From dirk at mu6.com Fri Nov 17 00:52:07 2006
From: dirk at mu6.com (Dirk Laureyssens)
Date: Sat Nov 18 01:57:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <20061115225332.13420.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20061115225332.13420.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A3AABA5F-A41E-4096-A73F-368FC2CE98AE@mu6.com>
Hi Kari,
A nice way your formulate this. Indeed in such constantly dynamic
system all sub-sets have their own unique holon-structure. Every sub-
set (holon) has a proper frequency/vibration, each like a unique
bell. These exchange vibrations, be it harmonic and/or disharmonic.
Indeed that's a dialogue. ;-) An exchange of information.
On 15 Nov 2006, at 23:53, Karilen Mays wrote:
> That is very interesting...two sort of sides to the same movement
> like yin and yang. How about we are connected through what
> differentiates us...like we connect to each other through our
> individuality, our personal perspectives...that's how dialogue works.
>
> kari
>
> From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>
> Dirk,
>
> IÕm interested .. A lot ... But I donÕt have the physics or the
> maths to follow what looked like to be fascinating info there. Is
> there something that you have written that is easier to understand.
Hi Gill. No not written in a simpler version. But I will explain a
little more.
The math is very basic.
If we accept an unbreakable dynamic membrane this will have all kind
of movements and the membrane surface has crests and troughs. Peaks
and valleys. The basic peaks are not holons, they are still part of
the pure membrane.
When a part of this membrane (a peak) 'fully penetrates' another part
(second peak) a new triple layered 'unity' is created: a holon (which
has - PARTLY - two different parts of the original source). A yang
and a yin part.
The basic equation is always correct, either it starts with 1 = 1, or
0 = 0, or ° = ° .
You could say that 0 (zero) has locally a new spot H that contains a
combined a minus part and plus part of the membrane.
0 = 0
0 = 0 + 0
0 = 0 + [restructured zero]
0 = 0 + [(+1)+(-1)]
0 = 0 + [(yang) + (yin)]
0 = 0 + [holon].
And since the original membrane is 0 (and zero = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0
+ 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ....)
then we can have 0 = 0 + [holon] + [holon] + [holon] + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0
+ 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + [holon] + [holon] + 0 + 0 + [holon] + ...)
If we simplify this to an Einstein type of formula we can write:
The Membrane = dynamic energy + [holon] + [holon] + [holon] + dynamic
energy + dynamic energy + dynamic energy + dynamic energy + dynamic
energy + dynamic energy + dynamic energy + dynamic energy + dynamic
energy + dynamic energy + [holon] + [holon] + dynamic energy +
dynamic energy + [holon] + ...
Or we can say:
° = ° potency . Thus the membrane can 'restructure" or "has the
potency" to become various type of holons.
If we start with infinity (°) as the basic value of spacetime, then:
° = °
° = ° potency
° = ° + ° + ° + ° + ° + ° + °
° = ° + [restructured °] + [restructured °] + [restructured °] + ° +
° + °
° = ° + [(Active part F pelastrates Passive part G)] + [(Active part
K pelastrates Passive part L)] + [(Active part V pelastrates Passive
part W)] + ° + ° + °
° = ° + [Macro holon package G(f)] + [Micro holon package L(k)] +
[Micro holon package W(v)] + ° + ° + °
This can be in example: ° = ° + Milky-way + bird + love + ° + ° + °
And in example the [Macro holon package G(f)] (the MILKY-Way) can
create on it's turn billions on sub-holons.
On the explicate order/level we see different "objects" and "energies".
But this explicate order/structures is based on a hidden structure of
basic holons (the implicate order) which comes from the constant
dynamic membrane.
And because all holons are created from the membrane ... each holon
is connected with all other holons. They are interconnected.
> Is the implicate the ÔeverythingÕ here?
> ÔEverything is connected by the same force that sets them apartÕ?
Yes, the membrane is the totality.
The membrane separates, but at the same time holds all holons.
However each holon has it's proper vibration.
By exchanging energies (the dialogue like Kari says) the holons will
change their vibration. Like by dialogue we learn and adapt our
proper system when we receive NEW information.
Dirk
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 14/11/06 18:37, Dirk Laureyssens at dirk@mu6.com wrote:
>
>
> Sponsored Link
>
> Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
> Intro-*Terms
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061117/39419900/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Nov 17 01:58:50 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Nov 18 03:04:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <20061115065027.10613.qmail@web86511.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <012001c709e3$91b2f880$3374153f@DL01>
But there are other ways to measure electrons without changing the electron. -- Stephen
Yes, except that if all is flux, in flux, how can a measurement not be altered, not be different, from the previous measurement? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: STEPHEN DEVLIN
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 1:50 AM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
But there are other ways to measure electrons without changing the electron. in fact the electron doesn't change (if you're referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle) it's the velocity (direction and speed) that changes, not the electron. Physicists have just announced a new way to measure the spin of an electron without changing the spin, who knows what'll be next.
Don Lay <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words. -- don
Yes. It seems convenient at times to ignore that no matter what actually is, talking about seems to change it just as measuring an electron with an electron alters what is measured.
It really seems helpful to view words as measures of experience such that we say measuring experience alters what is measured.
Thoughts? dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Don Lay wrote:
Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and should be applied to language.
This is a topic that I think calls for a lot more inquiry. I would say that TAS in the sense that
you use it here applies primarily to language. But are there forms of thought that don't depend
on words or combinations of words? Is there such a thing as nonconceptual thought? I think
so, but I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words.
don
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061116/3533507f/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Nov 17 02:31:29 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Nov 18 03:37:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] William's post for Gill
Message-ID: <01fe01c709e8$20cb8560$3374153f@DL01>
Gill .. and others, here's the post earlier referenced. I retrieved it from something I'd saved to work on later, so it is slightly gooped-up but the ideas are the same. Also, be aware that this presentation is somewhat out of context. HIGHLIGHTS ADDED. -- Don L
I think, the most significant advance so far is the development of the sense of self, individualism, or persona. This, to some extend, is a separation from the whole. In mythical or religious terms it amounts to an escape from paradise, freedom from God. Also we have developed language that emphasizes distinctions, enabling us to conceptualize ourselves in terms of you and me, them and us, etc. This is a real breakthrough and a pre-requisite for everything else that follows. -- william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061116/c7f26093/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Nov 17 02:44:57 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Nov 18 03:50:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <20061116.154614.2144.99.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <021701c709e9$ff3bfd60$3374153f@DL01>
Pat, this is very interesting. I experience something like a reflex for a "mental mantra" which is like the "button" you describe. The mantra, a mental movement, occurring "on its own" directs attentive awareness to a deeper experience that, seems to me, is quite prior to the personal identity experience -- in Tillich's language, prior to the subject object split.
It is so difficult finding language that adequately directs awareness in the direction of meaning. I really like your idea of the "button". -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Imagine what could happen if we were to find an internal button that could be pushed fairly easily for a little hit of pleasure. You know, an ability to "skip the middle man" kind of thing. Then imagine, that this "little hit" would subside quite rapidly. But there is STILL the fact of this "button" discovery. No brainer, right. Push it again.
Then, what if this became habitual. Habitual to the point that the general pleasantry and surprise of just being alive [the "middle man"] was all but forgotten.
pat
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:22:06 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
Which endorphin flow? The ones created by pretentious acts, language, little lies -- or the endorphin flow created by inate wisdom in all creatures, perhaps even in a tree that grows extra bark prior to an approaching harsh winter?
I'm saying it is dangerous to be unaware of the endorphnin flow created by that imagination occurring without awareness .. which Bohm calls fancy, fantasy.
I'm interpreting JCs notion of seeking, knocking, etc., as relating to natural (not personal) endorphin flow -- that endorphin flow having little or no down side; similarlily the Budhist sayings, Jewish, Hindu sayings. -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Just to check and see if I am understanding you...are you saying you feel this endorphin flow is somehow undesirable?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as other than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom, wittiness as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being? --dbl
Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of being rather than something you possess or I possess. -- Susan
If I may say, it seems wisdom says so. Personally, I would say doing so creates something like endorphin flow better than the trite little pretentious lies I act and pretend. -- dbl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of being rather than something you possess or I possess.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
On Nov 16, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Don Lay wrote:
Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as other than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom, wittiness as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being?
If thoughts are not words, is it possible to see also that thoughts are not ours? Is it not extremely limiting to say a thought is mine -- and ignore that everyone may have the same thought?
What would happen if I did not personify and interpret cleverness, wittiness or wisdom as mine? What would happen if you experienced wisdom without personifying? What would happen if, as per K, you watched the personification movement, or were, as Bohm suggests, aware of the personification movement as it forms ... such that experience occurs (sic) of wisdom instead of personal wisdom?
Do endorphins flow without excessive personification movement? -- dbl
What would happen? I suspect we would find ourselves engaged in a real dialogue without fragmentation or incoherence. And I also suspect that the endorphins would confirm this.
don
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061116/db8a647b/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Fri Nov 17 06:06:14 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Sat Nov 18 07:17:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] first one
Message-ID: <20061116.210616.1832.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Since she requested it, I sent Kath about 5 megs of posts, in a humongous
text file, from 2004 list, off-list. She forgot to answer me off-list
that she got them. - Franis
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:08:09 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 06:04:13 -0600 "Morgan Jett"
> <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> writes:
> > got it, Franis, Thanks.
> >
> > I've got 200 posts to go through. I'll let you know when I find
> the
> > 2nd
> > one. k
>
> Great clipping k. But too much. Don't know to what you refer.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From franis_franis at juno.com Fri Nov 17 06:37:43 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Sat Nov 18 07:53:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
Message-ID: <20061116.214229.1832.3.franis_franis@juno.com>
Welcome back, Dirk!
- Franis
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:52:07 +0100 Dirk Laureyssens <dirk@mu6.com>
writes:
> Hi Kari,
>
> A nice way your formulate this. Indeed in such constantly dynamic
> system all sub-sets have their own unique holon-structure. Every
> sub-
> set (holon) has a proper frequency/vibration, each like a unique
> bell. These exchange vibrations, be it harmonic and/or disharmonic.
>
> Indeed that's a dialogue. ;-) An exchange of information.
>
> On 15 Nov 2006, at 23:53, Karilen Mays wrote:
>
> > That is very interesting...two sort of sides to the same movement
>
> > like yin and yang. How about we are connected through what
> > differentiates us...like we connect to each other through our
> > individuality, our personal perspectives...that's how dialogue
> works.
> >
> > kari
> >
> > From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >
> > Dirk,
> >
> > IÕm interested .. A lot ... But I donÕt have the physics or the
> > maths to follow what looked like to be fascinating info there. Is
>
> > there something that you have written that is easier to
> understand.
>
> Hi Gill. No not written in a simpler version. But I will explain a
> little more.
> The math is very basic.
>
> If we accept an unbreakable dynamic membrane this will have all kind
>
> of movements and the membrane surface has crests and troughs. Peaks
>
> and valleys. The basic peaks are not holons, they are still part of
>
> the pure membrane.
> When a part of this membrane (a peak) 'fully penetrates' another
> part
> (second peak) a new triple layered 'unity' is created: a holon
> (which
> has - PARTLY - two different parts of the original source). A yang
> and a yin part.
>
> The basic equation is always correct, either it starts with 1 = 1,
> or
> 0 = 0, or ° = ° .
>
> You could say that 0 (zero) has locally a new spot H that contains a
>
> combined a minus part and plus part of the membrane.
> 0 = 0
> 0 = 0 + 0
> 0 = 0 + [restructured zero]
> 0 = 0 + [(+1)+(-1)]
> 0 = 0 + [(yang) + (yin)]
> 0 = 0 + [holon].
>
> And since the original membrane is 0 (and zero = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +
>
> 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +
> 0
> + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ....)
> then we can have 0 = 0 + [holon] + [holon] + [holon] + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0
>
> + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + [holon] + [holon] + 0 + 0 + [holon] + ...)
>
> If we simplify this to an Einstein type of formula we can write:
> The Membrane = dynamic energy + [holon] + [holon] + [holon] +
> dynamic
> energy + dynamic energy + dynamic energy + dynamic energy + dynamic
>
> energy + dynamic energy + dynamic energy + dynamic energy + dynamic
>
> energy + dynamic energy + [holon] + [holon] + dynamic energy +
> dynamic energy + [holon] + ...
>
> Or we can say:
>
> ° = ° potency . Thus the membrane can 'restructure" or "has the
> potency" to become various type of holons.
>
> If we start with infinity (°) as the basic value of spacetime, then:
>
> ° = °
> ° = ° potency
> ° = ° + ° + ° + ° + ° + ° + °
> ° = ° + [restructured °] + [restructured °] + [restructured °] + ° +
>
> ° + °
> ° = ° + [(Active part F pelastrates Passive part G)] + [(Active part
>
> K pelastrates Passive part L)] + [(Active part V pelastrates Passive
>
> part W)] + ° + ° + °
> ° = ° + [Macro holon package G(f)] + [Micro holon package L(k)] +
> [Micro holon package W(v)] + ° + ° + °
>
> This can be in example: ° = ° + Milky-way + bird + love + ° + ° +
> °
> And in example the [Macro holon package G(f)] (the MILKY-Way) can
> create on it's turn billions on sub-holons.
>
> On the explicate order/level we see different "objects" and
> "energies".
> But this explicate order/structures is based on a hidden structure
> of
> basic holons (the implicate order) which comes from the constant
> dynamic membrane.
>
> And because all holons are created from the membrane ... each holon
>
> is connected with all other holons. They are interconnected.
>
> > Is the implicate the ÔeverythingÕ here?
> > ÔEverything is connected by the same force that sets them apartÕ?
>
> Yes, the membrane is the totality.
> The membrane separates, but at the same time holds all holons.
> However each holon has it's proper vibration.
> By exchanging energies (the dialogue like Kari says) the holons will
>
> change their vibration. Like by dialogue we learn and adapt our
> proper system when we receive NEW information.
>
> Dirk
> >
> > Gill
> >
> >
> > on 14/11/06 18:37, Dirk Laureyssens at dirk@mu6.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sponsored Link
> >
> > Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
>
> > Intro-*Terms
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 franis_franis at juno.com Fri Nov 17 06:41:18 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Sat Nov 18 07:53:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Message-ID: <20061116.214229.1832.4.franis_franis@juno.com>
that's it! - we do already have this button we can push for pleasure and
happiness, but we've become habituated to it...so happiness has become
banal and drama is interesting.
A new science study on frequency of colds finds that happiness is the
factor whether you get them or not.
- Franis
DonL: Pat, this is very interesting. I experience something like a
reflex for a "mental mantra" which is like the "button" you describe.
The mantra, a mental movement, occurring "on its own" directs attentive
awareness to a deeper experience that, seems to me, is quite prior to the
personal identity experience -- in Tillich's language, prior to the
subject object split.
It is so difficult finding language that adequately directs awareness in
the direction of meaning. I really like your idea of the "button". --
Don L
ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> Imagine what could happen if we were to find an internal button that
> could be pushed fairly easily for a little hit of pleasure. You
> know, an
> ability to "skip the middle man" kind of thing. Then imagine, that
> this
> "little hit" would subside quite rapidly. But there is STILL the
> fact of
> this "button" discovery. No brainer, right. Push it again.
> Then, what if this became habitual. Habitual to the point that the
> general pleasantry and surprise of just being alive [the "middle
> man"]
> was all but forgotten.
>
> pat
>
"Don Lay" writes:
> Which endorphin flow? The ones created by pretentious acts,
> language,
> little lies -- or the endorphin flow created by inate wisdom in all
> creatures, perhaps even in a tree that grows extra bark prior to an
> approaching harsh winter?
>
> I'm saying it is dangerous to be unaware of the endorphnin flow
> created
> by that imagination occurring without awareness .. which Bohm calls
> fancy, fantasy.
>
> I'm interpreting JCs notion of seeking, knocking, etc., as relating
> to
> natural (not personal) endorphin flow -- that endorphin flow having
> little or no down side; similarlily the Budhist sayings, Jewish,
> Hindu
> sayings. -- Don L
>
>
>
> Just to check and see if I am understanding you...are you saying you
> feel
> this endorphin flow is somehow undesirable?
>
> Susan
>
> From: Don Lay
> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
> other
> than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom,
> wittiness
> as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being? --dbl
>
> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
> being
> rather than something you possess or I possess. -- Susan
>
> If I may say, it seems wisdom says so. Personally, I would say
> doing so
> creates something like endorphin flow better than the trite little
> pretentious lies I act and pretend. -- dbl
>
> From: Susan Clemons
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>
>
> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
> being
> rather than something you possess or I possess.
>
> Susan
>
> Don Lay wrote:
>
>
> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
> other
> than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom,
> wittiness
> as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being?
>
>
> If thoughts are not words, is it possible to see also that thoughts
> are
> not ours? Is it not extremely limiting to say a thought is mine --
> and
> ignore that everyone may have the same thought?
>
>
> What would happen if I did not personify and interpret cleverness,
> wittiness or wisdom as mine? What would happen if you experienced
> wisdom
> without personifying? What would happen if, as per K, you watched
> the
> personification movement, or were, as Bohm suggests, aware of the
> personification movement as it forms ... such that experience occurs
> (sic) of wisdom instead of personal wisdom?
>
>
> Do endorphins flow without excessive personification movement? --
> dbl
>
>
> What would happen? I suspect we would find ourselves engaged in a
> real
> dialogue without fragmentation or incoherence. And I also suspect
> that
> the endorphins would confirm this.
> don
>
From Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Fri Nov 17 12:37:02 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Sat Nov 18 13:42:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Third post
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5C3@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
The quote from DB is similar/identical to a Taoist maxim, which I believe stems from the I Ching.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of ae.dropper@juno.com
Sent: 16 November 2006 19:42
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Third post
Conceiving a perspective for reality such as good, implies the subassumption of an opposite or extreme, that will create a negative for the perspective, in order to generate the patterns and purposes of the idea. To qualify it, give it space and make it exist. Would we be capable of conceiving good without bad? Perspective is a broken logic. It does not fit the whole of reality. The uniqueness of each is imperative through the ambiguous plasma and it?s unstepped plasticity. All and nothing infer. They are indisociable.
For human logics, reality is a paradox.
- David da Costa
"When you trace a particular absolute notion to what appears to be its logical conclusion, you find it to be identical with its opposite, and therefore the whole dualism collapses. Reason first shows you that opposites pass into each other, then you discover that one opposite reflects the other. And finally you find that they are identical to each other, not really different at all, that each is the principle of movement of the other."
- David Bohm
****************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
****************************************************
This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their consequences.
****************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061117/4880b57c/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Nov 17 14:15:32 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Nov 18 15:21:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <20061116.214229.1832.4.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <000f01c70a4a$866d0da0$934a153f@DL01>
Yes. I also like the idea of "skipping the middle man".
Why bother with the persona when it is not needed or useful? It seems that
not only detracts from the pleasure, happiness -- BLISS, it also causes pain
and suffering in others.
Perhaps one of the ugliest consequences of unuseful, unneeded "middle
manning" occurs as the young mimic us; they seem to learn to act and pretend
the 'imaginary persona' at all cost, even at the cost of ultimate bliss.
Don L
From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
> that's it! - we do already have this button we can push for pleasure and
> happiness, but we've become habituated to it...so happiness has become
> banal and drama is interesting.
> A new science study on frequency of colds finds that happiness is the
> factor whether you get them or not.
> - Franis
>
> DonL: Pat, this is very interesting. I experience something like a
> reflex for a "mental mantra" which is like the "button" you describe.
> The mantra, a mental movement, occurring "on its own" directs attentive
> awareness to a deeper experience that, seems to me, is quite prior to the
> personal identity experience -- in Tillich's language, prior to the
> subject object split.
>
> It is so difficult finding language that adequately directs awareness in
> the direction of meaning. I really like your idea of the "button". --
> Don L
> ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
>> Imagine what could happen if we were to find an internal button that
>> could be pushed fairly easily for a little hit of pleasure. You
>> know, an
>> ability to "skip the middle man" kind of thing. Then imagine, that
>> this
>> "little hit" would subside quite rapidly. But there is STILL the
>> fact of
>> this "button" discovery. No brainer, right. Push it again.
>> Then, what if this became habitual. Habitual to the point that the
>> general pleasantry and surprise of just being alive [the "middle
>> man"]
>> was all but forgotten.
>>
>> pat
>>
> "Don Lay" writes:
>> Which endorphin flow? The ones created by pretentious acts,
>> language,
>> little lies -- or the endorphin flow created by inate wisdom in all
>> creatures, perhaps even in a tree that grows extra bark prior to an
>> approaching harsh winter?
>>
>> I'm saying it is dangerous to be unaware of the endorphnin flow
>> created
>> by that imagination occurring without awareness .. which Bohm calls
>> fancy, fantasy.
>>
>> I'm interpreting JCs notion of seeking, knocking, etc., as relating
>> to
>> natural (not personal) endorphin flow -- that endorphin flow having
>> little or no down side; similarlily the Budhist sayings, Jewish,
>> Hindu
>> sayings. -- Don L
>>
>>
>>
>
>> Just to check and see if I am understanding you...are you saying you
>> feel
>> this endorphin flow is somehow undesirable?
>>
>> Susan
>>
>
>> From: Don Lay
>
>> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
>> other
>> than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom,
>> wittiness
>> as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being? --dbl
>>
>> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
>> being
>> rather than something you possess or I possess. -- Susan
>>
>> If I may say, it seems wisdom says so. Personally, I would say
>> doing so
>> creates something like endorphin flow better than the trite little
>> pretentious lies I act and pretend. -- dbl
>>
>> From: Susan Clemons
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>>
>>
>> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
>> being
>> rather than something you possess or I possess.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
>> other
>> than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom,
>> wittiness
>> as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being?
>>
>>
>> If thoughts are not words, is it possible to see also that thoughts
>> are
>> not ours? Is it not extremely limiting to say a thought is mine --
>> and
>> ignore that everyone may have the same thought?
>>
>>
>> What would happen if I did not personify and interpret cleverness,
>> wittiness or wisdom as mine? What would happen if you experienced
>> wisdom
>> without personifying? What would happen if, as per K, you watched
>> the
>> personification movement, or were, as Bohm suggests, aware of the
>> personification movement as it forms ... such that experience occurs
>> (sic) of wisdom instead of personal wisdom?
>>
>>
>> Do endorphins flow without excessive personification movement? --
>> dbl
>>
>>
>> What would happen? I suspect we would find ourselves engaged in a
>> real
>> dialogue without fragmentation or incoherence. And I also suspect
>> that
>> the endorphins would confirm this.
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Fri Nov 17 15:28:18 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Nov 18 16:34:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060910.101832.1608.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00a301c70a54$a86b8da0$934a153f@DL01>
Pat: In a larger context, should any content be allowed, even the meaningless
nonsense of someone "stuck in a groove" like a broken record, repeating
meaninglessness nonsense ..., refusing meaning -- can that kill you? Can it
actually destroy brain cells as per db? -- Pat
Don L: Pat, I have been unable to address this until your recent post using the language regarding "the button" and the idea of "leaving out the middle man".
Pat: What is "destroyed" dbl, when the symbols below (symbolizing what, I don't know),
are "tolerated?"
Don L: Is it meaningful to say that when we are forced to ignore "the button", when we are forced to ATTEND to "the middle man" (imaginary personal identity) for the sole reason of someone's pleasure (in this case, a TROLL), does it not destroy those brain cells representing the potential for good, for bliss, happiness, pleasure, etc?
What does a word do .. in the brain/mind ... at the subtle level of quantum systems? Do they "push buttons" that cause pleasure or pain? Does word use, at the level of quantum systems, create or destroy brain cells?
Demasio says that reason/ratio/experience creates neuro pathways, which when reinforced, grow and become healthy. When they are ignored, they wither and die. This is at the Planck level, quantum level.
Do brain cells die when, at the quantum level, they are denied the nourishing experience of that which is and are instead given a diet of word use directing attentive awareness to nonsense?
Do not brain cells die when the organism gets stuck in a destructive groove or feedback loop consisting of imaginary pleasure for the imagined persona? Consider rats pushing a "pleasure button" instead of a "food button" and die of starvation. Can words or word-use do something very similar -- be used in a feedback loop such that the organism withers and dies because of imaginary pleasure instead of actual pleasure of being?
Is an arbitrary systems a form violence at the quantum level? -------- Don Lay
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
What is "destroyed" dbl, when the symbols below (symbolizing what, I don't know),
are "tolerated?"
Is there another alternative perhaps to "tolerance"
or "intolerance?" Is one, or the other, an absolute necessity?
What part of "that which is" supplies "red flags" regarding
squiggles on a screen? (pat, pat, pat)
"When people exhibit little or no awareness of the logos, verbum, ratio, rationality, necessity in thought -- no effort to share participatory awareness of logos, verbum, ratio, rationality, etc, ..." (dbl)
What percentage of the people you know
exhibit such awareness or effort? (pat)
In a larger context, should any content be allowed, even the meaningless
nonsense of someone "stuck in a groove" like a broken record, repeating
meaninglessness nonsense ..., refusing meaning -- can that kill you? Can it
actually destroy brain cells as per db? (dbl)
How does this possible "killing" relate to the "fear of death" of
which we speak recently?
Is there a distinction to be made here that would be of interest
between squiggles on a screen and a thought about them? (pat, pat)
and that when we turn away from "ontic
ratio/meaning/logos, what is called insanity obtains -- about which has long
been said: "Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad." Does madness kill? (dbl)
Can the words of another force insanity? If so, to some
who 'hear' them, or all? If the power to "make insane" resides
in the 'utterance' are we not all at the mercy of the words or
squiggles of another? (pat)
If the above demonstrate misunderstanding (which is quite possible)
please forgive my thickheadedness. -- pat
.dropper@juno.com Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:36 PM
Don, what would non-tolerance of certain content
of thought 'look like' from beginning to end? [ Don L: Maybe first it is necessary to look at and talk about intolerable behaviour, then reason about the thought which gives rise to that behaviour. I'm saying it is destructive to tollerate such language (behaviour) as:
"Don, why do you di/os[e] ** and then
ppp black/red/green
as {sometimes} saying
fff?"
When people exhibit little or no awareness of the logos, verbum, ratio, rationality, necessity in thought -- no effort to share participatory awareness of logos, verbum, ratio, rationality, etc, -- I'm saying that that which is informs me with intolerance, red flags, danger signals. -- Don L
It seems interesting to contemplate what the exact
initiatory point of an "event" is, where "tolerance"
and non-tolerance are considered to be among the
optional responses. There are questions about both
"tolerance" and "non-tolerance" to content because
of a suspected contribution by either to insanity.
This of course will have to do with the meanings of
these two terms though.
Also thinking: "Non-tolerance," in a form that is
not an insanity ingredient, is just an occurance.
Likely not even noticed AS "non-tolerance"
or maybe noticed, but in a very subtle way.
"Thought" here refers to collective thought so
it doesn't seem to matter to the question here, whether
the "certain content of thought" arises in "you,"
in "me" or in "another" (i.e., verbalized by another).
Looking forward to exploring this.
pat
PAT:
Just to get some understanding of what you are saying, can some of the words
that appear on this screen kill "me?"
DON:
We may have different contexts in mind. In the context of the "screen and
me", what's on the screen cannot kill me. But that was not the (my) earlier
context/meaning.
In a larger context, should any content be allowed, even the meaningless
nonsense of someone "stuck in a groove" like a broken record, repeating
meaninglessness nonsense ..., refusing meaning -- can that kill you? Can it
actually destroy brain cells as per db?
Seems to me it can, and that when we turn away from "ontic
ratio/meaning/logos, what is called insanity obtains -- about which has long
been said: "Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad." Does madness kill?
PAT:
"Is not the content meaningful in that it comes across as perverse and
destructive?
DON:
I guess, but what is the meaning of perversion and destruction? Ultimately
(ground and aim), maybe meaning must be interpreted from/within experience.
If reason must be interpreted from experience, then maybe we see the
"ultimacy" of ratio/reason/logos because that's the only meaningful way to
interpret ... isn't it?
But again, we may have different contexts in mind. -- Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061117/f2c05cd8/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 17 16:39:46 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Sat Nov 18 17:45:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Defining and Introduction to Dialogue
References: <20060910.101832.1608.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<00a301c70a54$a86b8da0$934a153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <002401c70a5e$9ced9d10$1d77480c@HOME>
When it comes to giving a description of and an introduction to dialogue I happened across a link to one of the first introductions I found when I was researcyhing dialogue. I still think it's one of the best I've ever seen. I thought it might help you with your own thoughts on this Don. Here's a link:
http://www.therapycorner.com/community_dialogue.htm
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061117/98856c55/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Nov 17 18:03:04 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Nov 18 19:10:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Message-ID: <20061117.120309.3040.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
This is WONDERFUL!. It is an interpretation that is
exactly the opposite of the intended meaning and
a great job of it.
pat
Yes. I also like the idea of "skipping the middle man".
Why bother with the persona when it is not needed or useful? It seems
that
not only detracts from the pleasure, happiness -- BLISS, it also causes
pain
and suffering in others.
Perhaps one of the ugliest consequences of unuseful, unneeded "middle
manning" occurs as the young mimic us; they seem to learn to act and
pretend
the 'imaginary persona' at all cost, even at the cost of ultimate bliss.
Don L
From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
> that's it! - we do already have this button we can push for pleasure
and
> happiness, but we've become habituated to it...so happiness has become
> banal and drama is interesting.
> A new science study on frequency of colds finds that happiness is the
> factor whether you get them or not.
> - Franis
>
> DonL: Pat, this is very interesting. I experience something like a
> reflex for a "mental mantra" which is like the "button" you describe.
> The mantra, a mental movement, occurring "on its own" directs attentive
> awareness to a deeper experience that, seems to me, is quite prior to
the
> personal identity experience -- in Tillich's language, prior to the
> subject object split.
>
> It is so difficult finding language that adequately directs awareness
in
> the direction of meaning. I really like your idea of the "button". --
> Don L
> ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
>> Imagine what could happen if we were to find an internal button that
>> could be pushed fairly easily for a little hit of pleasure. You
>> know, an
>> ability to "skip the middle man" kind of thing. Then imagine, that
>> this
>> "little hit" would subside quite rapidly. But there is STILL the
>> fact of
>> this "button" discovery. No brainer, right. Push it again.
>> Then, what if this became habitual. Habitual to the point that the
>> general pleasantry and surprise of just being alive [the "middle
>> man"]
>> was all but forgotten.
>>
>> pat
>>
> "Don Lay" writes:
>> Which endorphin flow? The ones created by pretentious acts,
>> language,
>> little lies -- or the endorphin flow created by inate wisdom in all
>> creatures, perhaps even in a tree that grows extra bark prior to an
>> approaching harsh winter?
>>
>> I'm saying it is dangerous to be unaware of the endorphnin flow
>> created
>> by that imagination occurring without awareness .. which Bohm calls
>> fancy, fantasy.
>>
>> I'm interpreting JCs notion of seeking, knocking, etc., as relating
>> to
>> natural (not personal) endorphin flow -- that endorphin flow having
>> little or no down side; similarlily the Budhist sayings, Jewish,
>> Hindu
>> sayings. -- Don L
>>
>>
>>
>
>> Just to check and see if I am understanding you...are you saying you
>> feel
>> this endorphin flow is somehow undesirable?
>>
>> Susan
>>
>
>> From: Don Lay
>
>> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
>> other
>> than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom,
>> wittiness
>> as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being? --dbl
>>
>> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
>> being
>> rather than something you possess or I possess. -- Susan
>>
>> If I may say, it seems wisdom says so. Personally, I would say
>> doing so
>> creates something like endorphin flow better than the trite little
>> pretentious lies I act and pretend. -- dbl
>>
>> From: Susan Clemons
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>>
>>
>> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
>> being
>> rather than something you possess or I possess.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
>> other
>> than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom,
>> wittiness
>> as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being?
>>
>>
>> If thoughts are not words, is it possible to see also that thoughts
>> are
>> not ours? Is it not extremely limiting to say a thought is mine --
>> and
>> ignore that everyone may have the same thought?
>>
>>
>> What would happen if I did not personify and interpret cleverness,
>> wittiness or wisdom as mine? What would happen if you experienced
>> wisdom
>> without personifying? What would happen if, as per K, you watched
>> the
>> personification movement, or were, as Bohm suggests, aware of the
>> personification movement as it forms ... such that experience occurs
>> (sic) of wisdom instead of personal wisdom?
>>
>>
>> Do endorphins flow without excessive personification movement? --
>> dbl
>>
>>
>> What would happen? I suspect we would find ourselves engaged in a
>> real
>> dialogue without fragmentation or incoherence. And I also suspect
>> that
>> the endorphins would confirm this.
>> don
>>
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 17 21:17:17 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (earthsky@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 18 22:23:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] William's post for Gill
In-Reply-To: <01fe01c709e8$20cb8560$3374153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <453D92380003DC1C@mail-5-uk.mail.tiscali.sys>
Thanks Don, I appreciate you finding it!
Gill
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:31:29 -0500
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] William's post for Gill
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
>
>
>
>Gill .. and others, here's the post earlier referenced. I retrieved it
from
>something I'd saved to work on later, so it is slightly gooped-up but the
>ideas are the same. Also, be aware that this presentation is somewhat out
>of context. HIGHLIGHTS ADDED. -- Don L
>
>
>
>I think, the most significant advance so far is the development of the sense
>of self, individualism, or persona. This, to some extend, is a separation
>from the whole. In mythical or religious terms it amounts to an escape from
>paradise, freedom from God. Also we have developed language that emphasizes
>distinctions, enabling us to conceptualize ourselves in terms of you and
>me, them and us, etc. This is a real breakthrough and a pre-requisite for
>everything else that follows. -- william
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
___________________________________________________________
Tiscali Unlimited Broadband with FREE weekend calls only 12.99!
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/
From donlay at gte.net Fri Nov 17 17:31:38 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Nov 18 23:36:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity ENTRAINMENT and the CWW Movement
Message-ID: <000501c70a8f$9a610880$9603153f@DL01>
Can the Clever, Witty and Wise MOVEMENT be viewed as a subsystem or sub-HOLON of the gregarious nature of homo-sapo?
Is it possible to see that when one individual identifies a CWW persona, entrainment occurs and those near by are infected by the movement somewhat like water in the proximity of a vortice?
Is an example of ENTRAINMENT when someone tells a "fish story" and then others tell a "larger fish story"? Or when someone shows a picture of the grandson? Of tells how much money he made, etc?
Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061117/9b7834b4/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Nov 17 22:43:33 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Nov 18 23:49:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity ENTRAINMENT and the CWW Movement
References: <000501c70a8f$9a610880$9603153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <004501c70a91$739308a0$9603153f@DL01>
Is the personal self subject to ENTRAINMENT PROCESSES? What does that say of free will?
Is the personal self subject to quantum processes? What does that say of free will?
-- dbl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 11:31 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity ENTRAINMENT and the CWW Movement
Can the Clever, Witty and Wise MOVEMENT be viewed as a subsystem or sub-HOLON of the gregarious nature of homo-sapo?
Is it possible to see that when one individual identifies a CWW persona, entrainment occurs and those near by are infected by the movement somewhat like water in the proximity of a vortice?
Is an example of ENTRAINMENT when someone tells a "fish story" and then others tell a "larger fish story"? Or when someone shows a picture of the grandson? Of tells how much money he made, etc?
Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061117/a5d70728/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Nov 17 22:45:31 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Nov 18 23:51:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <20061117.120309.3040.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <004801c70a91$bacfba60$9603153f@DL01>
Very interesting. The same kind of thing occurs with me from time to time,
the reply sometimes having greater meaning. You think it is an example of
"different levels of meaning"? -- Don L
> This is WONDERFUL!. It is an interpretation that is
> exactly the opposite of the intended meaning and
> a great job of it.
>
> pat
>
>
>
> Yes. I also like the idea of "skipping the middle man".
>
> Why bother with the persona when it is not needed or useful? It seems
> that
> not only detracts from the pleasure, happiness -- BLISS, it also causes
> pain
> and suffering in others.
>
> Perhaps one of the ugliest consequences of unuseful, unneeded "middle
> manning" occurs as the young mimic us; they seem to learn to act and
> pretend
> the 'imaginary persona' at all cost, even at the cost of ultimate bliss.
>
> Don L
>
>
>
> From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 12:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>
>
>> that's it! - we do already have this button we can push for pleasure
> and
>> happiness, but we've become habituated to it...so happiness has become
>> banal and drama is interesting.
>> A new science study on frequency of colds finds that happiness is the
>> factor whether you get them or not.
>> - Franis
>>
>> DonL: Pat, this is very interesting. I experience something like a
>> reflex for a "mental mantra" which is like the "button" you describe.
>> The mantra, a mental movement, occurring "on its own" directs attentive
>> awareness to a deeper experience that, seems to me, is quite prior to
> the
>> personal identity experience -- in Tillich's language, prior to the
>> subject object split.
>>
>> It is so difficult finding language that adequately directs awareness
> in
>> the direction of meaning. I really like your idea of the "button". --
>> Don L
>> ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
>>> Imagine what could happen if we were to find an internal button that
>>> could be pushed fairly easily for a little hit of pleasure. You
>>> know, an
>>> ability to "skip the middle man" kind of thing. Then imagine, that
>>> this
>>> "little hit" would subside quite rapidly. But there is STILL the
>>> fact of
>>> this "button" discovery. No brainer, right. Push it again.
>>> Then, what if this became habitual. Habitual to the point that the
>>> general pleasantry and surprise of just being alive [the "middle
>>> man"]
>>> was all but forgotten.
>>>
>>> pat
>>>
>> "Don Lay" writes:
>>> Which endorphin flow? The ones created by pretentious acts,
>>> language,
>>> little lies -- or the endorphin flow created by inate wisdom in all
>>> creatures, perhaps even in a tree that grows extra bark prior to an
>>> approaching harsh winter?
>>>
>>> I'm saying it is dangerous to be unaware of the endorphnin flow
>>> created
>>> by that imagination occurring without awareness .. which Bohm calls
>>> fancy, fantasy.
>>>
>>> I'm interpreting JCs notion of seeking, knocking, etc., as relating
>>> to
>>> natural (not personal) endorphin flow -- that endorphin flow having
>>> little or no down side; similarlily the Budhist sayings, Jewish,
>>> Hindu
>>> sayings. -- Don L
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> Just to check and see if I am understanding you...are you saying you
>>> feel
>>> this endorphin flow is somehow undesirable?
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>
>>> From: Don Lay
>>
>>> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
>>> other
>>> than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom,
>>> wittiness
>>> as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being? --dbl
>>>
>>> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
>>> being
>>> rather than something you possess or I possess. -- Susan
>>>
>>> If I may say, it seems wisdom says so. Personally, I would say
>>> doing so
>>> creates something like endorphin flow better than the trite little
>>> pretentious lies I act and pretend. -- dbl
>>>
>>> From: Susan Clemons
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:00 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
>>> being
>>> rather than something you possess or I possess.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>> Don Lay wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
>>> other
>>> than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom,
>>> wittiness
>>> as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being?
>>>
>>>
>>> If thoughts are not words, is it possible to see also that thoughts
>>> are
>>> not ours? Is it not extremely limiting to say a thought is mine --
>>> and
>>> ignore that everyone may have the same thought?
>>>
>>>
>>> What would happen if I did not personify and interpret cleverness,
>>> wittiness or wisdom as mine? What would happen if you experienced
>>> wisdom
>>> without personifying? What would happen if, as per K, you watched
>>> the
>>> personification movement, or were, as Bohm suggests, aware of the
>>> personification movement as it forms ... such that experience occurs
>>> (sic) of wisdom instead of personal wisdom?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do endorphins flow without excessive personification movement? --
>>> dbl
>>>
>>>
>>> What would happen? I suspect we would find ourselves engaged in a
>>> real
>>> dialogue without fragmentation or incoherence. And I also suspect
>>> that
>>> the endorphins would confirm this.
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>