From ae.dropper at juno.com  Mon Oct 16 01:23:53 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Oct 17 02:25:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten
Message-ID: <20061015.192406.3020.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>

core snot

pat

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:02:35 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
Pat, surely you don't suspect zoe to be Kirtsun? --dbl




----- Original Message ----- 
From: ae.dropper@juno.com 
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten


How did Kirsten (Kris) send that message from your e-mail address, Zoe?

pat

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
writes:
Hi - Thank you Kathryn. I would like to know who actually kicked Kirsten
off that list. And why. --- Zoe

>From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: bouncing
>Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:07:29 -0400
>
>
>
>
>On 10/14/06 4:59 PM, "Zoe Chu" <zoechuzero@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi  - I received a message from Kirsten saying that she was kicked
out of this
> > group
>
>  Yes, Zoe, so did I.
>
>Kris and I were on the list, s/he was trying to help me learn to send
images
>in my emails when I got a message from the Administrator asking us to
take
>the conversation off .  I had no problem with that, thinking it was
because
>our conversation wasn?t a dialog topic.
>
>The next day, I got the email from him/her saying he was ?bounced?. 
That?s
>when I noticed my own emails were being sent from that Bohm-dialog
?bounced?
>address I posted earlier.
>
>One of the many thoughts that crossed my mind was that because I not
only
>got along with Kris, and was online with her just prior to her being
>bounced, but also felt a connection with her ? (although he was often
>difficult;  frequently I did not like her tone, and cautioned her about
both
>that and his vivid images (remember the ?stoplight? conversation?) )?
>perhaps my emails to the group were being ?monitored?, through some kind
of
>?guilt by association?.  We do live in a post 9-11 world;I lived through
>McCarthy,the 60s, and raised 2 boys in NYC gangland.
>
>I began researching the ?bounced? question last night, then sending
>questions this afternoon, because I don?t like to jump to conclusions. 
I
>received an answer from Franis that you may have seen posted:
>          I believe it's what happens automatically in the system when
the
>message bounces for whatever reason and it gets re-sent and goes through
the
>second or third time the systems has re-sent it.
>no resentment or misrepresentation implied ;o)  - Franis
>
>so that?s cleared up; she has more computer expertise than I.
>
>I miss Kris and send thoughts of Hozhoon (the beauty of walking balance
with
>all my relations), wherever he/she is.  I wish he were still here.    k
>
>

>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>



How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call
rates. 




_______________________________________________
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/20061015/74b0e6fb/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Mon Oct 16 02:36:08 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Tue Oct 17 03:34:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <20061015.192406.3020.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C1584C38.388B%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

Hi ? it?s interesting to see how constellations of things seem to happen
with no obvious cause.

This afternoon, I angrily walked out of the Chopra event...seething.  I had
?Thought As a System? with me on the bus, and ? carpe deum - went to the
index to see what I could learn about my anger.  Here?s what i found.

Feelings and Thoughts as System

Bohm:  our purpose is learning, not changing. Something may change you when
you learn, but that?s a by-product.
When we fill up with emotion, our conditioning tells us we?re not supposed
to feel that...The conditioning is what makes us angry...The point is that
this is a system, and it sort of spreads out and out and out.

BOHM:  I?m saying to find the word that makes the process go at full
strength.

Q:  Do we find what the button is?

BOHM:  The button is the word.
 
What we need is a correct description of the way you are actually
thinking...Depending on what it is, you find the words which express the
real reason you find it necessary to be angry (or whatever emotion) ? to
justify it, make it right and necessary.

I may perceive that you suddenly became angry at me.  That may happen
because you actually became angry.  But I could also have suddenly thought
of something which made me see you as angry...That came from my perception
being affected by thought...And you may even help to make it happen by
seeing it wrongly, because you will behave in a way which will induce him to
want to do it.  125
 
?The observer has already been affected by the thing he wants to observe.
Namely, if he wants to observe anger, he has already been affected by anger
in a distorted way.  So he doesn?t have any time.  There is no space.  There
is no time.  There is nothing but thought which has been affected by anger.
And this requires an insight, which would free the whole process.?  238
 
Sometimes I can reflect on  some disturbing emotion I?ve had and discover
this underlying assumption of necessity. But often, even though I can say
intellectually that it isn?t really necessary, there?s still a strong
feeling that it is.  I don?t want to let go of it...That?s the reflex.
 
But what we need to do about (time) is to begin the same way as we deal with
anger.  We have to begin to see how our experience of time (substitute
?anger?) is affected by thought.  To begin to get into it we find those
thoughts which are affecting our way of sensing anger/time and put them into
words and observe carefully.  We have to see that anger/time, which seems to
be there of its own accord without thought, would not be there without
thought.  The point is to get an insight into this.  I think that the
liberation from this process, from this incoherent kind of thought requires
bringing in all these questions.

Isn?t dialoging with people you?re uncomfortable with and in disagreement
with what Bohm dialog is all about?  I think we can learn a lot about
ourselves by seeing ourselves reflected in those differences.  What kind of
situation will permit that to happen?

Best, k



On 10/15/06 7:23 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:

> core snot
>  
> pat
>  
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:02:35 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
>>  
>> Pat, surely you don't suspect zoe to be Kirtsun?  --dbl
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>>  
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>  
>>> From:  ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>  
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>  
>>> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:04  PM
>>>  
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue]  Kirsten
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> How did Kirsten (Kris) send that message from your e-mail address,  Zoe?
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> pat
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>>> writes:
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Hi - Thank you Kathryn. I would like to know who actually kicked  Kirsten
>>>> off that list. And why. --- Zoe
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>> >From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>>>>> >Reply-To:  bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >To:  <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>> >Subject:  Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: bouncing
>>>>> >Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006  19:07:29 -0400
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >On 10/14/06 4:59 PM,  "Zoe Chu" <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > Hi  - I received a message from Kirsten  saying that she was kicked
>>>>>> out of this
>>>>>> > >  group
>>>>> >
>>>>> >  Yes, Zoe, so did I.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Kris and I  were on the list, s/he was trying to help me learn to send
>>>>> images
>>>>> >in my emails when I got a message from the Administrator  asking us to
>>>>> take
>>>>> >the conversation off .  I had no problem  with that, thinking it was
>>>>> because
>>>>> >our conversation wasn?t a dialog  topic.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >The next day, I got the email from him/her saying he  was ?bounced?.
>>>>> That?s
>>>>> >when I noticed my own emails were being  sent from that Bohm-dialog
>>>>> ?bounced?
>>>>> >address I posted  earlier.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >One of the many thoughts that crossed my mind was  that because I not
>>>>> only
>>>>> >got along with Kris, and was online with  her just prior to her being
>>>>> >bounced, but also felt a connection  with her ? (although he was often
>>>>> >difficult;  frequently I  did not like her tone, and cautioned her about
>>>>> both
>>>>> >that and his  vivid images (remember the ?stoplight? conversation?)  )?
>>>>> >perhaps my emails to the group were being ?monitored?,  through some kind
>>>>> of
>>>>> >?guilt by association?.  We do live in a  post 9-11 world;I lived through
>>>>> >McCarthy,the 60s, and raised 2 boys  in NYC gangland.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I began researching the ?bounced? question  last night, then sending
>>>>> >questions this afternoon, because I don?t  like to jump to conclusions.
>>>>> I
>>>>> >received an answer from Franis  that you may have seen  posted:
>>>>> >          I  believe it's what happens automatically in the system when
>>>>> the
>>>>> >message bounces for whatever reason and it gets re-sent and  goes through
>>>>> the
>>>>> >second or third time the systems has re-sent  it.
>>>>> >no resentment or misrepresentation implied ;o)  -  Franis
>>>>> >
>>>>> >so that?s cleared up; she has more computer  expertise than I.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I miss Kris and send thoughts of Hozhoon  (the beauty of walking balance
>>>>> with
>>>>> >all my relations), wherever  he/she is.  I wish he were still here.     k
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>>> >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
>>>>> >
>>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone  call
>>>> rates. 
>>>> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/e
>>>> vt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com>
>>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20061015/ba8b31a6/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Mon Oct 16 04:06:27 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Tue Oct 17 05:05:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten
In-Reply-To: <20061015150222.1352.qmail@web55003.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C1586163.3891%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

Hi Zoe ? I hope you will read my quotes and comments on Bohm?s words on
button pushing, anger and dialog in a different email I sent.

In addition, I wish I could ask Kris why s/he is so extreme in his/er button
pushing.  What?s the payoff for him/er?   Can people be forced to dialog on
subjects they?re not ready for?  I?m ready to dialog on ?button pushing?
now, but I wasn?t when Kris invited me to.  I even thought s/he was ?pushing
buttons? by making the invitation.  Moreover, in cyberspace, where
information is solely dependent on words, and people can hide their ordinary
reality identities, extremes of emotion can set off alarms.  It?s the
thought process that has no way to check out whether its imaginings and
rationalizations are amuck or not.  Amuck as in ? does s/he have an anger
management problem?  How deep is it?  Am I in danger?  Like New Yorkers on
the subway who see, don?t see, and get out of the way if something seems
unusual.  We know that some people have been pushed onto the tracks in front
of an oncoming train, so we watch our backs and continue using the subway.
New York paranoia.  It has saved lives.  No way to do the kind of reality
check that keeps things in balance.

I think everybody needs to ?walk in the other person?s moccasins? a little,
in order to stay true to our main purpose.

Here is one of my favorite quotes, Robert Burns:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us,
To see oursels as ithers see us!

Meaning ALL of humanity.

This is said in lovestrivingfortruceandhozhoon.    k


On 10/15/06 11:02 AM, "Zoe Chu" <zoechuzero@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi - Thank you Kathryn. I would like to know who actually kicked Kirsten off
> that list. And why. --- Zoe
>   
> 
>> >From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: bouncing
>> >Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:07:29 -0400
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 10/14/06 4:59 PM, "Zoe Chu" <zoechuzero@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>>> > > Hi  - I received a message from Kirsten saying that she was kicked out
>>> of this
>>> > > group
>> >
>> >  Yes, Zoe, so did I.
>> >
>> >Kris and I were on the list, s/he was trying to help me learn to send images
>> >in my emails when I got a message from the Administrator asking us to take
>> >the conversation off .  I had no problem with that, thinking it was because
>> >our conversation wasn?t a dialog topic.
>> >
>> >The next day, I got the email from him/her saying he was ?bounced?.  That?s
>> >when I noticed my own emails were being sent from that Bohm-dialog ?bounced?
>> >address I posted earlier.
>> >
>> >One of the many thoughts that crossed my mind was that because I not only
>> >got along with Kris, and was online with her just prior to her being
>> >bounced, but also felt a connection with her ? (although he was often
>> >difficult;  frequently I did not like her tone, and cautioned her about both
>> >that and his vivid images (remember the ?stoplight? conversation?) )?
>> >perhaps my emails to the group were being ?monitored?, through some kind of
>> >?guilt by association?.  We do live in a post 9-11 world;I lived through
>> >McCarthy,the 60s, and raised 2 boys in NYC gangland.
>> >
>> >I began researching the ?bounced? question last night, then sending
>> >questions this afternoon, because I don?t like to jump to conclusions.  I
>> >received an answer from Franis that you may have seen posted:
>> >          I believe it's what happens automatically in the system when the
>> >message bounces for whatever reason and it gets re-sent and goes through the
>> >second or third time the systems has re-sent it.
>> >no resentment or misrepresentation implied ;o)  - Franis
>> >
>> >so that?s cleared up; she has more computer expertise than I.
>> >
>> >I miss Kris and send thoughts of Hozhoon (the beauty of walking balance with
>> >all my relations), wherever he/she is.  I wish he were still here.    k
>> >
>> >
>   
> 
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >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
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >
>> >
> 
>  
> 
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061015/517ad74a/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Mon Oct 16 04:19:55 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Oct 17 05:21:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
Message-ID: <20061015.222157.1620.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>

Isn?t dialoging with people you?re uncomfortable with and in disagreement
with what Bohm dialog is all about?  I think we can learn a lot about
ourselves by seeing ourselves reflected in those differences.  What kind
of situation will permit that to happen?  (k)

Exactly! And the kind of [face to face] situation that will
[theoretically] permit this to happen [in a highly escalated way] is
group dialogue of with at least 10 and no more than 40, regular
participants who share a sense of necessity about "looking at thought"
together. Lee Nichol used to talk about an ideal "heat range" in the
circle where the defensive reflexes are operating but people are not so
"hot" that they are storming out of the room on a regular basis.

I'm so glad that you transcribed some of the stuff about anger because it
is both an excellent thing to work with in terms of getting an initial
look at "the function of thought" (what the meaning of the words does -
within the entirety of the system of thought), and, it as a subject is
difficult to talk about in dialogue (because people tend to get angry
when discussing anger).

Lots to be said about this. Thanks for starting. 

pat

p.s. hope "core snot" in a previous post was read correctly - 
as a contraction of "Of Course Not."


Best, k

Hi ? it?s interesting to see how constellations of things seem to happen
with no obvious cause.

This afternoon, I angrily walked out of the Chopra event...seething.  I
had ?Thought As a System? with me on the bus, and ? carpe deum - went to
the index to see what I could learn about my anger.  Here?s what i found.

Feelings and Thoughts as System

Bohm:  our purpose is learning, not changing. Something may change you
when you learn, but that?s a by-product.
When we fill up with emotion, our conditioning tells us we?re not
supposed to feel that...The conditioning is what makes us angry...The
point is that this is a system, and it sort of spreads out and out and
out.

BOHM:  I?m saying to find the word that makes the process go at full
strength.

Q:  Do we find what the button is?

BOHM:  The button is the word.
 
What we need is a correct description of the way you are actually
thinking...Depending on what it is, you find the words which express the
real reason you find it necessary to be angry (or whatever emotion) ? to
justify it, make it right and necessary.

I may perceive that you suddenly became angry at me.  That may happen
because you actually became angry.  But I could also have suddenly
thought of something which made me see you as angry...That came from my
perception being affected by thought...And you may even help to make it
happen by seeing it wrongly, because you will behave in a way which will
induce him to want to do it.  125
 
?The observer has already been affected by the thing he wants to observe.
 Namely, if he wants to observe anger, he has already been affected by
anger in a distorted way.  So he doesn?t have any time.  There is no
space.  There is no time.  There is nothing but thought which has been
affected by anger.  And this requires an insight, which would free the
whole process.?  238
 
Sometimes I can reflect on  some disturbing emotion I?ve had and discover
this underlying assumption of necessity. But often, even though I can say
intellectually that it isn?t really necessary, there?s still a strong
feeling that it is.  I don?t want to let go of it...That?s the reflex.
 
But what we need to do about (time) is to begin the same way as we deal
with anger.  We have to begin to see how our experience of time
(substitute ?anger?) is affected by thought.  To begin to get into it we
find those thoughts which are affecting our way of sensing anger/time and
put them into words and observe carefully.  We have to see that
anger/time, which seems to be there of its own accord without thought,
would not be there without thought.  The point is to get an insight into
this.  I think that the liberation from this process, from this
incoherent kind of thought requires bringing in all these questions. 

Isn?t dialoging with people you?re uncomfortable with and in disagreement
with what Bohm dialog is all about?  I think we can learn a lot about
ourselves by seeing ourselves reflected in those differences.  What kind
of situation will permit that to happen?

Best, k



On 10/15/06 7:23 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:


core snot
 
pat
 
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:02:35 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:


Pat, surely you don't suspect zoe to be Kirtsun?  --dbl

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


----- Original Message ----- 
 
From:  ae.dropper@juno.com 
 
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org  
 
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:04  PM
 
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue]  Kirsten
 

 
 
How did Kirsten (Kris) send that message from your e-mail address,  Zoe?
 
 
 
pat
 
 
 
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
writes:
 


Hi - Thank you Kathryn. I would like to know who actually kicked  Kirsten
off that list. And why. --- Zoe
 

>From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To:  bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To:  <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject:  Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: bouncing
>Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006  19:07:29 -0400
>
>
>
>
>On 10/14/06 4:59 PM,  "Zoe Chu" <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> > Hi  - I received a message from Kirsten  saying that she was kicked
out of this
> >  group
>
>  Yes, Zoe, so did I.
>
>Kris and I  were on the list, s/he was trying to help me learn to send 
images
>in my emails when I got a message from the Administrator  asking us to
take
>the conversation off .  I had no problem  with that, thinking it was
because
>our conversation wasn?t a dialog  topic.
>
>The next day, I got the email from him/her saying he  was ?bounced?. 
That?s
>when I noticed my own emails were being  sent from that Bohm-dialog
?bounced?
>address I posted  earlier.
>
>One of the many thoughts that crossed my mind was  that because I not
only
>got along with Kris, and was online with  her just prior to her being
>bounced, but also felt a connection  with her ? (although he was often
>difficult;  frequently I  did not like her tone, and cautioned her about
both
>that and his  vivid images (remember the ?stoplight? conversation?)  )?
>perhaps my emails to the group were being ?monitored?,  through some
kind of
>?guilt by association?.  We do live in a  post 9-11 world;I lived
through
>McCarthy,the 60s, and raised 2 boys  in NYC gangland.
>
>I began researching the ?bounced? question  last night, then sending
>questions this afternoon, because I don?t  like to jump to conclusions. 
I
>received an answer from Franis  that you may have seen  posted:
>          I  believe it's what happens automatically in the system when 
the
>message bounces for whatever reason and it gets re-sent and  goes
through the
>second or third time the systems has re-sent  it.
>no resentment or misrepresentation implied ;o)  -  Franis
>
>so that?s cleared up; she has more computer  expertise than I.
>
>I miss Kris and send thoughts of Hozhoon  (the beauty of walking balance
with
>all my relations), wherever  he/she is.  I wish he were still here.    
k
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061015/047f3d78/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Mon Oct 16 12:54:58 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Oct 17 13:53:54 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] LOGOS-Intuition
In-Reply-To: <20061017100003.01CCB23DF1@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFFF18A309.E2E59075-ON85257209.003BDE86-85257209.003BF724@dialogos.com>







Rodger __Hi Kathryn, it seems to me we are making the same point, in
agreement.
But that when I describe something as an essential it draws from you a need
to point out that there is more to life than essentials.

I acquiesce, your point is more relevant, covers more ground, tells more
truth, and is essentially more, than mine. _R
.
.
From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] LOGOS-Intuition
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
.
On 10/15/06 7:16 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com"
<Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
The tools for interpreting awareness of ones experience in the present
moment are an essential.
>
Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
Morning Rodger - The language, tools and strategies do more than interpret
awareness of one?s experience in the present moment.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/b3102931/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Mon Oct 16 13:46:58 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Oct 17 14:45:51 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity 
In-Reply-To: <20061017100003.01CCB23DF1@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF50A8E2F0.BE8620D8-ON85257209.003CB0BF-85257209.0040B9AC@dialogos.com>







Rodger __ This is cool Don. If you are refering to an increasing awareness
about self-identity already having an image, prior to any of our ego made
persona, then I suggest those original self-images are also seen through
ranges of our senses, less often used.

Perception of AURAS for instance, is an example of how our visual sense is
engaged, on levels less often used, to see an image of self-identity.

The interpretaion of someones auras brings us back to the neural
pidgeon-holing of PRESENT input into PAST references, catagories, meanings.

And interpretation is an essential part of a healing process, for instance,
so I am not suggesting anything wrong about having abilities to interpret.

Similarly, sounds we hear in a persons voice -- we can also engage our
audio sense on levels less often used -- so listening moves beyond the
vocal intonations trained into a person's voice, re: dialect,
emotional-enviroment, cultural bais, etc.  And we begin to hear -the sound
of a person, re: our original self/identity image comes with sounds.

I think this leads to seeing and hearing something of the MEANING of one
another. Not in freeze-frame mental conclusion form, -- aah now I know who
you are!
But as a glimpsing of a river of original self, that is flowing into an
ocean. _R
.
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:02:47 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity [was
             reason-ance,            logos-ance (resent)]
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
.
Seems to me Bohm and K seriously suggest that lack of awareness is the
answer -- not lack of awareness of the imagined, imaginary self (ego??)--
rather, there is lack of awareness that the self-identity itself is
identity with an image
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/5a7c42ef/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Mon Oct 16 14:00:02 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Oct 17 14:58:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: computer/ Mark
In-Reply-To: <20061017100003.01CCB23DF1@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF3DD00023.93F5902E-ON85257209.0041A0E8-85257209.0041EC14@dialogos.com>






Rodger __ Super drag Mark. Hope to be -reading your dialogue thoughts-
again, asap._R
.
.
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:25:04 EDT MarkHarmer@aol.com writes:
Hi all,
Due to a major loss of data in my PC, I need to unscubscribe from this list
for a while. Just wanted to let you know and will be back when I
can. Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/a37f8ef7/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Mon Oct 16 14:18:53 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Tue Oct 17 15:17:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <20061015.110231.3988.88.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C158F0ED.389D%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

?We have the sense of separation because our culture tells us that each
individual is separate, and therefore we perceive it that way.?  from
?Thought?

The Vision of Dialog, p.205
We are sharing a common meaning...We would share this kind of bond, which is
called ?impersonal fellowship?.
It seems to me he?s saying the same thing that poet John Donne said Some 400
years ago, , ?No man is an island unto himself. Every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main.?  That this idea is illusion, and the cause
of much misery.   k


On 10/15/06 11:02 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:

> How can people get past the  programming of culture that they are a separate
> individuality and why would they want to do that? -- Franis


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/946f8632/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Mon Oct 16 14:20:30 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Tue Oct 17 15:19:19 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity 
In-Reply-To: <OF50A8E2F0.BE8620D8-ON85257209.003CB0BF-85257209.0040B9AC@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C158F14E.389E%tangykatt@earthlink.net>




On 10/16/06 7:46 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:

> But as a glimpsing of a river of original self, that is flowing into an ocean.
> _

What a beautiful way of saying it.  k

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/e2ed6227/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com  Mon Oct 16 14:30:19 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Tue Oct 17 15:29:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: computer/ Mark
Message-ID: <485.a3c8133.3264d55b@aol.com>

 
Thanks Rodger - getting it going again slowly. I think I'm understanding a  
new meaning of the word "fragmentation" - basically the disk scatters the  
software around in a working computer as you put new data onto it, but my  machine 
has lost the ability to connect it all up again, leaving large  chunks of 
data which are there somewhere but appear to be missing.
 
Anyway,  haven't unsubscribed from the list as you can see, but might  lurk  
to see what's being talked-about rather than contribute too much  while I 
continue trying to fix this...
 
Mark

Rodger __ Super drag Mark. Hope to be -reading your dialogue  thoughts- 
again, asap._R


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/ea17a80a/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Mon Oct 16 14:42:10 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Tue Oct 17 15:41:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <20061015.222157.1620.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C158F662.38A3%tangykatt@earthlink.net>




On 10/15/06 10:19 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:

> Lee Nichol used to talk about an ideal "heat range" in the circle where the
> defensive reflexes are operating but people are not so "hot" that they are
> storming out of the room on a regular basis.
> 
> You had me chuckling with that one!  I found a little more that directly
> speaks to my concern and discomfort over flaming with both words and jpg
> images ? hence, the situation with Kris.
> 
>     Thought claims to be telling you the way things are...Usually what happens
> is that the ?me? has been hurt and ?I? must remove or get rid of the pain...so
> you start a train of thought...and you say ?OK, that one?s to blame.  I must
> take revenge...People still get hurt by names because of the thought which
> creates the image, which produces either pleasure or hurt...?
> He says many other interesting things, and comes to this, ?So that is the
> suggestion: that there could arise a freedom which is collective as well as
> individual.  We are not free at all as long as we are stuck with this stuff.?
> p. 225
> 
> So the inference seems to be that we must work through all these polluted
> thought forms wherever they are, in order to reach the ideal state ?
> collective freedom.
> 
> Thoughts?   k


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/cdfd304f/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Mon Oct 16 14:50:01 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Tue Oct 17 15:48:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten
In-Reply-To: <20061015.135148.1328.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C158F839.38A5%tangykatt@earthlink.net>




On 10/15/06 12:38 PM, "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com> wrote:

> But don't worry - Peter/Kirsten/etc. will be back on the list as soon as
> he figures out how to impersonate someone else from somewhere else other
> than his blackberry handheld.

Hi Fran - In light of all the stuff I dug up on examining anger in
"Thought", including what I just posted to Pat, + the image overload on the
server, it would seem to me that Kris shouldn't have to create a new cyber
identity to post again.  As far as Blackberries are concerned, lots of
people must own them, or the company wouldn't be in business.

I'm neither a Bohm nor a computer expert, and cyber groups have issues that
face-to-face groups don't have, but that's the way it seems.

Best, k


From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Mon Oct 16 14:53:36 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Tue Oct 17 15:52:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] subject: Boston
In-Reply-To: <OF564F0334.D2B31D50-ON85257208.0048C6ED-85257208.004A0E44@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C158F910.38A7%tangykatt@earthlink.net>




On 10/15/06 9:28 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:

>  a Conflict Resolution Symposium presented by Ela Gandhi, granddaughter of
> Mahatma Gandhi. 
> 
> Rodger ? I was one of the first teachers in the NYC public school system to be
> trained in conflict resolution, and have always felt it invaluable in both
> personal and group situations.  If I had known about this symposium, I would
> have arranged to attend.  Is there a mailing list you could refer me to for
> alerts to such symposiums?
> 
> Thanks, k


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/0821f734/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net  Mon Oct 16 14:55:29 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Tue Oct 17 15:54:17 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] LOGOS-Intuition
In-Reply-To: <OFFF18A309.E2E59075-ON85257209.003BDE86-85257209.003BF724@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C158F981.38A8%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

Yes, we are making the same point.  k


On 10/16/06 6:54 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:

> Rodger __Hi Kathryn, it seems to me we are making the same point, in
> agreement.
> But that when I describe something as an essential it draws from you a need to
> point out that there is more to life than essentials.
> 
> I acquiesce, your point is more relevant, covers more ground, tells more
> truth, and is essentially more, than mine. _R
> .
> .
> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] LOGOS-Intuition
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> .
> On 10/15/06 7:16 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
> wrote:
> The tools for interpreting awareness of ones experience in the present moment
> are an essential.
>> > 
> Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
> Morning Rodger - The language, tools and strategies do more than interpret
> awareness of one?s experience in the present moment.
> .
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061016/6b1e8750/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Mon Oct 16 15:16:36 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Tue Oct 17 16:13:44 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695CFEF2@msw2k.msw.local>

is there a difference between imaginary and mistaken? D.

________________________________

From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
ae.dropper@juno.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:24 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
(resent)


Kathryn, then don't we say that 'ultimate experience' is what the
Parmenides/Heracllitus called logos -- rather than the imaginary
personal identity experience?  The idea I'm working on is that the
personal identity experience derives from or occurs with the use of
words that direct awareness to the personal identity ... without
awareness that it is being done.   -- Don L
 
Imaginary is "with meaning" as I read Don's context.   Imaginary
meaning. 
Consider the old snake/rope trick. A "snake" is seen in the road; upon
closer
viewing, it turns out to be a rope. The first meaning is imaginary - the
thought
"snake" produced the feeling "snake! - danger! " Imaginary danger. Wrong

meaning.
 
pat
 
 
I would argue that what is imaginary is certainly WITH meaning.
Unfortunately, I don't have much time this morning.  Deepak Chopra is
appearing here today, and I have to get going shortly.   k


On 10/14/06 11:35 PM, "Karilen Mays" <tubakari@yahoo.com> wrote:



	I question whether what is imaginary is without meaning.
	Kari 
	 
	----- Original Message ----
	From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
	To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
	Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:52:04 PM
	Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance,
logos-ance (resent)
	
	what is non ultimate? -- K
	
	Maybe that is not ultimate which is without meaning, without
intention.  Maybe that is only imaginary is not ultimate? -- dbl 
	
	 
	 
	

		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: Karilen Mays <mailto:tubakari@yahoo.com>
<mailto:tubakari@yahoo.com>   
		To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
		Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:49 PM
		Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance,
logos-ance (resent)
		
		ive barely been able to follw this because this talk of
ultimate experience is strange...what is not ultimate experience? is it
just the point of view that differs? what is non ultimate?
		 
		kari
		
		
		 
		

	----- Original Message ----
	From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
	To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
	Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:48:16 AM
	Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance,
logos-ance (resent)
	
	Kathryn, then don't we say that 'ultimate experience' is what
the Parmenides/Heracllitus called logos -- rather than the imaginary
personal identity experience?  The idea I'm working on is that the
personal identity experience derives from or occurs with the use of
words that direct awareness to the personal identity ... without
awareness that it is being done.   -- Don L

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/528c0b4c/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Mon Oct 16 15:22:38 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Tue Oct 17 16:19:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos (resent)
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695CFEF5@msw2k.msw.local>

Good question--aha words.  Striving for justice, honesty, fairness for
the other which means in the long run fairness for everyone since we are
all part of one?   

-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Regina
Bensch-Coe
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 2:59 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos (resent)

I think it is possible to be in the now even when striving if it is an
honest striving. D.

What is an honest striving?

Regina

>From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos (resent)
>Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:02:03 -0400
>
>Prissy PhD sounds like a real assumption and generalization that needs 
>some thoughtful consideration.
>Working on being present in the "now" is worth while.  I know when I 
>"strive" I lose the moment--it is so easy to do during a trial or even 
>during a deposition or even when trying to understand the position of a

>client.  I can tell when I lose my "self" but often can't stop.  I 
>think it is possible to be in the now even when striving if it is an 
>honest striving. D.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Regina 
>Bensch-Coe
>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:17 AM
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos (resent)
>
>We unfold and enfold simultaneously. There is nothing else. (pat)
>
>To have moments of this awareness of "unfolding and enfolding 
>simultaneously" is to live in the "Now," to be fully present, to not 
>grasp or seek anything. When I am striving, I am in a reflex-mode, in a

>non-proprioception state, and the sense of "unfolding and enfolding 
>simultaneously" is so easily forgotten.
>
>Regina
>
>
> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos  (resent)
> >Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:46:31 -0400
> >
> >There's the old, old idea of being logos directed.  Two millennia 
> >ago, wise men were said to be logos directed.  Perhaps PROCESS 
> >THOUGHT is a way to understand that -- not the kind of process 
> >philosophy that would
>
> >require a prissy PhD to explain -- just everyday knocking around
sense.
> >The idea is that many,many processes must obtain  before  you can  
> >bat an eye lash, before you can know that you are.  (don L)
> >
> >We unfold and enfold simultaneously. There is nothing else. The
>"process"
> >part (regarding self)
> >is hidden from the "outer" senses but not from the "inner" senses.
> >This is a "self - aware movement. It is like musical "movement 
> >[where, incidentally, the "outer"
> >senses do perceive the
> >simultaneity" of unfoldment / enfoldment].   (pat)
> >
> >
> >When it became law that everyone must "have a personal identity", 
> >somehow we stopped being wise and started acting  and pretending to 
> >be the image associated with the personal identity.  That  is, we 
> >ignore the processes
> >  that we are, by which we interact with the WHOLE and  act and 
> >pretend
>
> >that we are identical with the optical image, the photo image.
> >
> >Giving careful attention to universal  processes, logos, perhaps we 
> >can
>
> >begin to investigate and perhaps somehow identify with those 
> >processes that actually identify what we are instead of just what the

> >imagery suggests.
> >
> >Reason-ance? -- Don Lay
> >
> >Yes. There seem to be such identity phases or moments - if it could 
> >be called that - a sense that 'what I am is process or in process'. 
> >But it
>
> >seems that even this kind of identification is not necessary - except

> >probably as a means of attempting to think and speak of what is 
> >happening now in relation to what was happening when identity was 
> >with images.
> >
> >pat
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 tangykatt at earthlink.net  Mon Oct 16 15:21:15 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Tue Oct 17 16:20:06 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695CFEF2@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <C158FF8B.38AC%tangykatt@earthlink.net>

I think there certainly can be, esp. in the sense of ?embody or typify
something.   Or as in ?my imagination can run away with me ? the dentist?s
office, for instance!   k


On 10/16/06 9:16 AM, "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com> wrote:

> is there a difference between imaginary and mistaken? D.
> 
> 
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of ae.dropper@juno.com
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:24 AM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
> 
> Kathryn, then don't we say that 'ultimate experience' is what the
> Parmenides/Heracllitus called logos -- rather than the imaginary personal
> identity experience?  The idea I'm working on is that the personal identity
> experience derives from or occurs with the use of words that direct awareness
> to the personal identity ... without awareness that it is being done.   -- Don
> L
>  
> Imaginary is "with meaning" as I read Don's context.   Imaginary meaning.
> Consider the old snake/rope trick. A "snake" is seen in the road; upon closer
> viewing, it turns out to be a rope. The first meaning is imaginary - the
> thought
> "snake" produced the feeling "snake! - danger! " Imaginary danger. Wrong
> meaning.
>  
> pat
>  
>  
> I would argue that what is imaginary is certainly WITH meaning.
> Unfortunately, I don?t have much time this morning.  Deepak Chopra is
> appearing here today, and I have to get going shortly.   k
> 
> 
> On 10/14/06 11:35 PM, "Karilen Mays" <tubakari@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> I question  whether what is imaginary is without meaning.
>> Kari 
>>  
>> -----  Original Message ----
>> From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
>> To:  bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:52:04  PM
>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance  (resent)
>> 
>> what is non ultimate? -- K
>> 
>> Maybe that is not  ultimate which is without meaning, without intention.
>> Maybe that is only  imaginary is not ultimate? -- dbl
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Karilen Mays <mailto:tubakari@yahoo.com>
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Saturday,  October 14, 2006 2:49 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue]  reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
>>> 
>>> ive barely been able to follw this  because this talk of ultimate experience
>>> is strange...what is not ultimate  experience? is it just the point of view
>>> that differs? what is non  ultimate?
>>>  
>>> kari
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>> ----- Original  Message ----
>> From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
>> To:  bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:48:16  AM
>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance  (resent)
>> 
>> Kathryn, then don't we say that  'ultimate experience' is what the
>> Parmenides/Heracllitus called logos --  rather than the imaginary personal
>> identity experience?   The idea I'm working on is that the personal identity
>> experience derives from or occurs with the use of words that direct
>> awareness to the personal identity ... without awareness that it is being
>> done.   -- Don L
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061016/7d6f92fb/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Mon Oct 16 15:42:50 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 17 16:42:08 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
References: <20061014184936.36829.qmail@web52908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004f01c6f128$fa123180$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>

what is not ultimate experience? -- Kari

It seems that all that is is ultimate just because it all  that is is part of the whole, from which every individuated THINGK derives. This may be a useful theological statement whether or not one subscribes to whatever is said regarding deity  because it may be applicable when considering the whole or wholeness.   It may be a way to avoid dualistic thinking.

I believe the way dualism is avoided in  thought of Existence and Being is the ancient Greek notion of existence as that which  emerges, STANDS OUT while STANDING I.

Maybe a non ultimate statement would be if someone in a restaurant ask the cook if he was a cook.  He might say yes, but be aware that ultimately he was not a thingk, that he did not know just exactly what he was even though he was acting and pretending to be a cook to get through school.  Ultimately, what is any thingk?  A thingk is something manmade, synthetic.

It seems society dictates that we play roles that we think of as not having ultimate meaning, doesn't it?  Don't we all play roles that are not ultimately meaningful, ultimately important?

Don L


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Karilen Mays 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:49 PM
  Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)


  ive barely been able to follw this because this talk of ultimate experience is strange...what is not ultimate experience? is it just the point of view that differs? what is non ultimate?

  kari


     
  ----- Original Message ----
  From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
  Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:48:16 AM
  Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)


  Kathryn, then don't we say that 'ultimate experience' is what the Parmenides/Heracllitus called logos -- rather than the imaginary personal identity experience?  The idea I'm working on is that the personal identity experience derives from or occurs with the use of words that direct awareness to the personal identity ... without awareness that it is being done.   -- Don L







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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20061016/838681ad/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Mon Oct 16 15:43:45 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 17 16:42:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] visiting
Message-ID: <006c01c6f129$1c9ad4a0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>

I stopped by to visit Dorothy and Mel, a couple of the nicest people you could ever meet. We had some wine and cheese sardines and great conversation. 

I recall a couple of years ago Franis said how nice it was to travel a bit and meet other dialoguers.  That was my first experience and it was wonderful.

Dorothy, tell Mel I bought a bottle of Merlot today instead of the usual Cabernet .. thinking of you guys and that nice Merlot you served.  It's quite enjoyable, BV Costal, very inexpensive and as good as all the BV wines.  Of course, wine alone is strictly for the vascular system and not at all enjoyable as is wine with others.

I drove from Knoxville to Maggie Valley in about  two hours, then to Waynesville, N C, thence to Franklin, NC for the night.  Tomorrow I will take more photos of the fall colors, the mountain/ridge shapes and patterns, hopefully get some get some good pics from which to make paintings, enough to last a few months.  I've always had difficulty with landscapes; I have serious design  problems.
  
Blessings to All,
Don L


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/f511a36a/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Mon Oct 16 15:44:07 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 17 16:43:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos (resent)
References: <BAY123-F37BF57D7EA6C126EE0D00DB7080@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <007301c6f129$278c3110$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>

>>Working on being present in the "now" is worth while.  I know when I
>>"strive" I lose the moment--it is so easy to do during a trial or even
>>during a deposition or even when trying to understand the position of a
>>client.  I can tell when I lose my "self" but often can't stop.  I think
>>it is possible to be in the now even when striving if it is an honest
>>striving.  -- D.

What is an honest striving? --  Regina

I believe both K and B infer or say directly that "working at being in the
now" prevents being in the "now".  What is "now"?

I wonder if it would be helpful to think of time -- past, now, future -- as
part of tas.  That is, consider time to be a useful system that has evolved,
but it should not be viewed as ultimate, should not be regarded on a par
with Being.

I believe the same is true for the SOS, the PIS and many, many other
systems.  --  Don L



From: "Regina Bensch-Coe" <benschcoe@hotmail.com>


>I think it is possible to be in the now even when striving if it is an
>honest striving. D.
>
> What is an honest striving?
>
> Regina
>
>>From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos (resent)
>>Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:02:03 -0400
>>
>>Prissy PhD sounds like a real assumption and generalization that needs
>>some thoughtful consideration.
>>Working on being present in the "now" is worth while.  I know when I
>>"strive" I lose the moment--it is so easy to do during a trial or even
>>during a deposition or even when trying to understand the position of a
>>client.  I can tell when I lose my "self" but often can't stop.  I think
>>it is possible to be in the now even when striving if it is an honest
>>striving. D.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Regina
>>Bensch-Coe
>>Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:17 AM
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos (resent)
>>
>>We unfold and enfold simultaneously. There is nothing else. (pat)
>>
>>To have moments of this awareness of "unfolding and enfolding
>>simultaneously" is to live in the "Now," to be fully present, to not
>>grasp or seek anything. When I am striving, I am in a reflex-mode, in a
>>non-proprioception state, and the sense of "unfolding and enfolding
>>simultaneously" is so easily forgotten.
>>
>>Regina
>>
>>
>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos  (resent)
>> >Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:46:31 -0400
>> >
>> >There's the old, old idea of being logos directed.  Two millennia ago,
>> >wise men were said to be logos directed.  Perhaps PROCESS THOUGHT is a
>> >way to understand that -- not the kind of process philosophy that would
>>
>> >require a prissy PhD to explain -- just everyday knocking around sense.
>> >The idea is that many,many processes must obtain  before  you can  bat
>> >an eye lash, before you can know that you are.  (don L)
>> >
>> >We unfold and enfold simultaneously. There is nothing else. The
>>"process"
>> >part (regarding self)
>> >is hidden from the "outer" senses but not from the "inner" senses.
>> >This is a "self - aware movement. It is like musical "movement [where,
>> >incidentally, the "outer"
>> >senses do perceive the
>> >simultaneity" of unfoldment / enfoldment].   (pat)
>> >
>> >
>> >When it became law that everyone must "have a personal identity",
>> >somehow we stopped being wise and started acting  and pretending to be
>> >the image associated with the personal identity.  That  is, we ignore
>> >the processes
>> >  that we are, by which we interact with the WHOLE and  act and pretend
>>
>> >that we are identical with the optical image, the photo image.
>> >
>> >Giving careful attention to universal  processes, logos, perhaps we can
>>
>> >begin to investigate and perhaps somehow identify with those processes
>> >that actually identify what we are instead of just what the imagery
>> >suggests.
>> >
>> >Reason-ance? -- Don Lay
>> >
>> >Yes. There seem to be such identity phases or moments - if it could be
>> >called that - a sense that 'what I am is process or in process'. But it
>>
>> >seems that even this kind of identification is not necessary - except
>> >probably as a means of attempting to think and speak of what is
>> >happening now in relation to what was happening when identity was with
>> >images.
>> >
>> >pat
>>
>>

From donlay at gte.net  Mon Oct 16 15:44:24 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 17 16:43:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
References: <20061014.112431.3988.60.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <007c01c6f129$31f809d0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>

Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)I've always  had difficulty with the attribution and application of numbers and persona masks to the logos.  The idea may be, may have been, that the underlying actuality cannot  be known because the words to denote, describe that reality alters it just as an electron alters what is measured by the electron microscope.

Exactly what is an electron, its properties with great precision and specificity of definition?  It cannot be known/said because, again, the electron used to measure an electron alters the electron that  would be measured.  Likewise, using words to 'measure' what actually is alters -- is an alteration of -- what actual is.  Thus, what actually is cannot be known.

Of course, as pointed out by DF and others, we know enough to jump out of the way of a bus or speeding locomotive, and that is something.  However, that bit of knowledge -- dodging a bus or locomotive -- can somehow go to our heads and we may get the bighead and start the ego trips that may destroy us.

Bohm points out that a TOE is impossible.  I believe he cites the nature of language/knowledge processes.  What do we do when the anxiety of not knowing plagues us?  I'm a simple man, if not a simpleton.  I pray because that is what people have done for generations and generations.

Resonance??  -- Don L








  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ae.dropper@juno.com 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:22 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)


    This generalization of all this translates immediately 
    to an experience of ultimacy.

    I'm with you up to the point of "ultimacy".  Do you mean it as "most perfect underlying reality"?  k
    Have to look at the context to see what I may have meant (so I re-pasted it below), but I have no problem with "most perfect underlying reality."

    What I said had referred to don L's "there is something ultimate about meaning."

    pat



  On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:53:31 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:

    On 10/14/06 10:28 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:

    This generalization of all this translates immediately 
    to an experience of ultimacy.

    I'm with you up to the point of "ultimacy".  Do you mean it as "most perfect underlying reality"?  k

    When I look at Meaning as a member of the Matter, Energy, Meaning "Trinity," a very meaningful interpretation in relation to Ultimacy comes easily. Energy is the first "member" from which Matter [second "member"] proceeds and Meaning [as the third "member"] "reunites" Energy and Matter. They are one. The "two" are one. Energy IS Matter. [Einstein was a mystic, no?]  And, the "three" are one. Energy IS Matter IS Meaning. This is quite meaningful as well. 

    This generalization of all this translates immediately 
    to an experience of ultimacy.

    This also translates into a general "meaning of life."
    And here again, meaning also works well as identical
    with my sense of "logos" (as in dia-logos).

    Interestingly though, here (in this trinity) "logos" becomes
    the third person [member] of the trinity where in the Roman version
    "logos" is the "second person {member]."

    pat

    On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:41:37 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
      is there any question that words have temporary and arbitrary definitions? -- D.
       
      What about meaning?  It seems easy to see that definitions are arbitrary.  Is it easy to see that meaning is not, that there is something ultimate about meaning.  For example, dark clouds mean rain.  Thick bark on the North side of a tree may mean a cold winter is on the way.

      Is the meaning of dark clouds as ultimate as is energy and matter?  Is the meaning of heavier bark on the North side of a tree as fundamental, as ultimate as matter and energy?

      Is there some kind of experience in homo-sap that is as ultimate and as meaningful as dark clouds and thick bark? 

      What is human experience is as meaningful as storm clouds or thicker bark prior to  severe winter}? -- Don L

        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Dorothy Stulberg 
        To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
        Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:05 PM
        Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)


        is there any question that words have temporary and arbitrary definitions?  D.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn Arizmendi
        Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 7:59 AM
        To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
        Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)



        Could it  possibly mean that words have  temporary and arbitrary definitions?

        My research yesterday on improvisation definitely bears this out.  Will elaborate more when I've sorted out my notes, and have more to take and incorporate today at CCNY.  

        Preliminary findings are that by the application of Bohm ideas and principles, we will forge a new path.

        Hurray!  k


        On 10/13/06 8:44 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:


          I'm in! Let's work with it.
           
          pat
           
          On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:23:15 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:


            What does it  mean that the Greek   logos has been interpreted as  meaning reason? as meaning Ratio? as  meaning meaning?  What is the meaning?    
             
            Could it  possibly mean that words have  temporary and arbitrary definitions?  What would happen if we decided,  for  just an experiment, to use the idea that logos  means meaning? 
             
            Then perhaps we could seriously consider dialogue  as dia meaning or in terms of dia meaning.  -- Don  L 
             
            ----- Original Message ----- 
             
            From:  Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com 
             
            To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org  
             
            Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:05  AM
             
            Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: reason-ance, logos-ance
              

            Rodger __Lead the way Don. Tell us about Reason-ance, logos-ance,  ratio-ance. _R
            ..
            From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
            Subject: Re: Subject:  Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
            To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
            ..
            It  seems to me that so long as we continue talking about the persona instead of  instead of the processes, we continue to pollute  experience.   Reason-ance, logos-ance, ratio-ance? -- Don L





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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20061016/cb0c82f1/attachment.html
From oenthomas at gmail.com  Mon Oct 16 21:42:13 2006
From: oenthomas at gmail.com (Owen Thomas)
Date: Tue Oct 17 22:41:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <007c01c6f129$31f809d0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <20061014.112431.3988.60.ae.dropper@juno.com>
	<007c01c6f129$31f809d0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <1dde854d0610161242t47d58f24h132effa9a7957987@mail.gmail.com>

Donl,
That is an interesting insight, words about words compared to electron
measuring. I guess we just must live with the uncertainty and proceed with
living. QM seems to be able to engineer new devices even with uncertainty so
we can form relationships even without certainty in written postings.

I am not certain that you visited Dorothy; I was not able to observe that
event but I do have faith in your writings, and in hers. Some of the
postings here do not produce any faithful results so I just archive them and
will probably always leave them un-attended.

I been reading and not responding because my words seem to often increase
the uncertainty, but I am here and interested in your words.

On 10/16/06, Don Lay <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>
>  I've always  had difficulty with the attribution and application of
> numbers and *persona masks* to the *logos*.  The idea may be, may have
> been, that the *underlying actuality* cannot  be known because the words
> to denote, describe that reality alters it just as an electron alters what
> is measured by the electron microscope.
>
> Exactly what is an electron, its properties with great precision and
> specificity of definition?  It cannot be known/said because, again, the
> electron used to measure an electron alters the electron that  would be
> measured.  Likewise, using words to 'measure' *what actually is* alters --
> is an alteration of -- *what actual is.*  Thus, what actually is cannot be
> known.
>
> Of course, as pointed out by DF and others, we know enough to jump out of
> the way of a bus or speeding locomotive, and that is something.  However,
> that bit of knowledge -- dodging a bus or locomotive -- can somehow go to
> our heads and we may get the bighead and start the ego trips that may
> destroy us.
>
> Bohm points out that a TOE is impossible.  I believe he cites the nature
> of language/knowledge processes.  What do we do when the anxiety of not
> knowing plagues us?  I'm a simple man, if not a simpleton.  I pray because
> that is what people have done for generations and generations.
>
> Resonance??  -- Don L
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* ae.dropper@juno.com
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:22 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
>
>  This generalization of all this translates immediately
> to an experience of ultimacy.
>
> I'm with you up to the point of "ultimacy".  Do you mean it as "most
> perfect underlying reality"?  k
>
>  Have to look at the context to see what I may have meant (so I re-pasted
> it below), but I have no problem with "most perfect underlying reality."
>
> What I said had referred to don L's "there is something *ultimate* about
> meaning."
>
> pat
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:53:31 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi <
> tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>
> On 10/14/06 10:28 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> This generalization of all this translates immediately
> to an experience of ultimacy.
>
> I'm with you up to the point of "ultimacy".  Do you mean it as "most
> perfect underlying reality"?  k
>  When I look at Meaning as a member of the *Matter, Energy, Meaning*"Trinity," a very meaningful interpretation in relation to Ultimacy comes
> easily. Energy is the first "member" from which Matter [second "member"]
> proceeds and Meaning [as the third "member"] "reunites" Energy and Matter.
> They are one. The "two" are one. Energy IS Matter. [Einstein was a mystic,
> no?]  And, the "three" are one. Energy IS Matter IS Meaning. This is quite
> meaningful as well.
>
> This generalization of all this translates immediately
> to an experience of ultimacy.
>
> This also translates into a general "meaning of life."
> And here again, meaning also works well as identical
> with my sense of "logos" (as in dia-logos).
>
> Interestingly though, here (in this trinity) "logos" becomes
> the third person [member] of the trinity where in the Roman version
> "logos" is the "second person {member]."
>
> pat
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:41:37 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
>
>  is there any question that words have temporary and arbitrary
> definitions? -- D.
>
> What about meaning?  It seems easy to see that definitions are arbitrary.
> Is it easy to see that meaning is not, that there is something *ultimate*about meaning.  For example, dark clouds
> *mean* rain.  Thick bark on the North side of a tree may *mean* a cold
> winter is on the way.
>
> Is the *meaning* of dark clouds as ultimate as is energy and matter?  Is
> the *meaning* of heavier bark on the North side of a tree as fundamental,
> as ultimate as matter and energy?
>
> Is there some kind of experience in homo-sap that is as ultimate and as
> meaningful as dark clouds and thick bark?
>
> What is human experience is as meaningful as storm clouds or thicker bark
> prior to  severe winter}? -- Don L
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dorothy Stulberg <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2006 6:05 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
>
> is there any question that words have temporary and arbitrary
> definitions?  D.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:
> bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathryn Arizmendi
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2006 7:59 AM
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
>
>
> Could it  possibly mean that words have  temporary and arbitrary
> definitions?
>
> My research yesterday on improvisation definitely bears this out.  Will
> elaborate more when I've sorted out my notes, and have more to take and
> incorporate today at CCNY.
>
> Preliminary findings are that by the application of Bohm ideas and
> principles, we will forge a new path.
>
> Hurray!  k
>
>
> On 10/13/06 8:44 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> I'm in! Let's work with it.
>
> pat
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:23:15 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
>
>
> What does it  mean that the Greek   *logos* has been interpreted as
>  meaning *reason? as meaning Ratio*? as  meaning *meaning?*  What is the
> meaning?
>
> Could it  possibly mean that words have  temporary and arbitrary
> definitions?  What would happen if we decided,  for  just an experiment, to
> use the idea that *logos  means meaning*?
>
> Then perhaps we could seriously consider dialogue  as *dia meaning or in
> terms of dia meaning.  -- Don  L*
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*  Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:05  AM
>
> *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: reason-ance, logos-ance
>
>
> Rodger __Lead the way Don. Tell us about Reason-ance, logos-ance,
>  ratio-ance. _R
> ..
> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
> Subject: Re: Subject:  Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> ..
> It  seems to me that so long as we continue talking about the persona
> instead of  instead of the processes, we continue to pollute  experience.
>   Reason-ance, logos-ance, ratio-ance? -- Don L
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
We are connected

Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/d74086d0/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com  Mon Oct 16 22:00:48 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Oct 17 22:59:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Message-ID: <20061016200048.33352.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>

Hell yeah we live with uncertainty...but do we really proceed with living -- embodying and embracing -- that uncertainty, or are we ever after more ways of distracting ourselves from that  uncertainty? It gets very subtle, this self deception, but I think it is worth noticing and that is connected to how we relate to uncertainty. (Does anyone understand what I am saying?)
 
There is no need to ever respond, unless you want to. It is nice of you to check in, though, Owen.
 
I hope you are responding just when you want to!
 
peace,
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Owen Thomas <oenthomas@gmail.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 12:42:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)

Donl,
That is an interesting insight, words about words compared to electron measuring. I guess we just must live with the uncertainty and proceed with living. QM seems to be able to engineer new devices even with uncertainty so we can form relationships even without certainty in written postings. 

I am not certain that you visited Dorothy; I was not able to observe that event but I do have faith in your writings, and in hers. Some of the postings here do not produce any faithful results so I just archive them and will probably always leave them un-attended. 

I been reading and not responding because my words seem to often increase the uncertainty, but I am here and interested in your words.


On 10/16/06, Don Lay <donlay@gte.net> wrote: 
I've always  had difficulty with the attribution and application of numbers and persona masks to the logos.  The idea may be, may have been, that the underlying actuality cannot  be known because the words to denote, describe that reality alters it just as an electron alters what is measured by the electron microscope.
 
Exactly what is an electron, its properties with great precision and specificity of definition?  It cannot be known/said because, again, the electron used to measure an electron alters the electron that  would be measured.  Likewise, using words to 'measure' what actually is alters -- is an alteration of -- what actual is.  Thus, what actually is cannot be known.
 
Of course, as pointed out by DF and others, we know enough to jump out of the way of a bus or speeding locomotive, and that is something.  However, that bit of knowledge -- dodging a bus or locomotive -- can somehow go to our heads and we may get the bighead and start the ego trips that may destroy us.
 
Bohm points out that a TOE is impossible.  I believe he cites the nature of language/knowledge processes.  What do we do when the anxiety of not knowing plagues us?  I'm a simple man, if not a simpleton.  I pray because that is what people have done for generations and generations.
 
Resonance??  -- Don L
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: ae.dropper@juno.com 
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)


This generalization of all this translates immediately 
to an experience of ultimacy.

I'm with you up to the point of "ultimacy".  Do you mean it as "most perfect underlying reality"?  k
Have to look at the context to see what I may have meant (so I re-pasted it below), but I have no problem with "most perfect underlying reality."
 
What I said had referred to don L's "there is something ultimate about meaning."
 
pat
 
 
 
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:53:31 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:

On 10/14/06 10:28 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:

This generalization of all this translates immediately 
to an experience of ultimacy.

I'm with you up to the point of "ultimacy".  Do you mean it as "most perfect underlying reality"?  k

When I look at Meaning as a member of the Matter, Energy, Meaning "Trinity," a very meaningful interpretation in relation to Ultimacy comes easily. Energy is the first "member" from which Matter [second "member"] proceeds and Meaning [as the third "member"] "reunites" Energy and Matter. They are one. The "two" are one. Energy IS Matter. [Einstein was a mystic, no?]  And, the "three" are one. Energy IS Matter IS Meaning. This is quite meaningful as well. 
 
This generalization of all this translates immediately 
to an experience of ultimacy.
 
This also translates into a general "meaning of life."
And here again, meaning also works well as identical
with my sense of "logos" (as in dia-logos).
 
Interestingly though, here (in this trinity) "logos" becomes
the third person [member] of the trinity where in the Roman version
"logos" is the "second person {member]."
 
pat
 
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:41:37 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
is there any question that words have temporary and arbitrary definitions? -- D.
 
What about meaning?  It seems easy to see that definitions are arbitrary.  Is it easy to see that meaning is not, that there is something ultimate about meaning.  For example, dark clouds mean rain.  Thick bark on the North side of a tree may mean a cold winter is on the way.
 
Is the meaning of dark clouds as ultimate as is energy and matter?  Is the meaning of heavier bark on the North side of a tree as fundamental, as ultimate as matter and energy?
 
Is there some kind of experience in homo-sap that is as ultimate and as meaningful as dark clouds and thick bark? 
 
What is human experience is as meaningful as storm clouds or thicker bark prior to  severe winter}? -- Don L
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dorothy Stulberg 
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)


is there any question that words have temporary and arbitrary definitions?  D.




From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn Arizmendi
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 7:59 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)



Could it  possibly mean that words have  temporary and arbitrary definitions?

My research yesterday on improvisation definitely bears this out.  Will elaborate more when I've sorted out my notes, and have more to take and incorporate today at CCNY.  

Preliminary findings are that by the application of Bohm ideas and principles, we will forge a new path.

Hurray!  k


On 10/13/06 8:44 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:


I'm in! Let's work with it.
 
pat
 
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:23:15 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:


What does it  mean that the Greek   logos has been interpreted as  meaning reason? as meaning Ratio? as  meaning meaning?  What is the meaning?    
 
Could it  possibly mean that words have  temporary and arbitrary definitions?  What would happen if we decided,  for  just an experiment, to use the idea that logos  means meaning? 
 
Then perhaps we could seriously consider dialogue  as dia meaning or in terms of dia meaning.  -- Don  L 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
 
From:  Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com 
 
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org  
 
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:05  AM
 
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: reason-ance, logos-ance
  

Rodger __Lead the way Don. Tell us about Reason-ance, logos-ance,  ratio-ance. _R
..
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject:  Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
..
It  seems to me that so long as we continue talking about the persona instead of  instead of the processes, we continue to pollute  experience.   Reason-ance, logos-ance, ratio-ance? -- Don L






_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________








-- 
We are connected

Owen 
_______________________________________________
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/20061016/7c8a739c/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Mon Oct 16 22:46:30 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Tue Oct 17 23:43:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695CFF63@msw2k.msw.local>

Sometimes I think it is the certainty that bothers me--I like the
uncertainty.  The mess Bush has put us in is certain--the certainty of
multiple deaths of innocent Iraquii's (sp) is certain.  The arrogance of
the present administration is a certainty.  The loss of freedom and
privacy and what is happening to prisoners (so call terrorists) is a
certainty, the control of us all by corporations is a certainty.  Change
is inevitable (acertainty) but in the meantime what is here and now is
frightening. D.

________________________________

From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Karilen Mays
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:01 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)


Hell yeah we live with uncertainty...but do we really proceed with
living -- embodying and embracing -- that uncertainty, or are we ever
after more ways of distracting ourselves from that  uncertainty? It gets
very subtle, this self deception, but I think it is worth noticing and
that is connected to how we relate to uncertainty. (Does anyone
understand what I am saying?)
 
There is no need to ever respond, unless you want to. It is nice of you
to check in, though, Owen.
 
I hope you are responding just when you want to!
 
peace,
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Owen Thomas <oenthomas@gmail.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 12:42:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)

Donl,
That is an interesting insight, words about words compared to electron
measuring. I guess we just must live with the uncertainty and proceed
with living. QM seems to be able to engineer new devices even with
uncertainty so we can form relationships even without certainty in
written postings. 

I am not certain that you visited Dorothy; I was not able to observe
that event but I do have faith in your writings, and in hers. Some of
the postings here do not produce any faithful results so I just archive
them and will probably always leave them un-attended. 

I been reading and not responding because my words seem to often
increase the uncertainty, but I am here and interested in your words.


On 10/16/06, Don Lay <donlay@gte.net> wrote: 

	I've always  had difficulty with the attribution and application
of numbers and persona masks to the logos.  The idea may be, may have
been, that the underlying actuality cannot  be known because the words
to denote, describe that reality alters it just as an electron alters
what is measured by the electron microscope.
	 
	Exactly what is an electron, its properties with great precision
and specificity of definition?  It cannot be known/said because, again,
the electron used to measure an electron alters the electron that  would
be measured.  Likewise, using words to 'measure' what actually is alters
-- is an alteration of -- what actual is.  Thus, what actually is cannot
be known.
	 
	Of course, as pointed out by DF and others, we know enough to
jump out of the way of a bus or speeding locomotive, and that is
something.  However, that bit of knowledge -- dodging a bus or
locomotive -- can somehow go to our heads and we may get the bighead and
start the ego trips that may destroy us.
	 
	Bohm points out that a TOE is impossible.  I believe he cites
the nature of language/knowledge processes.  What do we do when the
anxiety of not knowing plagues us?  I'm a simple man, if not a
simpleton.  I pray because that is what people have done for generations
and generations.
	 
	Resonance??  -- Don L
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

		
		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: ae.dropper@juno.com 
		To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
		
		Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:22 AM
		Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
(resent)

		

			This generalization of all this translates
immediately 
			to an experience of ultimacy.
			
			I'm with you up to the point of "ultimacy".  Do
you mean it as "most perfect underlying reality"?  k
			

			Have to look at the context to see what I may
have meant (so I re-pasted it below), but I have no problem with "most
perfect underlying reality."
			 
			What I said had referred to don L's "there is
something ultimate about meaning."
			 
			pat
			 

		 

	
	 
	On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:53:31 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi
<tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:


		On 10/14/06 10:28 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com"
<ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
		
		This generalization of all this translates immediately 
		to an experience of ultimacy.
		
		I'm with you up to the point of "ultimacy".  Do you mean
it as "most perfect underlying reality"?  k
		
		When I look at Meaning as a member of the Matter,
Energy, Meaning "Trinity," a very meaningful interpretation in relation
to Ultimacy comes easily. Energy is the first "member" from which Matter
[second "member"] proceeds and Meaning [as the third "member"]
"reunites" Energy and Matter. They are one. The "two" are one. Energy IS
Matter. [Einstein was a mystic, no?]  And, the "three" are one. Energy
IS Matter IS Meaning. This is quite meaningful as well. 
		 
		This generalization of all this translates immediately 
		to an experience of ultimacy.
		 
		This also translates into a general "meaning of life."
		And here again, meaning also works well as identical
		with my sense of "logos" (as in dia-logos).
		 
		Interestingly though, here (in this trinity) "logos"
becomes
		the third person [member] of the trinity where in the
Roman version
		"logos" is the "second person {member]."
		 
		pat
		 
		On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:41:37 -0400 "Don Lay"
<donlay@gte.net> writes:

			
			is there any question that words have temporary
and arbitrary definitions? -- D.
			 
			What about meaning?  It seems easy to see that
definitions are arbitrary.  Is it easy to see that meaning is not, that
there is something ultimate about meaning.  For example, dark clouds
mean rain.  Thick bark on the North side of a tree may mean a cold
winter is on the way.
			 
			Is the meaning of dark clouds as ultimate as is
energy and matter?  Is the meaning of heavier bark on the North side of
a tree as fundamental, as ultimate as matter and energy?
			 
			Is there some kind of experience in homo-sap
that is as ultimate and as meaningful as dark clouds and thick bark? 
			 
			What is human experience is as meaningful as
storm clouds or thicker bark prior to  severe winter}? -- Don L
			 

				----- Original Message ----- 
				From: Dorothy Stulberg
<mailto:DStulberg@msw-law.com>  
				To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
				Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:05 PM
				Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue]
reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
				
				
				is there any question that words have
temporary and arbitrary definitions?  D.

				From:
bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn
Arizmendi
				Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 7:59 AM
				To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
				Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue]
reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
				
				
				
				Could it  possibly mean that words have
temporary and arbitrary definitions?
				
				My research yesterday on improvisation
definitely bears this out.  Will elaborate more when I've sorted out my
notes, and have more to take and incorporate today at CCNY.  
				
				Preliminary findings are that by the
application of Bohm ideas and principles, we will forge a new path.
				
				Hurray!  k
				
				
				On 10/13/06 8:44 AM,
"ae.dropper@juno.com" < ae.dropper@juno.com <mailto:ae.dropper@juno.com>
> wrote:
				
				

				I'm in! Let's work with it.
				 
				pat
				 
				On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:23:15 -0400 "Don
Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
				

				
				What does it  mean that the Greek
logos has been interpreted as  meaning reason? as meaning Ratio? as
meaning meaning?  What is the meaning?    
				 
				Could it  possibly mean that words have
temporary and arbitrary definitions?  What would happen if we decided,
for  just an experiment, to use the idea that logos  means meaning? 
				 
				Then perhaps we could seriously consider
dialogue  as dia meaning or in terms of dia meaning.  -- Don  L 
				 
				----- Original Message ----- 
				 
				From:  Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com 
				 
				To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org  
				 
				Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:05
AM
				 
				Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject:
reason-ance, logos-ance
				  
				
				Rodger __Lead the way Don. Tell us about
Reason-ance, logos-ance,  ratio-ance. _R
				..
				From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
				Subject: Re: Subject:  Re:
[Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
				To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
				..
				It  seems to me that so long as we
continue talking about the persona instead of  instead of the processes,
we continue to pollute  experience.   Reason-ance, logos-ance,
ratio-ance? -- Don L
				

				
				

	

	

	_______________________________________________
	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
	
	_______________________________________________
	
	
	
	
	




-- 
We are connected

Owen 
_______________________________________________
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/20061016/531f5687/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk  Mon Oct 16 22:46:12 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 17 23:45:12 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <003f01c6e97c$9f763ae0$3f0e153f@DL01>
References: <20061006.131651.3964.147.ae.dropper@juno.com>
	<003f01c6e97c$9f763ae0$3f0e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <E43C4A14-0561-40E8-969A-701FFDFAB6F8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>

And don't forget the doxology.

A doxology (from the Greek doxa, glory + logos, word or speaking) is  
a short hymn of praise to God in various Christian worship services,  
often added to the end of canticles, psalms, and hymns. The tradition  
derives from a similar practice in the Jewish synagogue.

Anyone for a doxologue?


On 6 Oct 2006, at 20:21, Don Lay wrote:

>
> *There are only 3 "dox" words in the dictionary.
>
> Orthodox - Right Opinion.
> Heterodox - Other Opinion.
> Paradox - Beyond Opinion  -- pat
>
> Yes.  Incidently you might find Tillich's treatment of this most  
> fasinating.  Source upon request.  -- dbl
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
>
> I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the  
> source of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of  
> Permenides and Heraclitus. -- Rodger
>
> Is there another source for the words dialogue, dia logos, than  
> Parmenides and Heraclitus?  If Bohm cites the source, why would we  
> ignore it?  Why would we act or pretend that Bohm was not  
> influenced by early Greek thought?
>
> There's some confusion here, perhaps self-deception (part of the  
> story of my life).  Perhaps the confusion regards some difference  
> between Bohm's writings and Bohm Dialogue Online.  -- Don L
>
> Bohm WAS the quintessential "source" guy. Gadszooks!
> He was so "sourcey" that we struggle now with things like
> "meanings of meanings."
>
> But the attraction to "sourciness" can easily be lost to those
> whose interests [paths?] are other than "through meanings of words."
>
> Utter Clarity about meanings [of words and word combinations]
> is a way that dead ends itself into POOF! - Silence. Into POOF!
> - utter clarity. Into POOF! - Freedom.
>
> Often it is paradox that collapses the structure just 'prior'
> to the clarity. Para Dox is "Beyond Opinion."* (Interestingly,
> Permenides worked with the "Dox" term a lot. Appearances. Opinions.
> Perceptions).
>
> *There are only 3 "dox" words in the dictionary.
>
> Orthodox - Right Opinion.
> Heterodox - Other Opinion.
> Paradox - Beyond Opinion
>
> pat
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/d286695d/attachment.html