From DStulberg at msw-law.com Sat Sep 16 00:30:10 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Sun Sep 17 01:22:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695518BB@msw2k.msw.local>
Would I ever like to meet any or all of "you people". Don L is the
closest to me I think and he "thought" he might be this way. I'll be in
Bend Oregon over Thanksgiving if anyone is near there. My middle
daughter lives in Tumalo.
One of the neatest people I know lives outside of Seattle. could I give
her your name Kari? She has an interesting husband too. d.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Karilen Mays
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 4:15 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
Im in the Seattle area. Every since Ive been here, I have been meeting
people from the internet. So far it has worked out amazingly well.
Drop me a line if anyone is this way.
Have a great day,
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Regina Bensch-Coe <benschcoe@hotmail.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:28:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19,
Issue 15
I'd love more of that.
I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of SF,)
if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere near.
I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit! (Franis)
Ditto. If anyone is in the western Massachusetts area, lets visit.
Franis,
when are you going to HI? I will be there in December.
Also, has anyone read the story on proprioception:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/dancersbody/body/proprioception.shtmlo
Regina
>From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
>Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:28:54 -0700
>
>Rodger: Possibly some further consideration should go into the list,
re:
>how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names.
>The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by
>way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R
>
>I'd like to know more of who I'm talking with, because I think when
>people are more personal, they take more care in how they say what they
>mean. I've gone to the trouble of traveling to meet some of these
people
>on this Dialouge group, and it was enlightening. The most interesting
>was how some people merely continued the conversation however we'd left
>off in Dialogue, and some assummed they were meeting me for the first
>time, as if what we'd been writing made no difference at all. It was
>surprising!
>
>I'd love more of that.
>I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of
SF,)
>if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere
near.
>I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit!
>
>- Franis
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060915/d5a687a3/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 01:24:48 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Sep 17 02:17:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] F's insights
In-Reply-To: <EC81A8DD-EA84-4061-8F6C-576127511911@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F3433672029E85D2FA39D31A82E0@phx.gbl>
This Subscriber to this Chat Group lauds his :
"Insights"
>But maybe, Pat, we are speaking to different sorts of people when we
>express these different opinions. I tend to treat my readers as having at
>least the same level of insight and experience as I have.
Dear Donf
I certainly would not mind
If you could share the
one or other
here and there
with us
Love & Sushi, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 01:32:48 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Sep 17 02:25:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060915.120124.2248.3.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F1229043DAB0D17E8D81E71A82E0@phx.gbl>
Dear Dropper,
http://www.newmastersgallery.com/ArtistPrice/Price-Bookworm-Boy_with_Books-DS.jpg
Love & Neckmassage, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>This is a [mostly] implicit thought that is first felt
>and then, if worded, would be able to draw from
>a huge variety of wordings, all sharing the meaning
>"this makes me unhappy." The question being asked here
>is "Is the "this" of the thought "this makes me unhappy"
>a truth' or is it just a thought, just an assumption, just
>an image?
>
>Simple inquiry. Simple but profound. Done, not in a
>speculative way, but in a moment when the feeling arises,
>whether it "arises" in a session of "homework"* as suggested
>by bohm, or whether it arises throughout the day, or in a
>dialogue circle.
>
>There is no suggestion intended that such inquiry is in any
>way required. It is not "required." For some, it is spontaneous,
>and occurs in a situation of deep despair (as it did with
>housewife, real estate agent, definitely non-psycotherapist, bk).
>
>* (From Self, Society & Proprioception, on "Homework."
>"The point is, now, to be able to see that this is what's going on. That
>we are producing feelings out of thought. Everybody knows you can whip up
>feelings by certain shouts and cries and clamors and marches and songs,
>political rallies, etc. It's well known that feelings can in this way be
>whipped up, essentially by actions directed by thought, so that such a
>response need not be a surprise. What about this sort of feeling as
>compared with deep feelings? At the moment that it is happening a person
>might not be able to tell the difference. You have a crowd shouting and
>screaming and a great leader in front and so on. So that establishes the
>principle that feelings can be produced artificially. But what I was
>talking about is much more common than this. It doesn't require a
>demagogue or some unusual set of shouts, screams, and cries to do it.
>Rather, one simply has to notice that the meaning of a thought tends to
>be carried out in terms of feelings all over the body. In order to
>demonstrate this, you may take the case of getting angry. This is a
>feeling that is not as difficult to look at as say fear or pleasure
>--deceptive feelings of pleasure--which you know too can be produced by
>thought, a seductive thought. You see, a person may first get an outburst
>of anger and then cool down --it simmers down, but it's still there. You
>may put it in abeyance because something more important comes up, but
>it's still there ready to come up. My suggestion is to call it up on
>purpose by trying to find the words that express the reason for being
>angry. Thus, you may say, "I'm angry, and I have good reason because he
>did this and that and that." You will find that you are getting still
>angrier. Usually you'll say, "I shouldn't get angry, so I'd better stop
>this." But now we're going to use this on purpose, not for the sake of
>getting angry, because we're going to suspend the angry feelings, neither
>by stopping them, not letting them come out. Is that clear what I mean?
>LN: Yes, but there are some difficulties with suspending.
>DB: Well you see, it's not being done right in the heat of your original
>outburst of anger, but still, you're not calling it up to get rid of the
>angry feelings. Your first impulse might be to try and go out and insult
>the person and do something, and in earlier times, you might even have
>hit the person. And now you say don't do any of those things, but let the
>feeling come up and watch what's going on. We're regarding it as a sort
>of test display of the process, you understand? So then you'll see these
>angry feelings which will produce tension in the solar plexus and the
>belly and the chest, and affect your breathing and heartbeat, and all
>sorts of things. You'll be able to see a sort of movement of responses
>all over the body, such as tension of the jaw, in the neck.
>LN: Now let me raise one of the difficulties that commonly occurs here.
>Even if one waits a bit beyond the heat of the moment, there still comes
>up a very strong resistance to acknowledging that one is actually in this
>state.
>DB: Yes, that's part of our sociocultural conditioning, which says that
>you shouldn't be angry, and not only that, you yourself have seen by
>clear thought that it's leading you astray. You see, both reason, and
>society, and everything is telling you, you shouldn't be angry. Now
>there's a serious mistake in there. Of course, it's right that you
>shouldn't be angry, if only because it is very destructive to your deeper
>interests. But the attempt to say you shouldn't be angry is simply not
>affecting the anger, it's just trying to impose another pattern on top of
>the anger. This will come out as we go along, but the first point is to
>realize that such resistance is false and that this falseness will come
>out as we go through this process and pay attention to it. The falseness
>of the sociocultural as well as the personal judgment.
>DB: Yes. This is very tricky, because in some ways the judgment appears
>to be right. But there's a fundamental, deeper falseness in it. So we
>also have to give attention to our tendency to say "I shouldn't be angry,
>I must stop being angry", and we will see that this too, has to be
>suspended. In this process one will begin to get certain feelings, at
>first perhaps very faintly because of all the resistance, and later more
>strongly -you'll see the play of these feelings all over the body,
>because the action is being suspended. If you actually *did* something,
>you would no longer notice the feelings... if you went out and hit
>somebody or punched him in the nose, or insulted him, or otherwise tried
>to get redress for your anger. You might momentarily feel a lot better,
>because the tension would go (until the other person retaliated in a
>similar way). But now, when action is suspended, you can see that the
>words are calling up the feelings, and you'll be able to get a sense that
>there's some sort of mechanical connection between the words and the
>feelings.
>For example, you may find that the words may be, "He shouldn't have done
>this; he shouldn't treat me that way; he hasn't due regard for me, he's
>always doing that; he's never taking my rights into account. It's not the
>first time." So you may notice the feelings coming up rather
>mechanically, and that those feelings are producing mechanical pressure,
>making it very hard to look at those thoughts and see whether they're
>right or not.
>LN: Let's go very slowly here. You say they produce mechanical responses,
>and mechanical feelings. Now it seems to be a very thin line, because
>when you do what you suggest, if it's really activation these responses
>you are talking about, they don't *feel* mechanical.
>DB: No, but you can see a certain mechanical quality in the sense that
>the word is followed by the feeling. And you'll see there is a little
>something also in that pressure of the feeling to avoid examining the
>meaning of the words, to avoid seeing whether you really have a good
>reason to be angry.
>LN: A resistance to seeing the connection.
>DB: Yes, that's right. You see, if it were really a straightforward
>process, there would be no resistance to examining it. Now you can begin
>to suspect that it looks a little mechanical."
>
>pat
>
>
>~~
>
>
>
>
>
>What do you mean by this? From what you write, Pat, it seems that you
>take
>such a thought is evidence of that old devil TAS at work once again.
>You suggest
>that complication is its modus operandi - an avoidance tactic.
>
>And you imply that the simplest description of something is better
>than one
> that includes all the subtleties and complexities that fill out its
>meaning.
>But do you really believe that?
>
>Or am I to believe that you believe that unhappiness is in some way a
>product of this unintelligent, mechanical system distracting us from
>- what? -
>catching it in the act of making us unhappy?
>
>And then you bring "power" into it. And say that somehow we must not
>allow
>anyone else to make us unhappy because that puts the control of
>happiness
>outside of our selves. So it is not onlyTAS distracting us by making
>us unhappy
>but it is also those others doing it to us. I guess we have to be
>very careful, not
>to get caught in this dreadful condition of victimhood, or of feeling
>unhappy,
>even about ourselves.
>
>All of this brings to mind the word, "compassion". Literally, from
>its etymology,
>the word means to suffer together. It means to be able to "feel
>someone else's
>pain". Without the ability to be compassionate, to feel the pain of
>another, I do
>not believe that we can be fully human.
>
>Would you recommend dialogue or trying to gain a deeper understanding of
>the "totality" as a means to a pain free life?
>
>As for Katie, she is a psychotherapist who works with groups and uses
>her own version of a therapeutic approach known as cognitive therapy
>which uses this sort of note taking and questionnaires to call
>attention to
>the sorts of stuff that conventional therapies take months to dredge up.
>It is good stuff but it is still psychotherapy. Dialogue as Bohm
>described it
>was not meant to be psychotherapy.
>
>don
>
>
>On 15 Sep 2006, at 00:09, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> >> Objection to the content here is because of
> >> [some elaboration on or complication of] the thought
> >> that "This makes me unhappy."
> >>
> >> Objections?
> >>
> >> pat
> >
> > Not an objection, but perhaps an oversimplification. (don)
> >
> > Can an objection to content based on the content's
> > "oversimplification"
> > be seen in any way, as a "complication" of a "this makes me unhappy"
> > thought [as suggested in the initial question]?
> >
> > "Complication" can be seen to be the primary avoidance
> > tactic [by thought] when inquiring into the workings of thought.
> >
> > Incidentally, thanks Regina for the words about Byron Katie. Her work
> > is the best by far example I've ever seen of undistracted [by
> > complication]
> > inquiry into deep assumptions. One of the first things facilitators of
> > "the
> > work" will notice and give attention to is called "cross talk," which
> > is something we can all notice thought doing as a distraction from
> > simple inquiry. Getting the beliefs and assumptions onto paper
> > in the clearest and simplest wording possible, is an invaluable
> > help to the inquiry.
> >
> > The question that is of prime interest in Katie's "Work"
> > and in a Bohm inspired dialogue is: Is it the person that
> > is making me unhappy (or the person's words or actions)
> > or is it the thought* about the person (or about the person's
> > words or actions) that is "making me unhappy?" It is a strictly
> > technical question. And it points to "a difference that makes
> > a difference."
> >
> > It is a critical 'life' question too because seeing
> > what is actually happening in thought will make the
> > difference between other people [seemingly] holding the power
> > to control our "happiness," or not "holding that control. What are
> > the implications of a state of affairs where it is generally believed
> > that other people control our mood buttons? Do we need look far
> > to see such implications?
> >
> > *It is such thoughts that are exposed to inquiry when
> > looking for implicit beliefs or assumptions beneath
> > the reflexes that guide our behavior.
> >
> > pat
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that just about anything can be reduced to its lowest common
> > denominator, but in that reduction a great deal of meaning gets lost.
> > So, it is not the content, in and of itself, that I sometimes find
> > objectionable but the meaning of that content. We know what words
> > denote. but we have also to intuit the connotation that they carry in
> > any particular context. Without this tacit level of understanding,
> > there would be no possibility of communication. But to do this we
> > have to approach each question with more of an artistic hand than
> > just an analytical or literalist understanding.
> >
> > So sometimes I find the "tone " of someone's remarks objectionable
> > because they imply an attitude that distracts us from the seriousness
> > of our search for understanding. Peter Krauss's behaviour, first
> > under his own name and later as gas, was an example of this. And now
> > Kirsten, whoever Kirsten may be, is another, perhaps, so far, less
> > extreme example.
> >
> > I would suggest, though, that our inquiry here is not meant to be an
> > inquiry into whatever someone wants to have happen as if it were a
> > kid's playground with one of them wanting to be king or queen of the
> > sandpile, nor is it an anything goes sort of exercise. That is what
> > Krauss wanted to make it. Rather its an inquiry into some of the more
> > subtle and, dare I say, significant realms of human consciousness or
> > what Bohm called "the totality of all that is." And that's what I
> > value here. So, I feel that such a search needs to be treated
> > delicately and seriously. And when it is not, then, yes, it does make
> > me feel unhappy.
> >
> > don
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
From tubakari at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 06:05:17 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Sun Sep 17 06:57:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
Message-ID: <20060916040517.1567.qmail@web52906.mail.yahoo.com>
I have heard it is often easier to reveal information about oneself more freely when involved with people we might never see again and dont have a long standing relationship with.
I was in a dialogue last weekend where we had a really deep level of trust it seemed, revealing highly personal heart-thoughts (though I tend to just say what I want most of the time now!), and we did not know each other well. We didnt waste time beating around the bush with life histories or anything, and just shared what had been coming up with us. Someone remarked that people tend to tell people on airplanes (who they most likely will never see again) things that they might never tell their close friends or family. There is no, or less, fear of rejection with someone you think you will never see again.
An apparent paradox is trust in that one has to make themselves vulnerable to create trust, but usually people dont develop that deep connection until there is trust.
I seem to not have much of a problem knowing almost instantly if I can just be myself (whatever that is), meaning say what arises without censoring when I meet a person. I dont care if they reciprocate; its just the way I am. If they connect then it is icing on the cake. So maybe there is no paradox. Maybe what I normally do is sense if the person is comfortable interacting on an uncensored level, and then go from there. If they are not revealing, defensive, or impersonal, or robotic, then I don't always push them. I have a difficult time not flowing freely so I dont spend lots of time around people who are interested in mistaking their stories for who they are. It makes me feel shut down. That's one of the reasons I resigned from my current job. (Yay!)
So when people always bring up the safety issue in dialogue and other groups I am curious about this.
Of course some people on here may think I am full of it, and that is fine.
Thanks,!
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 1:28:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
Rodger: Possibly some further consideration should go into the list, re:
how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names.
The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by
way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R
I'd like to know more of who I'm talking with, because I think when
people are more personal, they take more care in how they say what they
mean. I've gone to the trouble of traveling to meet some of these people
on this Dialouge group, and it was enlightening. The most interesting
was how some people merely continued the conversation however we'd left
off in Dialogue, and some assummed they were meeting me for the first
time, as if what we'd been writing made no difference at all. It was
surprising!
I'd love more of that.
I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of SF,)
if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere near.
I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit!
- Franis
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060915/82f50d49/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 11:19:56 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Sep 17 12:12:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Saftey Tissues
In-Reply-To: <20060916040517.1567.qmail@web52906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F22BBBD365CF3AF4992E307A82F0@phx.gbl>
Dear Kari,
>So when people always bring up the safety issue in dialogue and other
>groups I am curious about this.
http://www.mrnett.com/images/AlexWillow/July2002/Week4/MGRHey.JPG
Love & Bib, Kirsten
_________________________________________________________________
Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo
ttp://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com/
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 11:28:21 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Sep 17 12:22:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] the pope
In-Reply-To: <868016FE-5E0E-473E-BD2B-2F39AA2C7E38@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F18D5F8EE2FCB106F1DFF45A82F0@phx.gbl>
Dear Belief System Subscriber,
>Oh oh, the pope is in big trouble.
http://www.rc.net/kazakhstan/jp/papamobile.jpg
Love & Gas, Kirsten
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From descf at aol.com Sat Sep 16 13:26:49 2006
From: descf at aol.com (DesCF)
Date: Sun Sep 17 14:19:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
In-Reply-To: <20060916040517.1567.qmail@web52906.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060916040517.1567.qmail@web52906.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <op.tfyx28q7upgxg0@descstar>
First, persons outside your social circle possess no disconfirming
information in relation to the image of self that you project to them.
You can in effect present yourself as anyone you want.
Second, you have not previously established a self-image with them that
you now feel constrained to maintain an accordance with or risk
compromising that image and appearing incoherent.
It is only by obtaining information from other sources or knowing you over
a period of time that someone is able to determine you qualification or
eligibility to the image of self that you are projecting. It?s perhaps
not so much our self-image that we fear to lose but rather our
qualification or eligibility to the self-image we are claiming to merit.
Des
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 05:05:17 +0100, Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I have heard it is often easier to reveal information about oneself more
> freely when involved with people we might never see again and dont have
> a long standing relationship with.
> I was in a dialogue last weekend where we had a really deep level of
> trust it seemed, revealing highly personal heart-thoughts (though I tend
> to just say what I want most of the time now!), and we did not know each
> other well. We didnt waste time beating around the bush with life
> histories or anything, and just shared what had been coming up with us.
> Someone remarked that people tend to tell people on airplanes (who they
> most likely will never see again) things that they might never tell
> their close friends or family. There is no, or less, fear of rejection
> with someone you think you will never see again.
> An apparent paradox is trust in that one has to make themselves
> vulnerable to create trust, but usually people dont develop that deep
> connection until there is trust.
> I seem to not have much of a problem knowing almost instantly if I can
> just be myself (whatever that is), meaning say what arises without
> censoring when I meet a person. I dont care if they reciprocate; its
> just the way I am. If they connect then it is icing on the cake. So
> maybe there is no paradox. Maybe what I normally do is sense if the
> person is comfortable interacting on an uncensored level, and then go
> from there. If they are not revealing, defensive, or impersonal, or
> robotic, then I don't always push them. I have a difficult time not
> flowing freely so I dont spend lots of time around people who are
> interested in mistaking their stories for who they are. It makes me feel
> shut down. That's one of the reasons I resigned from my current job.
> (Yay!)
> So when people always bring up the safety issue in dialogue and other
> groups I am curious about this.
> Of course some people on here may think I am full of it, and that is
> fine.
> Thanks,!
> kari
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 1:28:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
>
>
> Rodger: Possibly some further consideration should go into the list, re:
> how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names.
> The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by
> way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R
>
> I'd like to know more of who I'm talking with, because I think when
> people are more personal, they take more care in how they say what they
> mean. I've gone to the trouble of traveling to meet some of these people
> on this Dialouge group, and it was enlightening. The most interesting
> was how some people merely continued the conversation however we'd left
> off in Dialogue, and some assummed they were meeting me for the first
> time, as if what we'd been writing made no difference at all. It was
> surprising!
>
> I'd love more of that.
> I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of SF,)
> if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere near.
> I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit!
>
> - Franis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Sep 16 13:40:51 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Sep 17 14:36:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language
Message-ID: <20060916.074231.2248.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
>From The History of Love , p 72 by Nicole Krauss
"The first language humans had was gestures. There was nothing
primitive about this language that flowed from people's hands, nothing we
say now that could not be said in the endless array of movements possible
with the fine bones of the fingers and wrists. The gestures were complex
and subtle, involving a delicacy of motion that has since been lost
completely.
"During the Age of Silence, people communicated more, not less.
Basic survival demanded that the hands were almost never still, and so it
was only during sleep (and sometimes not even then) that people were not
saying something or other. No distinction was made between the gestures
of language and the gestures of life. The labor of building a house, say,
or preparing a meal was no less an expression than making the sign for I
love you or I feel serious. When a hand was used to shield one's face
when frightened by a loud noise something was being said, and when
fingers were used to pick up what someone else had dropped, something was
being said; and even when the hands were at rest, that, too, was saying
something. Naturally, there were misunderstandings. There were even times
when a finger might have been lifted to scratch a nose, and if casual eye
contact was made with one's lover just then, the lover might accidently
take it to be the gesture, not at all dissimilar, for Now I realize I was
wrong to love you. These mistakes were heartbreaking. And yet, because
people knew how easily they could happen, because they didn't go around
with the illusion that they understood perfectly the things other people
said, they were used to interrupting each other to ask if they'd
understood correctly. Sometimes those misunderstandings were even
desirable. since they gave people a reason to say, Forgive me, I was only
scratching my nose. Of course, I knew I've always been right to love you.
Because of the frequency of these mistakes, over time the gesture for
asking forgiveness evolved into the simplest form. Just to open your palm
was to say: Forgive me."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/de5b6e9f/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 14:43:26 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Sep 17 15:35:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language
In-Reply-To: <20060916.074231.2248.8.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F35AB7186406642F00AE7A7A82F0@phx.gbl>
Dropper quotes
> "The first language humans had was gestures.
I very much want to question that.
I bet:
Chemicals.
That said: Time for eine tasse kaffee und ein stück obstkuchen ...
[languaging too]
Love & Tablecloth
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sat Sep 16 14:58:15 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sun Sep 17 15:50:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
In-Reply-To: <op.tfyx28q7upgxg0@descstar>
References: <20060916040517.1567.qmail@web52906.mail.yahoo.com>
<op.tfyx28q7upgxg0@descstar>
Message-ID: <D7AE5D42-A4B1-4DE5-90BB-07F511B2A78E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 16 Sep 2006, at 12:26, DesCF wrote:
> First, persons outside your social circle possess no disconfirming
> information in relation to the image of self that you project to
> them. You can in effect present yourself as anyone you want.
>
> Second, you have not previously established a self-image with them
> that you now feel constrained to maintain an accordance with or
> risk compromising that image and appearing incoherent.
>
> It is only by obtaining information from other sources or knowing
> you over a period of time that someone is able to determine you
> qualification or eligibility to the image of self that you are
> projecting. It?s perhaps not so much our self-image that we fear
> to lose but rather our qualification or eligibility to the self-
> image we are claiming to merit.
>
> Des
I think you are calling attention to an interesting distinction here.
On one hand we have our image of ourselves. I am this sort of person.
And on the other we have our public image, this is the sort of person
I want others to perceive me as being. These do not necessarily
coincide. But they only raise difficulties or enter our conscious
awareness when they are or might be called into question. The first
is a tacit belief, which only becomes a problem when its reality is
called into question by circumstances that don't necessarily involve
other people. "It's an Oh my God, how could I have said that?" sort
of occasion. A sort of self-discomfirmation.
The second, involves a particular kind of acting and pretending, or
perhaps, more specifically, self-censoring and avoidance of certain
situations that might threaten the persona or reveal the imagined
truth of some part of the first. "I don't want these people to see
that I am stupid so I'd better change the subject, or keep my mouth
shut". And of course, there are also the complications created by
self-delusions such as "projection", that is, projecting of those
parts of the image that you don't want to own up to, onto others,
like "These people are too stupid to even talk to." And then there is
"transference", another version which, usually hidden more deeply in
the realm of the unconscious, where you treat certain people or
relationships as those belonging to some other sort of relationship,
like reacting to a lover as though he were your father, etc.
Anyway, its all food for further thinking.
don
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sat Sep 16 15:03:02 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sun Sep 17 15:55:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F35AB7186406642F00AE7A7A82F0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F35AB7186406642F00AE7A7A82F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <EA577BA2-D4EB-4BE6-8EE9-4E51D97C8028@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Obviously, Nicole Krauss was Peter's mother against whom he is still
in rebellion - transference?
don
On 16 Sep 2006, at 13:43, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
> Dropper quotes
>
>> "The first language humans had was gestures.
>
>
>
>
> I very much want to question that.
>
> I bet:
>
> Chemicals.
>
>
>
>
>
> That said: Time for eine tasse kaffee und ein st?ck obstkuchen ...
> [languaging too]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & Tablecloth
>
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Spaces is here! It?s easy to create your own personal
> Web site. http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 15:28:51 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Sep 17 16:21:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language
In-Reply-To: <EA577BA2-D4EB-4BE6-8EE9-4E51D97C8028@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F30E08C6C7B6209A163C59EA82F0@phx.gbl>
Dear Don
A - "obviously"?
B - your under&standing of transference is off, dear ;-! you might want to
re&visit the re&sources. transference is very much the 'opposite' of
rebellion.... Donf does not want/mean to spread misinformation, now, does
he?
Love & Benching, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language
>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:03:02 +0100
>
>Obviously, Nicole Krauss was Peter's mother against whom he is still in
>rebellion - transference?
>
>don
>
>
>On 16 Sep 2006, at 13:43, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
>>
>>Dropper quotes
>>
>>> "The first language humans had was gestures.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I very much want to question that.
>>
>>I bet:
>>
>>Chemicals.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>That said: Time for eine tasse kaffee und ein stück obstkuchen ...
>>[languaging too]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Love & Tablecloth
>>
>>--------------------------
>>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web
>>site. http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live
Toolbar Today! http://get.live.com/toolbar/overview
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sat Sep 16 15:55:43 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sun Sep 17 16:48:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F30E08C6C7B6209A163C59EA82F0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F30E08C6C7B6209A163C59EA82F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8E7F16F0-56BB-41F2-9C16-21CA4EF8B644@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Are you therefore admitting that it is your mother?
And to be rebelling against the wrong person certainly is an instance
of transference.
don
On 16 Sep 2006, at 14:28, kirsten schneide wrote:
> Dear Don
>
>
> A - "obviously"?
>
> B - your under&standing of transference is off, dear ;-! you might
> want to re&visit the re&sources. transference is very much the
> 'opposite' of rebellion.... Donf does not want/mean to spread
> misinformation, now, does he?
>
>
>
> Love & Benching, Kirsten
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language
>> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:03:02 +0100
>>
>> Obviously, Nicole Krauss was Peter's mother against whom he is
>> still in rebellion - transference?
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>> On 16 Sep 2006, at 13:43, kirsten schneide wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dropper quotes
>>>
>>>> "The first language humans had was gestures.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I very much want to question that.
>>>
>>> I bet:
>>>
>>> Chemicals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That said: Time for eine tasse kaffee und ein st?ck
>>> obstkuchen ... [languaging too]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Love & Tablecloth
>>>
>>> --------------------------
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Windows Live Spaces is here! It?s easy to create your own
>>> personal Web site. http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE
> Windows Live Toolbar Today! http://get.live.com/toolbar/overview
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 zoechuzero at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 16:49:02 2006
From: zoechuzero at yahoo.com (Zoe Chu)
Date: Sun Sep 17 17:41:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <8E7F16F0-56BB-41F2-9C16-21CA4EF8B644@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20060916144902.74589.qmail@web55001.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and I read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does anybody here know? Appreciating - Zoe
---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/c1daef16/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Sep 16 16:50:28 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Sep 17 18:02:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
Message-ID: <20060916.110834.2248.14.ae.dropper@juno.com>
It?s perhaps
not so much our self-image that we fear to lose but rather our
qualification or eligibility to the self-image we are claiming to merit.
(des)
Yes. And/or they can be seen as a piece. Lack of
qualification threatens image.
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Sep 16 16:49:07 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Sep 17 18:02:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language - the History of Love
Message-ID: <20060916.110834.2248.13.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Aside from the poetry of this piece in general [incidentally, read this
book!], this was
what stood out.
"These mistakes were heartbreaking. And yet, because people knew how
easily they could happen, because they didn't go around with the illusion
that they understood perfectly the things other people said..."
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/28ed887c/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 17:43:48 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Sep 17 18:36:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language
Message-ID: <BAY107-F95BF43AB5C3C9FC8D27A9A82F0@phx.gbl>
http://www.kasper-aus-berlin.de/pix/photos/gross/kasper_pferd1.jpg
You 're so funny, dear ;-!
Love & Cocktails, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language
>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:55:43 +0100
>
>Are you therefore admitting that it is your mother?
>
>And to be rebelling against the wrong person certainly is an instance of
>transference.
>
>don
>
>
>On 16 Sep 2006, at 14:28, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
>>Dear Don
>>
>>
>>A - "obviously"?
>>
>>B - your under&standing of transference is off, dear ;-! you might want
>>to re&visit the re&sources. transference is very much the 'opposite' of
>>rebellion.... Donf does not want/mean to spread misinformation, now, does
>>he?
>>
>>
>>
>>Love & Benching, Kirsten
>>--------------------------
>>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Language
>>>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:03:02 +0100
>>>
>>>Obviously, Nicole Krauss was Peter's mother against whom he is still in
>>>rebellion - transference?
>>>
>>>don
>>>
>>>
>>>On 16 Sep 2006, at 13:43, kirsten schneide wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dropper quotes
>>>>
>>>>> "The first language humans had was gestures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I very much want to question that.
>>>>
>>>>I bet:
>>>>
>>>>Chemicals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That said: Time for eine tasse kaffee und ein stück obstkuchen ...
>>>>[languaging too]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Love & Tablecloth
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------
>>>>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web
>>>>site. http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows
>>Live Toolbar Today! http://get.live.com/toolbar/overview
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Sep 16 17:40:37 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Sep 17 18:50:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
Message-ID: <20060916.115611.2248.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
So many possible approaches to this question. What have you read? What
books do you have access to? I can maybe suggest certain sections based
on this info. Bohm was very careful to not call thought a "problem" or to
qualify the word if it slipped out.
I do not consider thought to be a problem. "Problem" implies "goal." "How
do I fix my leaky bathtub faucet" is a "problem." The idea of "fixing"
thought seems to be based
on a faulty assumption. Faulty assumptions are perhaps "problematic" in
that they create suffering but that does not suggest that there is
something "wrong with TAS."
pat
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
writes:
Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and
I read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what
should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does
anybody here know? Appreciating - Zoe
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small
Business.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/2e6516b2/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Sep 16 17:56:11 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Sep 17 18:50:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060916.115611.2248.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Going further and further in
the direction of complication
in inquiry only increases the 'ya
buts' that make up the smoke screen
of self - sustaining confusion,
proportionally.
Inquiry is not at all complicated. it's
the distractions that are complicated.
But, pick any one of them [distractions]
and submit it to inquiry regarding the "truth"
of it. Inquiry into "distractions" is simple -
and fruitful - [because of the attachment
to them] (but 'do' just one at a time).
pat
On 15 Sep 2006, at 17:01, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Before I can go any further with this I would like to have a look at
your "this makes me unhappy" thought. (don)
The question being asked here
is "Is the "this" of the thought "this makes me unhappy"
a truth' or is it just a thought, just an assumption, just
an image?
This may be a fair question but it somehow misses the point. I mean,
I could say that any attribution is an assumption or an image. I could
go further and say with equal confidence that any perception is, if not
exactly an assumption or an image, it is almost certainly based on one -
even if that assumption was only assumed a moment before I noticed it.
On that basis, this sort of a question distracts from any inquiry into
the meaning
of the unhappy feeling. Do you see what I mean?
It avoids looking directly at the feeling by attributing it to an image
or assumption.
Because any feeling is based on an assumption or image as is any thing or
idea
that we percieve. If we accept that this is the case, then we have to
conclude that
this approach does little more than to avoid the key question: Is this
feeling valid?
Simple inquiry. Simple but profound. Done, not in a
speculative way, but in a moment when the feeling arises,
whether it "arises" in a session of "homework"* as suggested
by bohm, or whether it arises throughout the day, or in a
dialogue circle.
Yes, but it doesn't address the actual situation. It is a kind of
inquiry that is, at least in part, looking at the theory in a way
that is preconceived to meant that it must be a part of some
engram. And therefore, could only have limited value.
At least that becomes the starting point. But with such a starting
point there is little chance of the inquiry going any further.
There is no suggestion intended that such inquiry is in any
way required. It is not "required." For some, it is spontaneous,
and occurs in a situation of deep despair (as it did with
housewife, real estate agent, definitely non-psycotherapist, bk).
Of course, not. But I would say that there can be great value in
following
through and taking seriously the meaning of an initial percept. Of
course.
I don't say that we must stop there. But at least from this sort of a
beginning
we can look at potential consequences or paths that the feeling might
open
or close for us while not have to preconceive an idea that any such
feeling
will be invalid.
In regard to the following quotation. My own view is that having read
this and a lot of other similar material, not only by DB. These ideas
have entered the domain that I call my consciousness, or my memory store,
so, they already have an effect on what meanings unfold. I mean, any
first year psychology student knows that thinking and feeling are closely
linked parts of the same process and that past experience plays a big
role in it. The overall process is called perception, and perception, as
DB has pointed out, is a high level creative act. What is probably not
so widely recognised is that there is a lot more to such creativity than
is obvious. But to counsel people to simply write their feelings or
intuitions off as being little more than the work of a mechanical and
therefore unintelligent system is, to say the least, unwise.
But maybe, Pat, we are speaking to different sorts of people when we
express these different opinions. I tend to treat my readers as having at
least the same level of insight and experience as I have. While I
think, possibly you are speaking more to those who haven't yet
picked up on lot of this. But then this is just another of my
conjectures or preconceptions.
don
* (From Self, Society & Proprioception, on "Homework."
"The point is, now, to be able to see that this is what's going on. That
we are producing feelings out of thought. Everybody knows you can whip up
feelings by certain shouts and cries and clamors and marches and songs,
political rallies, etc. It's well known that feelings can in this way be
whipped up, essentially by actions directed by thought, so that such a
response need not be a surprise. What about this sort of feeling as
compared with deep feelings? At the moment that it is happening a person
might not be able to tell the difference. You have a crowd shouting and
screaming and a great leader in front and so on. So that establishes the
principle that feelings can be produced artificially. But what I was
talking about is much more common than this. It doesn't require a
demagogue or some unusual set of shouts, screams, and cries to do it.
Rather, one simply has to notice that the meaning of a thought tends to
be carried out in terms of feelings all over the body. In order to
demonstrate this, you may take the case of getting angry. This is a
feeling that is not as difficult to look at as say fear or pleasure
--deceptive feelings of pleasure--which you know too can be produced by
thought, a seductive thought. You see, a person may first get an outburst
of anger and then cool down --it simmers down, but it's still there. You
may put it in abeyance because something more important comes up, but
it's still there ready to come up. My suggestion is to call it up on
purpose by trying to find the words that express the reason for being
angry. Thus, you may say, "I'm angry, and I have good reason because he
did this and that and that." You will find that you are getting still
angrier. Usually you'll say, "I shouldn't get angry, so I'd better stop
this." But now we're going to use this on purpose, not for the sake of
getting angry, because we're going to suspend the angry feelings, neither
by stopping them, not letting them come out. Is that clear what I mean?
LN: Yes, but there are some difficulties with suspending.
DB: Well you see, it's not being done right in the heat of your original
outburst of anger, but still, you're not calling it up to get rid of the
angry feelings. Your first impulse might be to try and go out and insult
the person and do something, and in earlier times, you might even have
hit the person. And now you say don't do any of those things, but let the
feeling come up and watch what's going on. We're regarding it as a sort
of test display of the process, you understand? So then you'll see these
angry feelings which will produce tension in the solar plexus and the
belly and the chest, and affect your breathing and heartbeat, and all
sorts of things. You'll be able to see a sort of movement of responses
all over the body, such as tension of the jaw, in the neck.
LN: Now let me raise one of the difficulties that commonly occurs here.
Even if one waits a bit beyond the heat of the moment, there still comes
up a very strong resistance to acknowledging that one is actually in this
state.
DB: Yes, that's part of our sociocultural conditioning, which says that
you shouldn't be angry, and not only that, you yourself have seen by
clear thought that it's leading you astray. You see, both reason, and
society, and everything is telling you, you shouldn't be angry. Now
there's a serious mistake in there. Of course, it's right that you
shouldn't be angry, if only because it is very destructive to your deeper
interests. But the attempt to say you shouldn't be angry is simply not
affecting the anger, it's just trying to impose another pattern on top of
the anger. This will come out as we go along, but the first point is to
realize that such resistance is false and that this falseness will come
out as we go through this process and pay attention to it. The falseness
of the sociocultural as well as the personal judgment.
DB: Yes. This is very tricky, because in some ways the judgment appears
to be right. But there's a fundamental, deeper falseness in it. So we
also have to give attention to our tendency to say "I shouldn't be angry,
I must stop being angry", and we will see that this too, has to be
suspended. In this process one will begin to get certain feelings, at
first perhaps very faintly because of all the resistance, and later more
strongly -you'll see the play of these feelings all over the body,
because the action is being suspended. If you actually *did* something,
you would no longer notice the feelings... if you went out and hit
somebody or punched him in the nose, or insulted him, or otherwise tried
to get redress for your anger. You might momentarily feel a lot better,
because the tension would go (until the other person retaliated in a
similar way). But now, when action is suspended, you can see that the
words are calling up the feelings, and you'll be able to get a sense that
there's some sort of mechanical connection between the words and the
feelings.
For example, you may find that the words may be, "He shouldn't have done
this; he shouldn't treat me that way; he hasn't due regard for me, he's
always doing that; he's never taking my rights into account. It's not the
first time." So you may notice the feelings coming up rather
mechanically, and that those feelings are producing mechanical pressure,
making it very hard to look at those thoughts and see whether they're
right or not.
LN: Let's go very slowly here. You say they produce mechanical responses,
and mechanical feelings. Now it seems to be a very thin line, because
when you do what you suggest, if it's really activation these responses
you are talking about, they don't *feel* mechanical.
DB: No, but you can see a certain mechanical quality in the sense that
the word is followed by the feeling. And you'll see there is a little
something also in that pressure of the feeling to avoid examining the
meaning of the words, to avoid seeing whether you really have a good
reason to be angry.
LN: A resistance to seeing the connection.
DB: Yes, that's right. You see, if it were really a straightforward
process, there would be no resistance to examining it. Now you can begin
to suspect that it looks a little mechanical."
pat
~~
What do you mean by this? From what you write, Pat, it seems that you
take
such a thought is evidence of that old devil TAS at work once again.
You suggest
that complication is its modus operandi - an avoidance tactic.
And you imply that the simplest description of something is better
than one
that includes all the subtleties and complexities that fill out its
meaning.
But do you really believe that?
Or am I to believe that you believe that unhappiness is in some way a
product of this unintelligent, mechanical system distracting us from
- what? -
catching it in the act of making us unhappy?
And then you bring "power" into it. And say that somehow we must not
allow
anyone else to make us unhappy because that puts the control of
happiness
outside of our selves. So it is not onlyTAS distracting us by making
us unhappy
but it is also those others doing it to us. I guess we have to be
very careful, not
to get caught in this dreadful condition of victimhood, or of feeling
unhappy,
even about ourselves.
All of this brings to mind the word, "compassion". Literally, from
its etymology,
the word means to suffer together. It means to be able to "feel
someone else's
pain". Without the ability to be compassionate, to feel the pain of
another, I do
not believe that we can be fully human.
Would you recommend dialogue or trying to gain a deeper understanding of
the "totality" as a means to a pain free life?
As for Katie, she is a psychotherapist who works with groups and uses
her own version of a therapeutic approach known as cognitive therapy
which uses this sort of note taking and questionnaires to call
attention to
the sorts of stuff that conventional therapies take months to dredge up.
It is good stuff but it is still psychotherapy. Dialogue as Bohm
described it
was not meant to be psychotherapy.
don
On 15 Sep 2006, at 00:09, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>> Objection to the content here is because of
>> [some elaboration on or complication of] the thought
>> that "This makes me unhappy."
>>
>> Objections?
>>
>> pat
>
> Not an objection, but perhaps an oversimplification. (don)
>
> Can an objection to content based on the content's
> "oversimplification"
> be seen in any way, as a "complication" of a "this makes me unhappy"
> thought [as suggested in the initial question]?
>
> "Complication" can be seen to be the primary avoidance
> tactic [by thought] when inquiring into the workings of thought.
>
> Incidentally, thanks Regina for the words about Byron Katie. Her work
> is the best by far example I've ever seen of undistracted [by
> complication]
> inquiry into deep assumptions. One of the first things facilitators of
> "the
> work" will notice and give attention to is called "cross talk," which
> is something we can all notice thought doing as a distraction from
> simple inquiry. Getting the beliefs and assumptions onto paper
> in the clearest and simplest wording possible, is an invaluable
> help to the inquiry.
>
> The question that is of prime interest in Katie's "Work"
> and in a Bohm inspired dialogue is: Is it the person that
> is making me unhappy (or the person's words or actions)
> or is it the thought* about the person (or about the person's
> words or actions) that is "making me unhappy?" It is a strictly
> technical question. And it points to "a difference that makes
> a difference."
>
> It is a critical 'life' question too because seeing
> what is actually happening in thought will make the
> difference between other people [seemingly] holding the power
> to control our "happiness," or not "holding that control. What are
> the implications of a state of affairs where it is generally believed
> that other people control our mood buttons? Do we need look far
> to see such implications?
>
> *It is such thoughts that are exposed to inquiry when
> looking for implicit beliefs or assumptions beneath
> the reflexes that guide our behavior.
>
> pat
>
>
>
> I think that just about anything can be reduced to its lowest common
> denominator, but in that reduction a great deal of meaning gets lost.
> So, it is not the content, in and of itself, that I sometimes find
> objectionable but the meaning of that content. We know what words
> denote. but we have also to intuit the connotation that they carry in
> any particular context. Without this tacit level of understanding,
> there would be no possibility of communication. But to do this we
> have to approach each question with more of an artistic hand than
> just an analytical or literalist understanding.
>
> So sometimes I find the "tone " of someone's remarks objectionable
> because they imply an attitude that distracts us from the seriousness
> of our search for understanding. Peter Krauss's behaviour, first
> under his own name and later as gas, was an example of this. And now
> Kirsten, whoever Kirsten may be, is another, perhaps, so far, less
> extreme example.
>
> I would suggest, though, that our inquiry here is not meant to be an
> inquiry into whatever someone wants to have happen as if it were a
> kid's playground with one of them wanting to be king or queen of the
> sandpile, nor is it an anything goes sort of exercise. That is what
> Krauss wanted to make it. Rather its an inquiry into some of the more
> subtle and, dare I say, significant realms of human consciousness or
> what Bohm called "the totality of all that is." And that's what I
> value here. So, I feel that such a search needs to be treated
> delicately and seriously. And when it is not, then, yes, it does make
> me feel unhappy.
>
> don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/787cd198/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 18:08:37 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Sep 17 19:01:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060915.124931.592.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F23A39F22537967F7D9D1B6A82F0@phx.gbl>
Dear Zoe -
No Thinkg 'wrong' with TAS !
... The fellow who 'came up' with this belief&system, Bohm,
Was 'just' a(nother) clinically depressed person
[To the point of being suicidal, matter-of-factly speaking]
&
One typically gets a lot more Bang out of
Filling a few books & conference-rooms by talking about
"Gott und die Welt"
Rather than getting into one's own mess
Love & Melon, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and I
read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what
should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does anybody
here know? Appreciating - Zoe
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 18:13:43 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Sun Sep 17 19:06:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
In-Reply-To: <20060916.110834.2248.14.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20060916161343.55678.qmail@web61018.mail.yahoo.com>
First of all there must be some mechanism that is
creating images consciously as well unconsciously. I
could call it perhaps psyche. This psyche is seeking
security and stability throughout image making
machinery all the time. It is not only one image but
also rather many images interconnected. These images
are based in thought-memory-feelings. These images are
also affecting the whole mechanism physically as well
mentally.
If, I presume for the sake of a argument that thought
being closely tide up to my emotions cannot get hold
of the whole in such seeking security and stability.
It also cannot distinguish between false and true
reality. Thought is in physical state being
disorganized and mentally confuse if I can use these
words. Also thought being based in abstractions, which
means it is always leaving a lot of out. Thought not
being able of perception only because is rooted in
memory. Active thought or my thinking is always adding
so do speak to my knowledge but nevertheless thought
is not capable keeping up with the ever-changing
reality. Since thought got ever more complex over the
time, it is also loosing control in what is real and
what is not in a sense reality standing independent of
thought and reality created by thought and sustain by
thought. The difficulty is that I am using a faculty
of the brain that is very useful in certain
activities-in my practical life especially-but there
is a lack of subtlety, there is a lack of
intelligence, in it is informing me just where it is
useful and where it is not. It doesn?t really know it
is limitations.
Therefore, coming back to another tool necessary,
which I can call subtle intelligence. The opposite of
subtle would be manifest or what I can hold in the
eye. What is important is that thought is not able to
grasp what is going on right now, at this very moment?
Yes, thought can grasp movement in places where there
things are not changing very rapidly but nevertheless
applying it or aiming it at the mind in this doesn?t
work only because mind is more subtle and very active
to be grasp by thought. Memory cannot hold in it the
actual process by which the mind operates.
Having said that, what would stop thought from
interfering in what is actually going on now with it
is memory? I would still need this memory but to be
able change it when it is necessary, I would need this
more subtle intelligence operating. I could bring now
words use many times, which are beyond thought, which
are attention and awareness. Not in ordinary use of
these words but rather in a sense being not polluted
by thought or interfered by thought. Is then thought
capable being rational and maybe aware of it is own
origins based in memory? Thought being aware of itself
and how it is affecting the mind.
I must then give undivided attention to thought
process as a whole, which includes emotions along with
the physical and chemical responses. Memory of
thinking is actually just thought. Then there is a
difference between remembering emotion, which is
memory, and feeling emotion because something has
happened. Then, if something needs attention because
there is something wrong here, this mechanical
operation of thought maybe could be altered by active
thought or thinking with this undivided attention into
what is going on now.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 18:27:25 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Sun Sep 17 19:19:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060916.115611.2248.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20060916162725.90345.qmail@web61021.mail.yahoo.com>
I do not consider thought to be a problem.
Well, if one makes such a statement, which really
means there is no need for further investigation. I
know, and therefore lets move on to the next thing.
How does one known something for sure being true and
real without leaving a room for corrections or
adjustments if necessary? I may presume or come up
with some ideas or assumptions, which is ok but one
must leave a room for this possibility being
incorrect.
The question is not in if thought is cause of my state
of being what ever that state might be but rather is
thought capable of acting rationally and being aware
of it is own movement. Thought is thought and it
cannot do bad or good things. As one would say, if
thought can do all this bad then thought can also fix
things so do speak. Does thought knows own
limitations? Surely, I didn?t get this far just thanks
to thought but there must be other forces or energy
involve here, which clearly stands above or beyond
thought.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sat Sep 16 19:55:40 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sun Sep 17 20:48:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060916.115611.2248.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060916.115611.2248.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <DEC66EC8-E3C2-434C-BBC3-784A47FAACBB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
It seems that you and I, Pat, have very different approaches to
inquiry. You, say, pick a distraction and inquire into it regarding
the truth of it. Almost any distraction will do, it seems.
My approach is to inquire into the meaning of distraction itself, to
ask what is a distraction, what purpose does it serve? And then to
ask what about such a purpose? Does it make sense?What would a life
without distractions be like? Would this be better or more creative
or worse? And so on.
Then you say you want to find the "truth" of it.
I want to find out what people mean by "truth". What is the truth for
me?
I don't mean to demean your way but it sounds like the "one day at a
time" method of outfits like AA. And I have seen too many instances
where such methods produce new addictions - as often as not,
addiction to the method, because there will always be another
something, a problem, or paradox or a discomfort or fear, that wants
to be inquired into.
That may be of value to you but I am still obsessed - and probably
addicted - to wanting to understand the whole thing. Whatever that
might actually mean
In recent years my approach is to try to understand Bohm's approach
to "the whole thing" and to see what sense it makes to me. I am not
trying to free myself from incoherence or pain or fear or anything,
although all that would be nice.
My basic assumption - which I have to stop and question from time to
time - is that, as my understanding grows the "work" that I am doing
will serve to bring about some more coherence and occasionally even a
smattering of intelligence.
But I put the highest value on being able to do this in a group.
where I can test my views against those of others and engage in a
dialogue about their differences and similarities which in turn
helps me to extend my own views.
My present view is that although looking at the complexity of the
human condition, although it might sometimes be a distraction, has
been far more fruitful than say,suspending the fact that I
occasionally get angry with someone, for the simple reason that my
suspension and proprioception has given me a certain amount of
awareness of the causes but it has done little to cure the disease,
if disease is what it is.
don
On 16 Sep 2006, at 16:56, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Going further and further in
> the direction of complication
> in inquiry only increases the 'ya
> buts' that make up the smoke screen
> of self - sustaining confusion,
> proportionally.
>
> Inquiry is not at all complicated. it's
> the distractions that are complicated.
> But, pick any one of them [distractions]
> and submit it to inquiry regarding the "truth"
> of it. Inquiry into "distractions" is simple -
> and fruitful - [because of the attachment
> to them] (but 'do' just one at a time).
>
> pat
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sat Sep 16 20:23:53 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sun Sep 17 21:16:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060916.115611.2248.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060916.115611.2248.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <B827455F-432F-4C4F-BC76-60DB809A7C80@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 16 Sep 2006, at 16:40, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> I do not consider thought to be a problem. "Problem" implies
> "goal." "How do I fix my leaky bathtub faucet" is a "problem." The
> idea of "fixing" thought seems to be based
> on a faulty assumption. Faulty assumptions are perhaps
> "problematic" in that they create suffering but that does not
> suggest that there is something "wrong with TAS."
>
> pat
So, Pat, what is the faulty assumption? Is it a faulty assumption
about TAS that is not part of the thought system? If so, where is the
observer in all this?
You say you do not consider thought to be a problem, and that this
word implies a goal. But we do have goals, and it would by silly to
say that we do what we do without a purpose. Bohm only went so far
as to say that dialogue should not have a fixed purpose.
The tone of many of the posts on this list, including many your own,
do treat thought as a problem. And avoiding the word "problem"
doesn't make it go away.
Treating thought as a problem has been the general presumption here
and in just about every dialogue group I have ever participated in.
However, I agree with you that though isn't a problem. It's nature
does present certain limitations that are not obvious and these
require attention. Our normal education does not take these
limitations into account and so they are seldom noticed. But the
problem will never go away so long as we continue to treat thought as
something that we can observe from the outside and name as TAS, or
whatever.
We are the thinkers. The memory that we call upon to guide us is
ours. It may be clumsy and misleading, but until we can own and not
say things like "Oh, well, thought is trying to lie to us and tell us
that there is something in here that is doing it," there will be no
possibility of dissolving the blocks and incoherence that suppresses
our creativity.
It is creativity that is needed to cure the ills of our thought
process. And the question for me is how do we increase this aspect of
the process?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/efc3a662/attachment.html
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 21:41:57 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Sun Sep 17 22:34:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <DEC66EC8-E3C2-434C-BBC3-784A47FAACBB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20060916194157.43896.qmail@web61017.mail.yahoo.com>
Don: I want to find out what people mean by "truth".
What is the truth for
me?
Fanda: There are questions involve in this seeking
truth? Why do I seek this truth what ever that might
be in the first place? Is truth pointing to something
real or is truth beyond the world I perceive as
reality? Is truth some force of the nature to be
proved and tested or is it in the realm of
indescribable or unnamable or indefinable? If, I use
the word truth in the realm of my own life and living,
I am then looking for the truth man made. If, I am
looking for the truth, which points or stands beyond
man then it is very hard to talk about it or trying to
describe it in words beyond maybe the feeling of some
sort of that there is more to life and living then I
perceive. I would approach truth maybe from having the
ability of perception through the mind when truth is
not a fix thing but rather always changing and never
the same. This flexibility of a mind or simple mind in
seeing and doing through direct perception of what is.
Don: That may be of value to you but I am still
obsessed - and probably addicted - to wanting to
understand the whole thing. Whatever that might
actually mean.
Fanda: I thing that is one of the most important and
valid approaches to the whole system in my
investigation rather then fragmentary way. We are
accustomed to investigate from the individual point of
looking but some of us are trying to include as well
collective point of investigation. Then some of us are
trying to bring into it as well universal point of
understanding. The question is, is I capable of such
universal insight into the whole thing or is I left
only with fragmentary way of approach?
Don: I am not trying to free myself from incoherence
or pain or fear or anything, although all that would
be nice.
Fanda: I do not thing that it is a question of trying
but rather if there is a possibility to be free from
the sorrow of self pity or the ego self-centered
activities? Then maybe beyond that I am able to find
out what lies beyond thought and if I can ever
understand or be free from universal sorrow, if such
thing exist. Otherwise, I am only playing the game so
do speak in modifying or adjusting and conforming to
my shortcomings. Man has the ability to solve many
things and I am sure the natural capacity of man is to
solve present crises of the world but being caught up
in self pity and self-centered activities there is not
much chance.
Don: My present view is that although looking at the
complexity of the human condition, although it might
sometimes be a distraction, has been far more fruitful
than say,suspending the fact that I occasionally get
angry with someone, for the simple reason that my
suspension and proprioception has given me a certain
amount of awareness of the causes but it has done
little to cure the disease, if disease is what it is.
Fanda: I woudn?t call it disease but rather thought
inability to be rational if aimed to the psyche. When
dealing with the mind or mental part of myself,
thought act irrationally and cannot be orderly but on
the other hand if not aimed at the psyche it can be
rational and coherent. Therefore, to find out the
undivided attention or awareness to the whole process
is necessary.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From franis_franis at juno.com Sat Sep 16 22:18:31 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Mon Sep 18 01:09:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
Message-ID: <20060916.151330.848.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Zoe, nothing wrong with TAS, it's just so all-encompassing, so in this
way TAS is sort of habitually coersive. Guys enjoy problem solving, so
they tend to describe these sorts of characteristics as a problem, which
is how to be free of something that would involve using the process
itself to obtain the freedom from it.
I first ran into a similar observation/concept of TAS by looking into
pools of water and wondering how it was for the animals who lived in
these temporary ponds. I read a story called "Surface Tension" (1965,
James Blish) a sci-fI story about creatures who lived in the water and to
voyage beyond their limitations, they had to confront the mechanics of
getting out of their watery world and figure out how to survive in the
hostile environment of air. It got me thinking how much of the physical
world we take for granted that functions the way it always has. Someone's
ways of thinking seem to be limited by circumstances.
Reading Carlos Casteneda's third book, in it was another description of
TAS. He called "Thought As A System" the "tonal." (it's opposite was the
nagual, which was the unknown, etc. - I thought it was a pretty good
opposite for TAS.)That made me look at everything I take for granted. It
made me make more art, because it seemed in that observational,
not-so-thinking state I was somewhat freed from TAS.
OK now, Peter/Kirsten, I know most of us would like to read how you could
be getting into your own mess, as you put it. Perhaps that would involve
you telling us about ...yourself? Your experiences? If you take
medication? Your history? Your challenges? I'd say the first step in
doing this would be self-revealing. You don't seem to be inclined to
reveal yourself. So far I've only read how you have assigned yourself the
job of pointing at whatever you think is wrong with everyone else, and of
course, you know better, no?
Lovingly, Franis
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:08:37 -0400 "kirsten schneide"
<kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> Dear Zoe -
> ... The fellow who 'came up' with this belief&system, Bohm,
> Was 'just' a(nother) clinically depressed person
> [To the point of being suicidal, matter-of-factly speaking]&
> One typically gets a lot more Bang out of
> Filling a few books & conference-rooms by talking about
> "Gott und die Welt"
> Rather than getting into one's own mess
> Love & Melon, Kirsten
>
> Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time,
> and I
> read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out
> what
> should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does
> anybody
> here know? Appreciating - Zoe
>
>