content of thought thereby enabling us to
>think about it and talk about it, which is important to communicate the
>insight.
>
> >...It operates the same as new awareness operates in general. For
> >instance, many many years ago, I bought a Volkswagen. Suddenly I was
> >seeing Volkswagens everywhere. I haden't noticed them before.
>
>Yes, once you've seen it, you also see that it has always been there. And
>that makes you wonder why you haven't seen it before. What else haven't
>we
>seen yet? It would appear, perception depends on conception. By
>developing
>new concepts we develop new perceptions.
>
> >...Bohm in his
> >genius, has painted a coherent picture of how thought operates as a
> >system. He has demystified the thought process.
>
>Not only the thought system but also the whole system of perception,
>which
>is even more fascinating than only the thought system.
>
> > ...And when we sit in a
> >dialogue circle, where the people are prepared for dialogue, we can be
> >paying attention to how thought is operating rather than how other
>people
> >are operating. This alone could change everything.
>
>I would say, when you pay attention to how your own thought operates then
>you are also paying attention to how thought operates in other people:
>It's
>the same process. Normally, I don't like quoting other people but in this
>case it may be appropriate to quote J. Krishnamurti who often said "I am
>the world" (meaning the world of thought).
>
>William
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 16 05:04:40 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 17 08:33:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Third post
In-Reply-To: <ed6f2a2c0611151933s43e47405k1d6d4c14876784a5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ed6f2a2c0611151933s43e47405k1d6d4c14876784a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2F0BB53B-10F7-49B7-B1EE-FD983CC2271D@dc.rr.com>
What about seeing it all as process? No ultimate distinctions, just
different ends of different scales. Someone once suggested that evil
was a misapprehension of "evol" or something that is in process, not
complete, like a muddy building site or a human being. So, maybe what
appears to be broken is actually our perception which is based on
tacit assumptions that are incomplete in a way that we are yet to
realise.
But tell us more about it getting sexual for some of us hard core
thinkers.
don
On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:33 PM, David da Costa wrote:
> Understanding is not made of words. They pretend to translate the
> emotion that rises upon us. Divided into card through which we gamble.
>
> Conceiving a perspective for reality such as good, implies the
> subassumption of an opposite or extreme, that will create a
> negative for the perspective, in order to generate the patterns and
> purposes of the idea. To qualify it, give it space and make it
> exist. Would we be capable of conceiving good without bad?
> Perspective is a broken logic. It does not fit the whole of
> reality. The uniqueness of each is imperative through the ambiguous
> plasma and it?s unstepped plasticity. All and nothing infer. They
> are indisociable.
>
> For human logics, reality is a paradox.
> And a paradox perfection in god?s way.
>
> Being is a vortice that unites past and future. The question
> answers, they are one. This is my dog, I am his human.
>
> If we are in evolution, is it logical to think that omnipotence is
> an achievable adaptability? Or are we as close to total knowledge
> as we ever were or will be?
>
> (It gets sexual for some of the hardcore thinkers in this list.
> Beautiful.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 16 12:49:37 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Fri Nov 17 13:59:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <00f401c708e9$4f3a2000$d478480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C18200D1.3B53%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Don, Susan and all,
I occasionally glimmer a kind of 'field of love' (maybe its similar to the
Zero point field that seems to have a growing amount of research supporting
its existence) ...
And I have come to wonder whether the 'intimacy' between two people or a
group of people or a passing glance with a stranger that somehow touches you
is merely crossing the threshold into this 'sea of love'.
Then I guess whether its 'personal' or 'impersonal' are just different parts
of the same thing!! ... The legs and trunk of that familiar elephant ...
Gill
on 15/11/06 19:07, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Good question. My first response to this suggestion is UGH!!!!! I find I
> really don't like the word impersonal, sounds very cold which doesn't seem
> to leave any room for the warmth I want to create. Like Gill my goal seems
> to be more about being up close and PERSONAL. The more personal I can be
> and the more I can engage others in being personal the more satisfaction
> that seems to contain for me.
>
> So, no, I don't think that phrase works for me. It seems to have more to do
> with allowing intimacy to emerge rather than expecting it. And also, when I
> do this it allows it to take lots of different forms and to surprise me. It
> also leaves room for me to have other kinds of experiences and to enjoy
> those experiences even though they might not contain the kind of intimacy I
> might have placed value on in the past. And the surprising thing is that
> when I do that intimacy seems to just erupt sometimes out of those other
> types of experiences.
>
> So it's more about being able to broaden the idea of intimacy and so broaden
> the scope of my own experience of it. And it also enables me to just relax
> and enjoy what's happening without the need to try to "make" something
> happen in particular. So this brings in not only growth but also freedom.
> There's lots of freedom with this kind of intimacy.
>
> So it's more like freedom to be intimate (or not).
>
> Thanks Don for helping me put that into words.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>> What about impersonal intimacy? Sounds to me like something very special.
>>
>> don
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>> Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle wayHi Gill. Yes, I'm
>>> enjoying this conversation immensely and feel very grateful to have
>>> someone who is willing to stay with the process.
>>>
>>> As I've said before, when I approach this subject I start with Bohm's
>>> idea of people being able to discuss what's important to them. I also
>>> think of the idea of personal responsibility. So, from there, I come to
>>> ideas about the feeling of warmth, connection, and understanding. In my
>>> exploration of my own thoughts and assumptions I've learned that for me,
>>> all of those ideas have a common connection with the idea of intimacy.
>>> So, I've discovered that when I'm looking for those things in my
>>> relationships with other people what's important to me is intimacy. And
>>> I came to the decision that if that's what's important to me and I'm
>>> going to walk my talk of taking personal responsibility then I'm the one
>>> who has to create the intimacy I'm looking for. I also came to the
>>> conclusion that, again, if I'm going to walk my talk, I can not decide
>>> for other people that intimacy "should" be what's important to them. It
>>> has to be ok with me for other things to be more important to them.
>>>
>>> So, how to do that? I decided that for me, intimacy happens when I am
>>> able to be what I think of as "authentically me". For me, that involves
>>> being willing to spontaneously put myself out there as openly and
>>> honestly as possible. To allow myself to respond to things in a way
>>> that shows who I am in the moment warts and all. And it also means
>>> allowing others to have what ever response to me that feels right to
>>> them......and then staying with the process as long as they are willing,
>>> to see where that takes us. So I learned to let go of having any
>>> expectations of how others were going to respond to me.
>>>
>>> In the process of trying this for some time here on this list and also
>>> on other lists that I belong to I have come to the tentative conclusion
>>> that perhaps the kind of understanding I used to look for may not be
>>> possible. But I've also discovered that it may not be as important as I
>>> used to think it was and I would say that at this point, I don't think
>>> it is a necessity. For me, what's happened is that my ideas of intimacy
>>> have changed. I now feel intimately connected to people in a very
>>> different way and with people that I never would have dreamed that I
>>> could have felt intimate with. And I'm not sure how to describe that so
>>> maybe I will have to leave that for another post when I've had more time
>>> to think about it.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, I rarely feel disappointed with other people's response to me
>>> now although I do feel frustration at times and I welcome that feeling
>>> of frustration because I know that it's going to take me somewhere new
>>> and exciting.
>>>
>>> And I would like to thank you for finally sharing what your perspectives
>>> are and for putting yourself out there. There is much more in your post
>>> that's worth exploring for me but I think this is enough for me for now.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Gill Wyatt
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:07 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Susan,
>>>
>>> I'm understanding our differences I think and coming to respect my
>>> stance and yours.
>>>
>>> For me when I talk about 'understanding my points' I'm referring to
>>> simply understanding what I say ... Its interesting ... You pick up on
>>> the word 'point' and it becomes 'get my point' whereas for me what
>>> was most important was 'understanding'. Are these the same? Perhaps it
>>> doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> But yes for me Its about talking (well writing here!!) and listening
>>> and it does seem important to understand what has been written ...
>>> Doesn't dialogue occur from this close listening to each other and
>>> taking off the assumptions? ... Do we not need understanding ... And I
>>> would go further, from my stance in life I value empathy highly. To
>>> truly understand the other and be understood is such a gift. Mmm I'm
>>> re-reading my post before sending and I'm realising that there is more
>>> here ... I think I look for 'warmth' or maybe simply some 'sense of
>>> recognition' as well. I obviously don't expect to find it but I think
>>> there might have been something of this here.
>>>
>>> And I know that I do feel disappointed when that doesn't occur. So yes
>>> I think I wanted to feel a warm understanding from you and of course I
>>> haven't. Yet I do feel I have met an alive, interesting and vibrant
>>> woman.
>>>
>>> I don't think what we have been discussing is 'simply my way of
>>> interpreting' it seems to me that what we have been discussing is the
>>> meeting between 'my way of interpreting' AND 'your way of interpreting'.
>>> I've appreciated spending this time rediscovering the effect of my way
>>> of interpreting, the assumptions that are a part of who I am. I think
>>> you have also been saying that you have similarly been affirming who you
>>> are and what matters to you ... Is that not 'your way of interpreting'?
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I can see what you mean by the 'us and them' in what Pat quoted. Yet I
>>> have witnessed this sort of process in so many groups. There are the
>>> 'helpers' or 'teachers' and those that need 'help' or 'teaching'. Over
>>> the years I have played both roles of this duality (maybe at the same
>>> time ... :-) !!). I know many of us don't want to recreate that culture
>>> here but that sort of culture is embedded in the very air that we
>>> breath.
>>>
>>> I do understand and agree when you say you are not responsible for my
>>> feelings and my interpretations ... Yet when we live in an
>>> interconnected universe and we need to take responsibility for our part
>>> for the state of the world on the grand scale and what we manifest in
>>> our personal lives on the smaller scale, I think it is so much more
>>> complex than what your statement infers.
>>>
>>> Um ... I'm getting to enjoy this!
>>>
>>> Gill
>>>
>>> on 14/11/06 17:56, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel
>>> that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something
>>> similar.
>>>
>>> Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my
>>> point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I don't
>>> think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone else "get my
>>> point" or with the expectations that they would take anyone anywhere in
>>> particular. I simply wrote them to the group as a whole (and not just to
>>> you) as a way to talk about what I felt was important. It's my
>>> understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is that people have difficulty
>>> talking about what's important to them. And that seems to be what's
>>> happening with us. You seem to have something that's important to you
>>> that you want to talk about and you wrote a post about that. I responded
>>> to your post with what I felt was important to me.
>>>
>>> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first
>>> post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps the
>>> expectations that some people would respond to you in a particular way
>>> that had meaning for you. But when I responded with what was important
>>> to me, I didn't respond in the way you were hoping I would. And ever
>>> since then that seems to be what your posts to me are about. The idea
>>> that what's important to me doesn't seem to meet up with what's
>>> important to you.
>>>
>>> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations
>>> and people's responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as
>>> ... Its just the way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>>
>>> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly wasn't
>>> clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what you meant. I
>>> did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning but I don't
>>> remember you saying anything close to the last part of this sentence.
>>> And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each other several times
>>> this morning to see if I missed something or could see something new. I
>>> still don't see you saying that. As far as I'm concerned, it IS just the
>>> way you interpret what I wrote. And you don't seem to think that's a
>>> satisfying answer. I think it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer.
>>> And no, I don't think giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People
>>> very often don't seem to be able to accept that the way they have
>>> interpreted someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you
>>> see something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look
>>> at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just
>>> don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
>>>
>>> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others
>>> and at other times authority can be more facilitative of self and others
>>> The authority I sensed in your email did not feel like that of
>>> 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the way I did.
>>>
>>> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be
>>> used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we are
>>> all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is no one
>>> in a higher or lower position. We are all our own authorities and we
>>> each have to take responsibility for ourselves and our own feelings and
>>> responses. It means to me that I don't take responsibility for your
>>> feelings and interpretations of my posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also
>>> don't assign responsibility for my feelings and interpretations to you
>>> (or anyone).
>>>
>>> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...
>>>
>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group
>>>> and
>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
>>>> little
>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>>
>>> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought was:
>>> There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this statement that I
>>> don't even want to respond to it. But since there have been more than
>>> one post supporting it and it's come up in this conversation I'll
>>> respond. It seems to me that you can't get more fragmented than this
>>> kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I was shocked when I read
>>> this statement on a Dialogue group and coming from someone who has been
>>> in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me it REEKS of the idea of "us and them".
>>> We don't like the way they are in the world and we don't like the way
>>> they play. We're against going to war with them or trying to change them
>>> and since they don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our
>>> rules (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)
>>> we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out of
>>> it. That'll show them!
>>>
>>> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters
>>> Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the fact
>>> that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even preacherly. I've
>>> learned that it comes from growing up in a family of preachers and
>>> teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I do think it's
>>> important to have other ways to communicate and I do strive to watch for
>>> it and see when it is occurring. But I also know that at this point in
>>> time it's not something I can completely eradicate from my writing or
>>> communications and I'm not even sure I want to at this point in time.
>>> One of the main things I have learned from exploring my feelings about
>>> it is to have far more understanding and tolerance for my family and
>>> other people who have this style. It comes from the culture we grow up
>>> in and is not a problem when we remain within that culture. It only
>>> becomes a problem when we try to communicate with a different culture.
>>> And I find that I have just as many problems with your style of
>>> communicating as you seem to have with mine. That's one of the reasons
>>> I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
>>>
>>> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>>> saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to
>>> do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you
>>> have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and you
>>> want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to you. My
>>> response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for your feelings
>>> or your interpretations. What I am willing to do is to talk to you
>>> about this as much as you want and to tell you what I'm thinking and
>>> feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
>>>
>>> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>>>
>>> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement
>>> implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want Gill?
>>>
>>> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what
>>> I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters
>>> to you. I respect and often like people who are spontaneous,
>>> challenging and not afraid of emotions.
>>>
>>> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's
>>> helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own
>>> thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk
>>> <mailto:earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> >
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org <mailto:bohm_dialogue@david-
>>> bohm.org> >
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>
>>>> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that you
>>>> are
>>>> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>>>>
>>>> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and
>>>> people's
>>>> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its just
>>>> the
>>>> way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and at
>>>> other
>>>> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The
>>>> authority I
>>>> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
>>>> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what Pat
>>>> said in
>>>> one of her recent mails ...
>>>>
>>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group
>>>>> and
>>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
>>>>> little
>>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
>>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>>> back,
>>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>>>
>>>> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are saying
>>>> 'you
>>>> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do. What I
>>>> have
>>>> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem. Could
>>>> we
>>>> just talk together as two people'.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I have
>>>> been
>>>> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>>>
>>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters to
>>>> you.
>>>> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging and
>>>> not
>>>> afraid of emotions.
>>>>
>>>> Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>>>> <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,
>>>>> including me)
>>>>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing? Personally I
>>>>> think
>>>>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I try to
>>>>> look
>>>>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>>>>> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as enabling
>>>>> and
>>>>> empowering, not diminishing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's been
>>>>> my
>>>>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite
>>>>> often
>>>>> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take inquiry
>>>>> to
>>>>> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I suppose the
>>>>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us have
>>>>> equal
>>>>> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or less
>>>>> of an
>>>>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or experience.
>>>>> As Don
>>>>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something brand
>>>>> new, a
>>>>> frontier.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as though
>>>>> there's
>>>>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though there
>>>>> is
>>>>> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>>>>> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal status
>>>>> here
>>>>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each other to
>>>>> my
>>>>> way of thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we are all
>>>>> equal
>>>>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>>>>> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to say.
>>>>> My
>>>>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
>>>>> equally.
>>>>>
>>>>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit you
>>>>> in
>>>>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being defensive.
>>>>> Perhaps
>>>>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being someone
>>>>> who
>>>>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of lack
>>>>> and
>>>>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being defensive?
>>>>> Of
>>>>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into a
>>>>> defensive
>>>>> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have rejoined
>>>>> the
>>>>> group would fall into that category yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions, not
>>>>> just
>>>>> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts also.
>>>>> I try
>>>>> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's
>>>>> caring,
>>>>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm aware
>>>>> that
>>>>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch for
>>>>> that, to
>>>>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them
>>>>> against
>>>>> someone.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft" posts.
>>>>> I
>>>>> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that is,
>>>>> and I
>>>>> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there are
>>>>> enough
>>>>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a little
>>>>> balance
>>>>> in the area of soft/firm?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on reading
>>>>> your
>>>>> post.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 16 13:17:19 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Fri Nov 17 14:29:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <B6A36460-A19B-4466-8C29-AD37AC6CB10E@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C182074F.3B56%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
So there are personal connections between some people AND the more
'impersonal' Koinonia.
I like both/ands rather than either/ors!
Gill
on 15/11/06 18:37, donald factor at dfactor@dc.rr.com wrote:
> Interestingly the word KOINONIA was used by the early Christian
> communities and it has been revived by contemporary Evangelical
> groups. It meaning in these contexts a community of a sort that
> didn't depend primarily on personal relationships but in a kind of
> fellowship where all the members of the community were about the same
> business. In other words, here, we don't really have to even know
> each other beyond what each of us writes. But if what they write is,
> - how can I say this? - dialogical. then there is this sense of
> friendship or fellowship that does not depend on a personal
> relationship beyond that. But this is not to say that personal
> friendships don't, won't or shouldn't emerge, but simply that the
> group here is the primary recipient of our considerations. So when I
> have written, "don't take this personally" I mean it is a statement
> for the whole group to consider. It is meant for whoever feels it
> applies to them.
>
> don
>
>
> Don Lay wrote:
>
>> I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen as a rich
>> resource and an opening into the more universal or the implicate.
>> -- Gill
>>
>> Me too. -- don L
>>
>> I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads to
>> a lack of care for each other ...
>> Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone? -- Gill
>>
>> It makes sense to me! My understanding is that we can thank
>> Christianity for popularizing the IDEA personhood, that it applies
>> to all humans.
>>
>> In the early Christian world, everyone ..., even the conquered
>> enemy, even slaves -- even women -- were accorded personhood by the
>> early Christians. Maybe this is the greatness of the idea of
>> personhood, perhaps the greatness of Christianity. Maybe the
>> greatness of Rome relates to the NOTION of personhood.
>>
>> William said something very interesting re the personal being
>> recently, but I cannot find the post. Anyone have it?
>>
>> William, could you please repost your ideas re the idea of personal
>> being and evolution? -- Don L
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt"
>> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>>> Don, Susan and anybody else interested!
>>>
>>> What does it mean taking a post 'personally'?
>>> Is there an implicit criticism if it is said that somebody has
>>> taken a post
>>> 'personally'?
>>> When is a reply somebody makes - taking a post personally or not?
>>> Who decides?
>>>
>>> One thing I have learnt from this discussion group is many posts
>>> are not
>>> addressed to anybody ... When I first joined it seemed many posts
>>> were like
>>> this. Recently there have been more that are addressed to
>>> somebody ...
>>> Perhaps I have thought that if there is a Hi Gill or Gill at the
>>> start of a
>>> post that at least something of that post was addressed to me!
>>>
>>> I guess I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen
>>> as a rich
>>> resource and an opening into the more universal or the implicate.
>>>
>>> I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads
>>> to a lack
>>> of care for each other ...
>>>
>>> Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone?
>>>
>>> Gill
>>>
>>>
>>> on 14/11/06 19:04, donald factor at dfactor@dc.rr.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that this sort of misunderstanding - that is, taking
>>>> posts personally when that wasn't what was intended - has not been
>>>> unusual. So maybe what we are doing here is having an impersonal
>>>> conversation with everybody. And although to me this seems quite
>>>> natural to me it may be that's because I've been doing it for a long
>>>> time, or maybe it is more unusual than I thought. Actually, this
>>>> also
>>>> might refer to the "teacherly" thing. If I want to get a bit
>>>> teacherly I can make clear that, like Bohm used to do, it is just a
>>>> proposal for further inquiry, or something like that. What do you
>>>> think? Anybody?
>>>>
>>>> don
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel
>>>>> that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel
>>>>> something similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my
>>>>> point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I
>>>>> don't think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone
>>>>> else "get my point" or with the expectations that they would take
>>>>> anyone anywhere in particular. I simply wrote them to the group as
>>>>> a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk about what I felt
>>>>> was important. It's my understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is
>>>>> that people have difficulty talking about what's important to them.
>>>>> And that seems to be what's happening with us. You seem to have
>>>>> something that's important to you that you want to talk about and
>>>>> you wrote a post about that. I responded to your post with what I
>>>>> felt was important to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first
>>>>> post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps
>>>>> the expectations that some people would respond to you in a
>>>>> particular way that had meaning for you. But when I responded with
>>>>> what was important to me, I didn't respond in the way you were
>>>>> hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your
>>>>> posts to me are about. The idea that what's important to me doesn't
>>>>> seem to meet up with what's important to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own
>>>>> explorations and people's responses to me and how easy it is to
>>>>> just pass it back as ... Its just the way you interpret what I
>>>>> wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly
>>>>> wasn't clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what
>>>>> you meant. I did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning
>>>>> but I don't remember you saying anything close to the last part of
>>>>> this sentence. And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each
>>>>> other several times this morning to see if I missed something or
>>>>> could see something new. I still don't see you saying that. As far
>>>>> as I'm concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote.
>>>>> And you don't seem to think that's a satisfying answer. I think
>>>>> it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. And no, I don't think
>>>>> giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People very often don't
>>>>> seem to be able to accept that the way they have interpreted
>>>>> someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you see
>>>>> something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look
>>>>> at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just
>>>>> don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish
>>>>> others and at other times authority can be more facilitative of
>>>>> self and others The authority I sensed in your email did not feel
>>>>> like that of 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the
>>>>> way I did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be
>>>>> used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we
>>>>> are all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is
>>>>> no one in a higher or lower position. We are all our own
>>>>> authorities and we each have to take responsibility for ourselves
>>>>> and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that I don't
>>>>> take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my
>>>>> posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my
>>>>> feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent
>>>>> mails ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>>>>> group and
>>>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
>>>>>> little
>>>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>>>> back,
>>>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers
>>>>>> Anonymous."
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought
>>>>> was: There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this
>>>>> statement that I don't even want to respond to it. But since there
>>>>> have been more than one post supporting it and it's come up in this
>>>>> conversation I'll respond. It seems to me that you can't get more
>>>>> fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I
>>>>> was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and
>>>>> coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me
>>>>> it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the way they
>>>>> are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're against
>>>>> going to war with them or trying to change them and since they
>>>>> don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules
>>>>> (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)
>>>>> we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out
>>>>> of it. That'll show them!
>>>>>
>>>>> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters
>>>>> Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the
>>>>> fact that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even
>>>>> preacherly. I've learned that it comes from growing up in a family
>>>>> of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I
>>>>> do think it's important to have other ways to communicate and I do
>>>>> strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also
>>>>> know that at this point in time it's not something I can completely
>>>>> eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not even sure I
>>>>> want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have
>>>>> learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more
>>>>> understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have
>>>>> this style. It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a
>>>>> problem when we remain within that culture. It only becomes a
>>>>> problem when we try to communicate with a different culture. And I
>>>>> find that I have just as many problems with your style of
>>>>> communicating as you seem to have with mine. That's one of the
>>>>> reasons I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>>>>> saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and
>>>>> what to do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I
>>>>> don't have a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you
>>>>> have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and
>>>>> you want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to
>>>>> you. My response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for
>>>>> your feelings or your interpretations. What I am willing to do is
>>>>> to talk to you about this as much as you want and to tell you what
>>>>> I'm thinking and feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement
>>>>> implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want
>>>>> Gill?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what
>>>>> I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting
>>>>> somewhere ...
>>>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>>>>> matters to you. I respect and often like people who are
>>>>> spontaneous, challenging and not afraid of emotions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's
>>>>> helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own
>>>>> thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that
>>>>>> you are
>>>>>> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something
>>>>>> similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and
>>>>>> people's
>>>>>> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its
>>>>>> just the
>>>>>> way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and
>>>>>> at other
>>>>>> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The
>>>>>> authority I
>>>>>> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it
>>>>>> had I
>>>>>> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what
>>>>>> Pat said in
>>>>>> one of her recent mails ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>>>>>> group and
>>>>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually]
>>>>>>> have little
>>>>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>>>>> back,
>>>>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers
>>>>>>> Anonymous."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>>>>>> saying 'you
>>>>>> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do.
>>>>>> What I have
>>>>>> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.
>>>>>> Could we
>>>>>> just talk together as two people'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I
>>>>>> have been
>>>>>> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>>>>>> matters to you.
>>>>>> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging
>>>>>> and not
>>>>>> afraid of emotions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,
>>>>>>> including me)
>>>>>>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?
>>>>>>> Personally I think
>>>>>>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I
>>>>>>> try to look
>>>>>>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel
>>>>>>> it's my
>>>>>>> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as
>>>>>>> enabling and
>>>>>>> empowering, not diminishing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's
>>>>>>> been my
>>>>>>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is
>>>>>>> quite often
>>>>>>> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take
>>>>>>> inquiry to
>>>>>>> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I
>>>>>>> suppose the
>>>>>>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us
>>>>>>> have equal
>>>>>>> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or
>>>>>>> less of an
>>>>>>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or
>>>>>>> experience. As Don
>>>>>>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something
>>>>>>> brand new, a
>>>>>>> frontier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as
>>>>>>> though there's
>>>>>>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though
>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of
>>>>>>> us are
>>>>>>> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal
>>>>>>> status here
>>>>>>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each
>>>>>>> other to my
>>>>>>> way of thinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we
>>>>>>> are all equal
>>>>>>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each
>>>>>>> other I
>>>>>>> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to
>>>>>>> say. My
>>>>>>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
>>>>>>> equally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit
>>>>>>> you in
>>>>>>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being
>>>>>>> defensive. Perhaps
>>>>>>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being
>>>>>>> someone who
>>>>>>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of
>>>>>>> lack and
>>>>>>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being
>>>>>>> defensive? Of
>>>>>>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into
>>>>>>> a defensive
>>>>>>> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have
>>>>>>> rejoined the
>>>>>>> group would fall into that category yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions,
>>>>>>> not just
>>>>>>> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts
>>>>>>> also. I try
>>>>>>> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's
>>>>>>> caring,
>>>>>>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm
>>>>>>> aware that
>>>>>>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch
>>>>>>> for that, to
>>>>>>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them
>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>> someone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft"
>>>>>>> posts. I
>>>>>>> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that
>>>>>>> is, and I
>>>>>>> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there
>>>>>>> are enough
>>>>>>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a
>>>>>>> little balance
>>>>>>> in the area of soft/firm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on
>>>>>>> reading your
>>>>>>> post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 16 14:04:12 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Fri Nov 17 15:17:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <009601c708ca$9140d670$d478480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C182124C.3B5C%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Susan,
I?m away from home for the next 10 days so may not find a wireless
connection that easily!!
I guess intimacy is a word I would use for a particular type of warmth,
caring and connection. When I talk to somebody at a call centre, or in a
shop, or a colleague who actually listens to what I say and seems to be warm
and interested in me its like the sun come out. Whereas somebody who is cold
and distant and is doing the minimum and probably isn?t listening to what I
am saying has the opposite effect on me.
I often feel a bit like a flower ... Opening out when I receive warmth and
caring and closing up when I don?t. I take responsibility for having this
senstivity ... And yet I know how other peoples behaviour influences me.
When you have the time I?d be very interested in your response to this
paragraph from my last email.
Gill
... I don?t think what we have been discussing is ?simply my way of
interpreting? it seems to me that what we have been discussing is the
meeting between ?my way of interpreting? AND ?your way of interpreting?.
I?ve appreciated spending this time rediscovering the effect of my way of
interpreting, the assumptions that are a part of who I am. I think you have
also been saying that you have similarly been affirming who you are and
what matters to you ... Is that not ?your way of interpreting?? ...
on 15/11/06 15:27, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Hi Gill. Yes, I'm enjoying this conversation immensely and feel very grateful
> to have someone who is willing to stay with the process.
>
> As I've said before, when I approach this subject I start with Bohm's idea of
> people being able to discuss what's important to them. I also think of the
> idea of personal responsibility. So, from there, I come to ideas about the
> feeling of warmth, connection, and understanding. In my exploration of my own
> thoughts and assumptions I've learned that for me, all of those ideas have a
> common connection with the idea of intimacy. So, I've discovered that when
> I'm looking for those things in my relationships with other people what's
> important to me is intimacy. And I came to the decision that if that's what's
> important to me and I'm going to walk my talk of taking personal
> responsibility then I'm the one who has to create the intimacy I'm looking
> for. I also came to the conclusion that, again, if I'm going to walk my talk,
> I can not decide for other people that intimacy "should" be what's important
> to them. It has to be ok with me for other things to be more important to
> them.
>
> So, how to do that? I decided that for me, intimacy happens when I am able to
> be what I think of as "authentically me". For me, that involves being willing
> to spontaneously put myself out there as openly and honestly as possible. To
> allow myself to respond to things in a way that shows who I am in the moment
> warts and all. And it also means allowing others to have what ever response
> to me that feels right to them......and then staying with the process as long
> as they are willing, to see where that takes us. So I learned to let go of
> having any expectations of how others were going to respond to me.
>
> In the process of trying this for some time here on this list and also on
> other lists that I belong to I have come to the tentative conclusion that
> perhaps the kind of understanding I used to look for may not be possible. But
> I've also discovered that it may not be as important as I used to think it was
> and I would say that at this point, I don't think it is a necessity. For me,
> what's happened is that my ideas of intimacy have changed. I now feel
> intimately connected to people in a very different way and with people that I
> never would have dreamed that I could have felt intimate with. And I'm not
> sure how to describe that so maybe I will have to leave that for another post
> when I've had more time to think about it.
>
> Oh yes, I rarely feel disappointed with other people's response to me now
> although I do feel frustration at times and I welcome that feeling of
> frustration because I know that it's going to take me somewhere new and
> exciting.
>
> And I would like to thank you for finally sharing what your perspectives are
> and for putting yourself out there. There is much more in your post that's
> worth exploring for me but I think this is enough for me for now.
>
> Susan
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Gill Wyatt <mailto:earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:07 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Susan,
>>
>> I?m understanding our differences I think and coming to respect my stance
>> and yours.
>>
>> For me when I talk about ?understanding my points? I?m referring to simply
>> understanding what I say ... Its interesting ... You pick up on the word
>> ?point? and it becomes ?get my point? whereas for me what was most
>> important was ?understanding?. Are these the same? Perhaps it doesn?t
>> matter.
>>
>> But yes for me Its about talking (well writing here!!) and listening and it
>> does seem important to understand what has been written ... Doesn?t dialogue
>> occur from this close listening to each other and taking off the
>> assumptions? ... Do we not need understanding ... And I would go further,
>> from my stance in life I value empathy highly. To truly understand the other
>> and be understood is such a gift. Mmm I?m re-reading my post before sending
>> and I?m realising that there is more here ... I think I look for ?warmth? or
>> maybe simply some ?sense of recognition? as well. I obviously don?t expect
>> to find it but I think there might have been something of this here.
>>
>> And I know that I do feel disappointed when that doesn?t occur. So yes I
>> think I wanted to feel a warm understanding from you and of course I
>> haven?t. Yet I do feel I have met an alive, interesting and vibrant woman.
>>
>> I don?t think what we have been discussing is ?simply my way of
>> interpreting? it seems to me that what we have been discussing is the
>> meeting between ?my way of interpreting? AND ?your way of interpreting?.
>> I?ve appreciated spending this time rediscovering the effect of my way of
>> interpreting, the assumptions that are a part of who I am. I think you have
>> also been saying that you have similarly been affirming who you are and what
>> matters to you ... Is that not ?your way of interpreting?? ...
>>
>> I can see what you mean by the ?us and them? in what Pat quoted. Yet I have
>> witnessed this sort of process in so many groups. There are the ?helpers? or
>> ?teachers? and those that need ?help? or ?teaching?. Over the years I have
>> played both roles of this duality (maybe at the same time ... :-) !!). I
>> know many of us don?t want to recreate that culture here but that sort of
>> culture is embedded in the very air that we breath.
>>
>> I do understand and agree when you say you are not responsible for my
>> feelings and my interpretations ... Yet when we live in an interconnected
>> universe and we need to take responsibility for our part for the state of
>> the world on the grand scale and what we manifest in our personal lives on
>> the smaller scale, I think it is so much more complex than what your
>> statement infers.
>>
>> Um ... I?m getting to enjoy this!
>>
>> Gill
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061116/9fdc3c31/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 16 14:06:01 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Fri Nov 17 15:19:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061115224831.38096.qmail@web52908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C18212B9.3B5C%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Kari (and all),
I guess what is important to me is that I am BOTH addressing an individual,
other people who have also contributed towards a themed exploration AND the
?silent majority?.
Are you saying that in Bohmian dialogue we are not addressing the
individual?
I?m not willing to do that sometimes ... Although it helps me to understand
why so many posts are not addressed to anybody.
Thanks Kari ...
Gill
on 15/11/06 22:48, Karilen Mays at tubakari@yahoo.com wrote:
> I know we have continued this thread already, but I wanted to reply after
> Gill's message. In Bohmian dialogue, when remarks are made they are always to
> the entire group, even if it seems like a response to someone. Of course if it
> weren't for the personal perspective of everyone participating, the messages
> and what comes up would be different. The point is that all of the content
> points to the process, and due to being connected at some level, what is said
> and experienced by one person can and does benefit and affect the group.
>
> As far as taking posts personally, that is bound to happen some times. Is it
> wrong? I don't think so. Should it be criticized? I should hope not. Can we
> learn and experience insight from personal reactions to each others' words?
> Yeah... So the impersonal is meant as an opening and inclusive experience. We
> all have these individual hearts that we can connect to our Big Heart
> with...so impersonal can and does have heart too.
>
> And I think each of our finite human existences contribute a unique
> perspective in this process and in life. So if it were not for each of us
> which are embodied unlimited whatever in a limited human form, this whole life
> experience and dialogue would be totally different. I have great appreciation
> for each of the individual voices that speak up and listen here.
>
> What is said is for everyone, but we say it in our own ways and I think that
> has power. That is why I think talking about our deepest personal experience,
> thought, reaction, etc has more or at least different power/energy than
> sharing some theory we read that someone else came up with. So I guess it
> doesn't matter if it is an ordinary or profound thought or experience, and
> again which is the difference, what matters is that we share what we share in
> our own voice and realize we are all doing that. I think we should encourage
> the people around us to express themselves in their way whatever that may be.
>
> Thanks Gill and others.
> kari
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 4:15:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
> Don, Susan and anybody else interested!
>
> What does it mean taking a post 'personally'?
> Is there an implicit criticism if it is said that somebody has taken a post
> 'personally'?
> When is a reply somebody makes - taking a post personally or not?
> Who decides?
>
> One thing I have learnt from this discussion group is many posts are not
> addressed to anybody ... When I first joined it seemed many posts were like
> this. Recently there have been more that are addressed to somebody ...
> Perhaps I have thought that if there is a Hi Gill or Gill at the start of a
> post that at least something of that post was addressed to me!
>
> I guess I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen as a rich
> resource and an opening into the more universal or the implicate.
>
> I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads to a lack
> of care for each other ...
>
> Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone?
>
> Gill
>
>
>
>
> Sponsored Link
>
> Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new
> house payment
> <http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9132-16414&moid=4116>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061116/9604bac2/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Nov 16 15:32:34 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 17 16:38:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <C180CE5F.8084%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
<2342C0B6-90AF-4280-B596-6ECAA435D86E@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00dd01c7098c$11743b90$114b153f@DL01>
Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as other than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom, wittiness as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being?
If thoughts are not words, is it possible to see also that thoughts are not ours? Is it not extremely limiting to say a thought is mine -- and ignore that everyone may have the same thought?
What would happen if I did not personify and interpret cleverness, wittiness or wisdom as mine? What would happen if you experienced wisdom without personifying? What would happen if, as per K, you watched the personification movement, or were, as Bohm suggests, aware of the personification movement as it forms ... such that experience occurs (sic) of wisdom instead of personal wisdom?
Do endorphins flow without excessive personification movement? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Yes, but that "have to be" is not the only thing. For instance, often I will write a post and then when I read it over I find myself saying to myself that it was either clever or witty or wise, and the endorphins will flow for a bit as they are doing right now. But there are other times when I know that I am having difficulties and that I have to take the risk of appearing foolish and pretty stupid, which doesn't do much for the endorphin flow, at least not immediately. But having survived the feared outcome, and perhaps having gained a little cup full of meaning, the pleasure returns. So there is that too.
don
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Lynne Tolk wrote:
Maybe it?s not so much the ?rightness? as the degree of ?have to be? attached to it. I remember an anthro course, long ago, where we studied a couple of African societies, separated by a mountain. One society had very flexible roles and was extremely peaceful ? rape and murder didn?t happen and they did not go off looking for war. The other had rigid role stereotypes, rape and murder were commonplace and war was a given. It impressed me so much I still remember it.
Lynne
On 11/15/06 1:03 PM, "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Yes, the "I have to be right" thought is a key. I think it may underly just about all the painful thoughts/actions that are initiated everyday and everywhere. I can easily figure out where it came from - school, parents, etc. - but is it possible that this has always been the case? Did tribal people in ancient times have to be right? I mean, there is both a personal and cultural level to this kind of thought.
On re-reading the above it may also cause similar effects with pleasurable emotions. lIke "I am right" or "I have been proved right," etc.
Whatever, rightness seems very important, Somehow it also seems to relate to Good and Evil. Rightness and Wrongness.
don
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061116/f7b1cbba/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 16 16:28:52 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 17 17:34:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <C182124C.3B5C%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <004101c70993$eca77b30$1478480c@HOME>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle wayIn reading what you have written and the paragraph you have asked about I would say once again that you seem to want to discuss the effects that you perceive of what happens when my way of interpreting meets your way of interpreting. To my way of thinking, the effects don't stand out there in the middle between us, it's more like we are encompassed by them ( there is what you might call a whole effect that is the event itself that includes you, me, and the group). You have effects that happen within you and I have effects that happen within me and the event as a whole has effects that happen within it. And you seem to want to have our meeting produce certain effects within you because I respond in a particular way that you have predetermined you want. So your focus (in what your write) seems to be all about the effects (you have predetermined you want to receive and produce) rather than about simply looking at the thoughts......without prejudging them and without the expectation of any particular effects.
But what I am hoping for is that we will suspend our usual way of interpreting and suspend our expectations of what will happen in the middle when we meet and suspend even what we expect to happen within us as individuals. To see what happens if we simply stand there looking at each other bare naked warts and all without trying to make any particular interpretations of each other. To simply accept each other at face value (what ever the other has to offer) without wanting anything from each other except the unveiling itself. And then to allow it to be enough for each person to decide for themselves what is important to them about the unveiling, to allow each person to have their own interpretations (of the event as a whole?) without trying to change or influence what those interpretations are for each other.
My experience has been that when two (or more) people are able to do that, what's important changes and the unveiling starts again. So for me, it's not necessarily about affirming, it's about allowing myself to let go of past affirmations and open to change. So, in that sense, yes, it's about my way of interpreting AND your way of interpreting.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Gill Wyatt
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Hi Susan,
I'm away from home for the next 10 days so may not find a wireless connection that easily!!
I guess intimacy is a word I would use for a particular type of warmth, caring and connection. When I talk to somebody at a call centre, or in a shop, or a colleague who actually listens to what I say and seems to be warm and interested in me its like the sun come out. Whereas somebody who is cold and distant and is doing the minimum and probably isn't listening to what I am saying has the opposite effect on me.
I often feel a bit like a flower ... Opening out when I receive warmth and caring and closing up when I don't. I take responsibility for having this senstivity ... And yet I know how other peoples behaviour influences me.
When you have the time I'd be very interested in your response to this paragraph from my last email.
Gill
... I don't think what we have been discussing is 'simply my way of interpreting' it seems to me that what we have been discussing is the meeting between 'my way of interpreting' AND 'your way of interpreting'. I've appreciated spending this time rediscovering the effect of my way of interpreting, the assumptions that are a part of who I am. I think you have also been saying that you have similarly been affirming who you are and what matters to you ... Is that not 'your way of interpreting'? ...
on 15/11/06 15:27, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
Hi Gill. Yes, I'm enjoying this conversation immensely and feel very grateful to have someone who is willing to stay with the process.
As I've said before, when I approach this subject I start with Bohm's idea of people being able to discuss what's important to them. I also think of the idea of personal responsibility. So, from there, I come to ideas about the feeling of warmth, connection, and understanding. In my exploration of my own thoughts and assumptions I've learned that for me, all of those ideas have a common connection with the idea of intimacy. So, I've discovered that when I'm looking for those things in my relationships with other people what's important to me is intimacy. And I came to the decision that if that's what's important to me and I'm going to walk my talk of taking personal responsibility then I'm the one who has to create the intimacy I'm looking for. I also came to the conclusion that, again, if I'm going to walk my talk, I can not decide for other people that intimacy "should" be what's important to them. It has to be ok with me for other things to be more important to them.
So, how to do that? I decided that for me, intimacy happens when I am able to be what I think of as "authentically me". For me, that involves being willing to spontaneously put myself out there as openly and honestly as possible. To allow myself to respond to things in a way that shows who I am in the moment warts and all. And it also means allowing others to have what ever response to me that feels right to them......and then staying with the process as long as they are willing, to see where that takes us. So I learned to let go of having any expectations of how others were going to respond to me.
In the process of trying this for some time here on this list and also on other lists that I belong to I have come to the tentative conclusion that perhaps the kind of understanding I used to look for may not be possible. But I've also discovered that it may not be as important as I used to think it was and I would say that at this point, I don't think it is a necessity. For me, what's happened is that my ideas of intimacy have changed. I now feel intimately connected to people in a very different way and with people that I never would have dreamed that I could have felt intimate with. And I'm not sure how to describe that so maybe I will have to leave that for another post when I've had more time to think about it.
Oh yes, I rarely feel disappointed with other people's response to me now although I do feel frustration at times and I welcome that feeling of frustration because I know that it's going to take me somewhere new and exciting.
And I would like to thank you for finally sharing what your perspectives are and for putting yourself out there. There is much more in your post that's worth exploring for me but I think this is enough for me for now.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Gill Wyatt <mailto:earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Hi Susan,
I'm understanding our differences I think and coming to respect my stance and yours.
For me when I talk about 'understanding my points' I'm referring to simply understanding what I say ... Its interesting ... You pick up on the word 'point' and it becomes 'get my point' whereas for me what was most important was 'understanding'. Are these the same? Perhaps it doesn't matter.
But yes for me Its about talking (well writing here!!) and listening and it does seem important to understand what has been written ... Doesn't dialogue occur from this close listening to each other and taking off the assumptions? ... Do we not need understanding ... And I would go further, from my stance in life I value empathy highly. To truly understand the other and be understood is such a gift. Mmm I'm re-reading my post before sending and I'm realising that there is more here ... I think I look for 'warmth' or maybe simply some 'sense of recognition' as well. I obviously don't expect to find it but I think there might have been something of this here.
And I know that I do feel disappointed when that doesn't occur. So yes I think I wanted to feel a warm understanding from you and of course I haven't. Yet I do feel I have met an alive, interesting and vibrant woman.
I don't think what we have been discussing is 'simply my way of interpreting' it seems to me that what we have been discussing is the meeting between 'my way of interpreting' AND 'your way of interpreting'. I've appreciated spending this time rediscovering the effect of my way of interpreting, the assumptions that are a part of who I am. I think you have also been saying that you have similarly been affirming who you are and what matters to you ... Is that not 'your way of interpreting'? ...
I can see what you mean by the 'us and them' in what Pat quoted. Yet I have witnessed this sort of process in so many groups. There are the 'helpers' or 'teachers' and those that need 'help' or 'teaching'. Over the years I have played both roles of this duality (maybe at the same time ... :-) !!). I know many of us don't want to recreate that culture here but that sort of culture is embedded in the very air that we breath.
I do understand and agree when you say you are not responsible for my feelings and my interpretations ... Yet when we live in an interconnected universe and we need to take responsibility for our part for the state of the world on the grand scale and what we manifest in our personal lives on the smaller scale, I think it is so much more complex than what your statement infers.
Um ... I'm getting to enjoy this!
Gill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061116/7a7cc364/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Thu Nov 16 17:14:20 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Fri Nov 17 18:16:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0776@msw2k.msw.local>
Is that true that the early Christians accorded personhood to everyone?
I have a hard time feeling that is true. Even the idea that slaves
existed would mean to me lack of personhood, at least of respect. And
when in Christianity have women been granted personhood? The fight over
which Christianity would survive was certainly not granting personhood
to those who believed in a different Christianity. D
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Gill Wyatt
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:33 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Thanks Don, good to not feel alone ... and William if you could resend
I'd appreciate.
Gill
on 15/11/06 13:00, Don Lay at donlay@gte.net wrote:
> I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen as a rich
> resource and an opening into the more universal or the implicate. --
> Gill
>
> Me too. -- don L
>
> I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads to a
> lack of care for each other ...
> Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone? -- Gill
>
> It makes sense to me! My understanding is that we can thank
> Christianity for popularizing the IDEA personhood, that it applies to
all humans.
>
> In the early Christian world, everyone ..., even the conquered enemy,
> even slaves -- even women -- were accorded personhood by the early
Christians.
> Maybe this is the greatness of the idea of personhood, perhaps the
> greatness of Christianity. Maybe the greatness of Rome relates to the
> NOTION of personhood.
>
> William said something very interesting re the personal being
> recently, but I cannot find the post. Anyone have it?
>
> William, could you please repost your ideas re the idea of personal
> being and evolution? -- Don L
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>> Don, Susan and anybody else interested!
>>
>> What does it mean taking a post 'personally'?
>> Is there an implicit criticism if it is said that somebody has taken
>> a post 'personally'?
>> When is a reply somebody makes - taking a post personally or not?
>> Who decides?
>>
>> One t