From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 03:08:02 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Wed Oct 18 04:06:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <20061016200048.33352.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20061017010802.46347.qmail@web61013.mail.yahoo.com>
Uncertainty and Self-Deception
I think the un-known or unexplored is always present
and part of our lives. We are then more or less aware
of it all. The uncertainty is part of life and living
as well, and we are then facing it through various
ways. I can then be living in total denial or
self-deception through many believes and traditions as
well. I can surround myself with many things of this
world as well others, which makes me feel secure and
having feelings of safe course but nevertheless it
could be deceiving.
To be aware of this uncertainty and self-deception
without any escape what so ever is important. I am
going through my life in everyday actions and
reactions of mine with the rest of this world, and it
is for these actions and reactions of mine I am
shaping my consciousness. My actions and reactions are
govern by my believes, traditions, values and meanings
attached to them all. Even if I do not think having
any of them, I am making choices of some kind, which
are leading me then to some sort of actions and
reactions of mine.
How to live a life with this co-existence with another
more intelligently is important. Life with or without
this constant struggle, which has been going on as
long as any of us can perceive, which again brings us
to a state we are in. To just make a few adjustments
here and there wouldn?t change anything fundamentally.
There are to many examples even as we speak, and the
future looks very grim. There are a few of us trying
to make a change, and it seems like the rest of the
world is blind to it but nevertheless it is a noble
and absolutely necessary movement.
To reach further and further or to touch as many
hearts as possible, it requires to reach as large
audience as possible. It has to be part of our
educations and most of all part of our lives at the
highest importance to live a life more intelligently,
which we are after all capable.
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 ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Oct 17 04:47:31 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Oct 18 05:49:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Message-ID: <20061016.224837.1744.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Hell yeah we live with uncertainty...but do we really proceed with living
-- embodying and embracing -- that uncertainty, or are we ever after more
ways of distracting ourselves from that uncertainty? It gets very
subtle, this self deception, but I think it is worth noticing and that is
connected to how we relate to uncertainty. (Does anyone understand what I
am saying?) (kari)
yup
pat (no time to blather on)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061016/7ead490e/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 12:09:53 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 13:09:43 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <000401c6eff7$8b439320$a503a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <20061014190313.73210.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com>
<000401c6eff7$8b439320$a503a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <ECB6FA0E-0E37-43CB-99A6-FBCFB68CB37F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
No need. Its somewhere in most of the texts that we have by Bohm. For
years it drove me crazy, but then I began to get the idea. Now I am
at the stage where I am trying to explain what it means in different
words.
don
On 14 Oct 2006, at 20:58, Don Lay wrote:
> Yes! Don F says somewhere, Being is meaning, and meaning is Being
> -- something like that. I'll try and find that and repost it --
> because it makes me FEEL good to say it. Bohm says that words
> create FEELS, and these words come with wonderful FEELS.-- DBL
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karilen Mays
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
> (resent)
>
> how about
>
> meaning is
> and
> there is
> no end
>
> kari
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:06:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
> (resent)
>
> Interesting here, that old cliche "The means are the end."
> How about "The meanings are the end."
>
> pat
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:20:56 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
> Ultimate is defined as foundation and aim or end. Thus, isn't the
> experience of 'being' ultimate in that being is the foundation of
> all experience as well as the aim and intention of all experience?
> -- Don L
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
> (resent)
>
> Is there an ?ultimate experience??
>
>
> On 10/14/06 9:48 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>
> Kathryn, then don't we say that 'ultimate experience' is what the
> Parmenides/Heracllitus called logos -- rather than the imaginary
> personal identity experience? The idea I'm working on is that the
> personal identity experience derives from or occurs with the use of
> words that direct awareness to the personal identity ... without
> awareness that it is being done. -- Don L
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <mailto:tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:15 AM
>
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
> (resent)
>
>
> Yes! k
>
>
> On 10/14/06 8:32 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com"
> <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rodger __What is interesting to me about logos & inspiration, is
> the way this dialogue gave rise to the two topics at the same
> juncture in time. And how the relationship between Logos and
> Intuition is what takes ones experience of MEANING beyond the
> proceeds of reason. _R
> .
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:41:37 -0400
> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> .
> Is there some kind of experience in homo-sap that is as ultimate
> and as meaningful as dark clouds and thick bark?
> What is human experience is as meaningful as storm clouds or
> thicker bark prior to severe winter}? -- Don L
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061017/0e9fc91f/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 12:12:08 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 13:11:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <008101c6eff9$871fa110$a503a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <C156E3D7.3841%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
<008101c6eff9$871fa110$a503a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <69076C40-003C-4648-BDD2-E544C5982E4D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
sorry about that empty reply. For me the question remains, what do we
mean when we say, "what is"?
don
On 15 Oct 2006, at 02:27, Don Lay wrote:
> Knowing has two meanings. Knowing means participating in and it
> also means saying, language.
>
> It seems reasonable to say, by definition, all that is participates
> in the whole, doesn't it?
>
> What is said though is quite something different. Korzybski says
> that no matter how much description is used, the description cannot
> ever exhaustively describe what actually is, that which is.
>
> Makes sense to me. -- Don L
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
>
>
>
>
> On 10/14/06 3:30 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>
> t what actually is cannot be known
>
> why not, Don? Maybe not in my lifetime or yours, but never? That
> is, if the planet survives, or we all don?t mutate into who-knows-
> what! k
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061017/2ccf37bd/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 17 12:32:05 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Oct 18 13:31:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: computer/ Mark
In-Reply-To: <20061018100002.C077D23E4F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF18CA1A86.329F4AE6-ON8525720A.0038FA1C-8525720A.0039DE75@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Hi Mark, that data-fragmenting describes a key difference between
the PC brands of computer and a Mac. But having said that, after using Macs
for almost twenty years now, I still dont know a fraction of what these
things are designed to do!_R
.
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: computer/ Mark
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
think I'm understanding a new meaning of the word "fragmentation" -
basically the disk scatters the
software around in a working computer as you put new data onto it,
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/bd97ef5e/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 17 12:58:52 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Oct 18 14:18:42 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <20061018100002.C077D23E4F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF962AE513.B96A820D-ON8525720A.003A23CE-8525720A.003C528A@dialogos.com>
Rodger__I think ideas of an ideal state, and collective freedom, are
usually a product of the polluted state; projections of greener-grass,
learned.
Or sometimes a vision of a future comes as an inspiration or revelation --
and that of course, takes us into prophesy/ intuition.
But increasing awareness about our behavior/thought process, re: the
hot-points behind our pain/ pleasure, and why we contribute toward painful/
pleasurable experiences in others__that growing awareness can be increasing
our -grounding- in the here and now._R
.
.
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:42:10 -0400
From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
So the inference seems to be that we must work through all these polluted
thought forms wherever they are, in order to reach the ideal state
collective freedom.
Thoughts? k
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/2b589cea/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 17 13:19:35 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Oct 18 14:18:43 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos (resent)
In-Reply-To: <20061018100002.C077D23E4F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFF0593368.C5C4C246-ON8525720A.003CAF6A-8525720A.003E3817@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Is the question rhetorical. -- What is an honest striving?
Not unlike the oxymoron in making a sacrifice. People only do the things
they most want to do. Even when needs call for a choosing to be made
between two things we really dont want to do, in the end -- even if no
choice is made -- the thing we most wanted, given the circumstance, is what
is set in motion.
The idea of sacrifice tends to be way of avoiding responsibility for being
the one who chooses; people like to be able to say - I had no choice._R
.
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 2:59 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos (resent)
.
What is an honest striving? Regina
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/858c4e90/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 17 13:52:31 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Oct 18 14:51:40 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
In-Reply-To: <20061018100002.C077D23E4F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF611C017D.BEA41828-ON8525720A.003E639E-8525720A.00413BBC@dialogos.com>
Rodger __What makes man? Do we really believe that the Nature which causes
humankind into Being, somehow stops causing humankind into expression at
some point and the -we- take over?
And therefore humankinds expression is distinct and apart from the very
Nature of what causes humanity into existance?
Are we really so self important as all that? Would we know so much about
our brains etc., that we claim to be the designer of the brain and all it
does, and as such, we are sufficiently aware of the thought process that we
might discern the difference between synthetid and what Nature sets in
motion?. Or is synthetic and natural merely an intellectual, bias
preference?
Nothing wrong with preference.
Maybe relax our judgements a bit, to see how levels of understanding are
evolving -Nature enfolding- so we can grasp how our capabilities are not
separate from Nature Unfolding.._R
.
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:42:50 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
.
A thingk is something manmade, synthetic.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/439475f3/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 13:57:57 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 18 14:57:25 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <OF962AE513.B96A820D-ON8525720A.003A23CE-8525720A.003C528A@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C15A3D85.38D5%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Absolutely!
I?m starting a dialog group in NYC, and I?m new at this. There used to be
one, and the co-coordinator crossed over. Particularly FIONS and Riverside
Church want this, but I?m the only one who will do the footwork to get it
going. Is there anyone here you could refer me to for support?
Thanks, k
On 10/17/06 6:58 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
> Rodger__I think ideas of an ideal state, and collective freedom, are usually a
> product of the polluted state; projections of greener-grass, learned.
> Or sometimes a vision of a future comes as an inspiration or revelation -- and
> that of course, takes us into prophesy/ intuition.
>
> But increasing awareness about our behavior/thought process, re: the
> hot-points behind our pain/ pleasure, and why we contribute toward painful/
> pleasurable experiences in others__that growing awareness can be increasing
> our -grounding- in the here and now._R
> .
> .
> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:42:10 -0400
> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> So the inference seems to be that we must work through all these polluted
> thought forms wherever they are, in order to reach the ideal state collective
> freedom.
> Thoughts? k
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061017/2337b07d/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 14:02:07 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:01:28 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Direction dia-logos (resent)
In-Reply-To: <OFF0593368.C5C4C246-ON8525720A.003CAF6A-8525720A.003E3817@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C15A3E7F.38D7%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
On 10/17/06 7:19 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
> The idea of sacrifice tends to be way of avoiding responsibility for being the
> one who chooses; people like to be able to say - I had no choice._R
>
> Boy, do I have experience to back up this comment! k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/06805359/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 14:03:31 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:02:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten, etc.
Message-ID: <4719BCDA-A229-4193-9118-83AA65C64BF0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I just got back to my hard disc yesterday after a couple of weeks
away only to find more than 500 e-mails awaiting my return, all from
this list. I have been plowing through them and now I only have 94 to
go. To read through a large number all at once gives a very
interesting feel to the list. you get an idea of the rhythm and flow
and the content seems to dissolve into it. I kept coming upon certain
posts that I really wanted to answer, but I didn't because the
conversation would have moved well on before my reply would turn up,
although there were a couple that I couldn't resist.
I have saved my comments regarding Kirsten until now. Kirsten
vanished from the list while I was away. I noticed this because her/
his usual long chains of posts were missing. So I scrolled ahead to
see if there was an answer to this mystery. There was, and I was
accused of booting her off. Therefore, I think it is only fair to
comment.
For some months now there have been requests from some of us here to
boot her off. I resisted. I saw this in much the same way as I did
when Peter was unsubscribed and later, Gasinsystem.
Anyway, I wanted each of those personae of peter to participate more
openly so that the rest of us might understand their intention and to
engage with them in this dialogue. When that didn't happen the small
core group who set this list up initially agreed that it was time for
them to go. This time, I was away so I don't know exactly what happened.
We know that the internet has lots of of trolls and people who are
dedicated to disrupting and debunking whatever others are doing. So
these days I am cautious when new people want to subscribe.
My point here is that what these others, along with Kirsten, all had
in common was a style that both tried to conceal their own interests
and basically attempted to debunk and devalue what the rest of us
were doing. Now a bit of skepticism here and there can be valuable
but when the skeptic refused to engage, or to explore their own
position dialogically then there comes a time when it is counter-
productive. Our intention in starting this list was to explore and
inquire into the implications of Bohm's proposals regarding thought
and dialogue in order to see where this might lead us and other
interested participants and also to see how they fit with other
similarly proposals that arise.
Pat suggests in dialogue we shouldn't give too much attention to
content and more to process. But I would say, yes, but only up to a
point. By this, I mean, that without content there is no dialogue.
If we do not treat the content of what someone writes as a serious
contribution we are not engaging in dialogue.
Now some of you have suggested that we can just delete those posts
that we don't like, but would that be any more "dialogical"? I don't
think so. I read, or at least skim every post that comes to this
list. It is the flow, the enfolding and unfolding of ideas and
insights that create meaning here. At least that's the way I see and
appreciate it. I mean, how can there be thought without content? Or
consciousness. for that matter.
So, if Kirsten was kicked off, and didn't just choose to make herself
more visible in her invisiblilty, I am relieved. I didn't do it, but
I probably would have eventually. And that picture of a dead cow
hanging upside down over a bucket with its head sitting on a shelf
behind reminded me too much of a photo that Peter sent of the naked
body of a murdered woman that had been cut in half. that I considered
the final straw.
So, sorry to go on so long about all this but I my fingers wanted the
exercise.
don
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 17 14:08:03 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:07:09 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <20061018100002.C077D23E4F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF6D5984D4.3CFB9733-ON8525720A.00417018-8525720A.0042A7F5@dialogos.com>
Rodger__I would say, --what actually is cannot be known -- except within
the context of the words, and the relationship with the person or thing
offering meaning into the words.
The difference between how open minded you might be, to -knowing what
actually is- when a certain person offers words, over how close minded you
might be if another person offers the same words -- in that difference is a
key to the -knowing- made possible WITHIN ONESELF. Indeed is it limited, or
limitless? _R
.
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:44:24 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Likewise, using words to 'measure' what actually is alters -- is an
alteration of -- what actual is. Thus, what actually is cannot be known.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/464e77e0/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 17 14:21:43 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:20:49 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <20061018100002.C077D23E4F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF9F1E61C5.B11B96BA-ON8525720A.00431E00-8525720A.0043E85D@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Touching hearts might be more related to depth of knowing than
access to numbers. I cant say for sure but I dont think Abraham, Buddha,
Jesus etc., had access to internet or TV. Yet there is no doubt about how
many hearts they have touched down through the ages -- with what knowing
they experienced.
Someone somewhere is shouting about organizations and all the horrible
things done in the name of someone who knew something -- thats different
topic. _R
.
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mr. Frantisek Plessl" <frantisekplessl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
To reach further and further or to touch as many hearts as possible, it
requires to reach as large
audience as possible. Fanda
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/520cd3ff/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 14:36:54 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:36:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten
In-Reply-To: <20061015.120444.3988.94.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061015.120444.3988.94.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <CAC0A145-CD5D-42CA-9E2C-6911873DD755@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
If Zoe is actually a student at MIT otherwise known as Nerdcentral.
It would have been easy.
BTW, Zoe, MIT is also the home of the Sloane School of Management
where a lot of work with
Bohm\s dialogue has been done. Check out Peter Senge.
don
On 15 Oct 2006, at 17:04, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> How did Kirsten (Kris) send that message from your e-mail address,
> Zoe?
>
> pat
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu
> <zoechuzero@yahoo.com> writes:
> Hi - Thank you Kathryn. I would like to know who actually kicked
> Kirsten off that list. And why. --- Zoe
>
> >From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: bouncing
> >Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:07:29 -0400
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 10/14/06 4:59 PM, "Zoe Chu" <zoechuzero@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi - I received a message from Kirsten saying that she was
> kicked out of this
> > > group
> >
> > Yes, Zoe, so did I.
> >
> >Kris and I were on the list, s/he was trying to help me learn to
> send images
> >in my emails when I got a message from the Administrator asking us
> to take
> >the conversation off . I had no problem with that, thinking it
> was because
> >our conversation wasn?t a dialog topic.
> >
> >The next day, I got the email from him/her saying he was
> ?bounced?. That?s
> >when I noticed my own emails were being sent from that Bohm-dialog
> ?bounced?
> >address I posted earlier.
> >
> >One of the many thoughts that crossed my mind was that because I
> not only
> >got along with Kris, and was online with her just prior to her being
> >bounced, but also felt a connection with her (although he was often
> >difficult; frequently I did not like her tone, and cautioned her
> about both
> >that and his vivid images (remember the ?stoplight? conversation?) )
> >perhaps my emails to the group were being ?monitored?, through
> some kind of
> >?guilt by association?. We do live in a post 9-11 world;I lived
> through
> >McCarthy,the 60s, and raised 2 boys in NYC gangland.
> >
> >I began researching the ?bounced? question last night, then sending
> >questions this afternoon, because I don?t like to jump to
> conclusions. I
> >received an answer from Franis that you may have seen posted:
> > I believe it's what happens automatically in the system
> when the
> >message bounces for whatever reason and it gets re-sent and goes
> through the
> >second or third time the systems has re-sent it.
> >no resentment or misrepresentation implied ;o) - Franis
> >
> >so that?s cleared up; she has more computer expertise than I.
> >
> >I miss Kris and send thoughts of Hozhoon (the beauty of walking
> balance with
> >all my relations), wherever he/she is. I wish he were still
> here. k
> >
> >
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone
> call rates.
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/81a7568d/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 14:40:38 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:39:48 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
In-Reply-To: <20061015.134323.3988.100.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061015.134323.3988.100.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <0DA7D9DE-7014-461F-9045-20DE9D05421E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
BTW, in this context, can there be such a thing as an ultimate
experience? I mean, is experience (subjectivity) capable of holding
the ultimate?
don
On 15 Oct 2006, at 18:43, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> And the "awareness" part of the self aware movement
> can take two forms, one of complete involvement and
> one of complete detachment. [And it can do this
> simultaneously as well]. Three forms. (Another "Trinity").
>
> pat
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:24:05 -0400 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> Image identity, imaginary identity occurs reflexively with words
> and without awareness, without PROPRIOCEPTION, according to my
> understanding of Bohm. Words are images. A word is an image! And
> there is no awareness, no PROPRIOCEPTION regarding what identity
> with an image does. That is, there is little or no awareness of
> function because content and function have somehow become split or
> separated in the imagination (On Creativity).
>
> Resonance? Don L
>
> A new thought comes about proprioception of thought which is that it
> is an awareness of What Is from What is. It is (as has been said
> before
> many times) a self aware and undivided movement (wherein "the
> movement of thought
> is aware of itself" - aware of the function of thought, aware of
> "what the meaning of the
> image does throughout the entire system of thought - which includes
> perceptions and actions).
>
> pat
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/976ff32e/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 17 14:40:48 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:39:56 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] subject: Boston
In-Reply-To: <20061018100002.C077D23E4F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF8A58851C.3306F41F-ON8525720A.0044109E-8525720A.0045A758@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ Hi Kathryn, I looked at my notice for the event in Boston I'm
attending, although I am on the mailing list, I dont see an address on the
notice.
Anyway it is a -PROGRAM ON NEGOTIATION- event;
This event, ...is part of a series of discussions about the intersection
of negotiation and nonviolent action, which will culminate in a symposium
on December 4 with Ela Gandhi, granddaughter of Mahatma Gandhi, and William
Ury, co-founder of PON (Program on Negotiation).
location: Harvard Law School, Austin North -- Cambridge, Mass.
.
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:53:36 -0400
From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] subject: Boston
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Is there a mailing list you could refer me to for alerts to such
symposiums?
> Thanks, k
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/d3946def/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 14:49:30 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:48:52 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] subject: Boston
In-Reply-To: <OF8A58851C.3306F41F-ON8525720A.0044109E-8525720A.0045A758@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C15A499A.38E0%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Thanks, Rodger. Maybe I can Google for more info. k
On 10/17/06 8:40 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
> Rodger __ Hi Kathryn, I looked at my notice for the event in Boston I'm
> attending, although I am on the mailing list, I dont see an address on the
> notice.
>
> Anyway it is a -PROGRAM ON NEGOTIATION- event;
>
> This event, ...is part of a series of discussions about the intersection of
> negotiation and nonviolent action, which will culminate in a symposium on
> December 4 with Ela Gandhi, granddaughter of Mahatma Gandhi, and William Ury,
> co-founder of PON (Program on Negotiation).
>
> location: Harvard Law School, Austin North -- Cambridge, Mass.
> .
> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:53:36 -0400
> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] subject: Boston
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> Is there a mailing list you could refer me to for alerts to such symposiums?
>> > Thanks, k
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/453a591c/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 14:51:42 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:50:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: computer/ Mark
In-Reply-To: <485.a3c8133.3264d55b@aol.com>
References: <485.a3c8133.3264d55b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <AD112316-D980-4B39-A8D7-4436E38643E1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Mark, if by any chance you are using a Mac, you ought to get Techtool
Pro. This is very good at dealing with that sort of fragmentation.
don
On 16 Oct 2006, at 13:30, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:
> Thanks Rodger - getting it going again slowly. I think I'm
> understanding a new meaning of the word "fragmentation" - basically
> the disk scatters the software around in a working computer as you
> put new data onto it, but my machine has lost the ability to
> connect it all up again, leaving large chunks of data which are
> there somewhere but appear to be missing.
>
> Anyway, haven't unsubscribed from the list as you can see, but
> might lurk to see what's being talked-about rather than contribute
> too much while I continue trying to fix this...
>
> Mark
> Rodger __ Super drag Mark. Hope to be -reading your dialogue
> thoughts- again, asap._R
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061017/446c8fa3/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 14:53:56 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:53:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten
In-Reply-To: <CAC0A145-CD5D-42CA-9E2C-6911873DD755@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15A4AA4.38E2%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Hi -
I asked Rodger the same question I?m putting below. Would appreciate input
from everyone who has suggestions. I mentioned to several people that I?m
participating in this group, and they say ?Wonderful. You have experience.?
Well, if I have the most experience.............Thanks, k
I?m starting a dialog group in NYC, and I?m new at this. There used to be
one, and the co-coordinator crossed over. Particularly FIONS and Riverside
Church want this, but I?m the only one who will do the footwork to get it
going. Is there anyone here you could refer me to for support?
Thanks, k
On 10/17/06 8:36 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If Zoe is actually a student at MIT? otherwise known as Nerdcentral. It would
> have been easy.
>
> BTW, Zoe, MIT is also the home of the Sloane School of Management where a lot
> of work with
> Bohm\s dialogue has been done. Check out Peter Senge.
> don
>
>
> On 15 Oct 2006, at 17:04, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> How did Kirsten (Kris) send that message from your e-mail address, Zoe?
>>
>> ?
>>
>> pat
>>
>> ?
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi - Thank you Kathryn. I would like to know who actually?kicked Kirsten
>>> off that list. And why. --- Zoe
>>>
>>>
>>>> >From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: bouncing
>>>> >Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:07:29 -0400
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >On 10/14/06 4:59 PM, "Zoe Chu" <zoechuzero@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>>> > > Hi? - I received a message from Kirsten saying that she was kicked
>>>>> out of this
>>>>> > > group
>>>> >
>>>> >? Yes, Zoe, so did I.
>>>> >
>>>> >Kris and I were on the list, s/he was trying to help me learn to send
>>>> images
>>>> >in my emails when I got a message from the Administrator asking us to
>>>> take
>>>> >the conversation off .? I had no problem with that, thinking it was
>>>> because
>>>> >our conversation wasn?t a dialog topic.
>>>> >
>>>> >The next day, I got the email from him/her saying he was ?bounced?.?
>>>> That?s
>>>> >when I noticed my own emails were being sent from that Bohm-dialog
>>>> ?bounced?
>>>> >address I posted earlier.
>>>> >
>>>> >One of the many thoughts that crossed my mind was that because I not
>>>> only
>>>> >got along with Kris, and was online with her just prior to her being
>>>> >bounced, but also felt a connection with her ? (although he was often
>>>> >difficult;? frequently I did not like her tone, and cautioned her about
>>>> both
>>>> >that and his vivid images (remember the ?stoplight? conversation?) )?
>>>> >perhaps my emails to the group were being ?monitored?, through some kind
>>>> of
>>>> >?guilt by association?.? We do live in a post 9-11 world;I lived
>>>> through
>>>> >McCarthy,the 60s, and raised 2 boys in NYC gangland.
>>>> >
>>>> >I began researching the ?bounced? question last night, then sending
>>>> >questions this afternoon, because I don?t like to jump to conclusions.?
>>>> I
>>>> >received an answer from Franis that you may have seen posted:
>>>> >????????? I believe it's what happens automatically in the system when
>>>> the
>>>> >message bounces for whatever reason and it gets re-sent and goes through
>>>> the
>>>> >second or third time the systems has re-sent it.
>>>> >no resentment or misrepresentation implied ;o)? - Franis
>>>> >
>>>> >so that?s cleared up; she has more computer expertise than I.
>>>> >
>>>> >I miss Kris and send thoughts of Hozhoon (the beauty of walking balance
>>>> with
>>>> >all my relations), wherever he/she is.? I wish he were still here.??? k
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>> >info:
>>>> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>> >
>>>> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>> >
>>>> >dialogue facilitator:
>>>> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>> >
>>>> >Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> >admin@david-bohm.net
>>>> >
>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call
>>> rates.
>>> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/ev
>>> t=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com>
>>> ?
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/654ac17a/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 14:54:33 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:53:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten
In-Reply-To: <C158F839.38A5%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C158F839.38A5%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <F4576563-F29A-488B-8A45-0D954A74BFFA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Kathryn, how did you come to start calling kirsten Kris? Nobody else
here has used that name for her so far as I know.
don
On 16 Oct 2006, at 13:50, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/15/06 12:38 PM, "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> But don't worry - Peter/Kirsten/etc. will be back on the list as
>> soon as
>> he figures out how to impersonate someone else from somewhere else
>> other
>> than his blackberry handheld.
>
> Hi Fran - In light of all the stuff I dug up on examining anger in
> "Thought", including what I just posted to Pat, + the image
> overload on the
> server, it would seem to me that Kris shouldn't have to create a
> new cyber
> identity to post again. As far as Blackberries are concerned, lots of
> people must own them, or the company wouldn't be in business.
>
> I'm neither a Bohm nor a computer expert, and cyber groups have
> issues that
> face-to-face groups don't have, but that's the way it seems.
>
> Best, k
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 15:05:14 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:04:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <007c01c6f129$31f809d0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <20061014.112431.3988.60.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<007c01c6f129$31f809d0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <ABC88EAB-F296-43D8-838F-F2CC5359051A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 16 Oct 2006, at 14:44, Don Lay wrote:
> What do we do when the anxiety of not knowing plagues us?
I think that this is a key question for most of humanity. Maybe some
of us here have found a way around that. But I do recall when I wrote
about uncertainty as being a high value for me, I got a lot of people
objecting.
To me, uncertainty, means a life filled with wonder, and a curiosity
about everything. Mysteries are there to be explored and remind me
that the old saying about the journey being more important than the
destination, reverberates within me, when I don't know the answer to
something. Not knowing is filled with energy, knowing may be more
restful but it can also be pretty deadly.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/38bb9754/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 15:18:22 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:17:28 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <C15A3D85.38D5%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C15A3D85.38D5%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <B3E12877-BE29-4EE5-8A87-4F13E691CA3D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
A useful start is to make copies of Dialogue - A Proposal which is
widely available on the web give all the partivipants a copy and then
work through it with them for the first session or two. You will find
that very quicly everyone is in a dialogue. But don't have high
expectations that it will run smoothly. A dialogue group, in my
experience, needs quite a few months before the participants actually
begin to get what it is they are trying to do. Good luck and please
keep us informed of progress.
don
On 17 Oct 2006, at 12:57, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
> Absolutely!
>
> I?m starting a dialog group in NYC, and I?m new at this. There
> used to be one, and the co-coordinator crossed over. Particularly
> FIONS and Riverside Church want this, but I?m the only one who will
> do the footwork to get it going. Is there anyone here you could
> refer me to for support?
>
> Thanks, k
>
>
> On 10/17/06 6:58 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com"
> <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com> wrote:
>
>> Rodger__I think ideas of an ideal state, and collective freedom,
>> are usually a product of the polluted state; projections of
>> greener-grass, learned.
>> Or sometimes a vision of a future comes as an inspiration or
>> revelation -- and that of course, takes us into prophesy/ intuition.
>>
>> But increasing awareness about our behavior/thought process, re:
>> the hot-points behind our pain/ pleasure, and why we contribute
>> toward painful/ pleasurable experiences in others__that growing
>> awareness can be increasing our -grounding- in the here and now._R
>> .
>> .
>> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:42:10 -0400
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> .
>> So the inference seems to be that we must work through all these
>> polluted thought forms wherever they are, in order to reach the
>> ideal state collective freedom.
>> Thoughts? k
>> .
>> .
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20061017/8c747e75/attachment.html
From oenthomas at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 15:19:00 2006
From: oenthomas at gmail.com (Owen Thomas)
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:17:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <20061016.224837.1744.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061016.224837.1744.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <1dde854d0610170619x349786a3tf5aa51fdb8c223b0@mail.gmail.com>
Friends,
Randomized resusts to mu messages on this mail list have resulted in my
decisions to justarchive the messages which do not seem relevant to the
purposes I hold as an oberver. This means that your messages may or may not
cause any results here, When a message is directed to my ID it will probably
receive attention. Is that the identity that will harmonize with the list?
On 10/16/06, ae.dropper@juno.com <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Hell yeah we live with uncertainty...but do we really proceed with living
> -- embodying and embracing -- that uncertainty, or are we ever after more
> ways of distracting ourselves from that uncertainty? It gets very subtle,
> this self deception, but I think it is worth noticing and that is connected
> to how we relate to uncertainty. (Does anyone understand what I am saying?)
> (kari)
>
> yup
> pat (no time to blather on)
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
--
We are connected
Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/6d3b14f8/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 17 15:47:24 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:46:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
References: <C158F0ED.389D%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <001201c6f1f2$c95b2090$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
"We have the sense of separation because our culture tells us that each individual is separate, and therefore we perceive it that way." -- Bohm ... TAS ... . -- Kathryn
We also have a sense of separation because of the Subject Verb Object structure of language (Bohm, Wholeness ...; Tillich, Systematic ...).
I tend to correlate the expressed views of Bohm and Tillich. T writes about the infinite power as g-d, and relates it to Christian thought by way of Philo's notions regarding the Greek logos [Meaning, Ratio, Reason], saying it is the son of the infinite power. Bohm writes of the infinite plenum or sea of energy (correlating with infinite power) without raising the issue of deity although it is raised at his seminars.
Tillich, explicating the Christian view, says homo-sap is separated from the g-d and can return or re-unite via the logos [Meaning, Ratio, Reason]. Bohm, indicates the significance of the Greek logos [Meaning, Ratio, Reason] by suggesting that dialogue [dia logos as Meaning, Ratio, Reason] may be the way to overcome the destructiveness of fragmentation, estrangement, alienation, separation, etc.
Seems to me the problems raised by Bohm, Krishnamurti, Tillich such as fragmentation, alienation, estrangement, separation, etc., might be overcome by looking at language. Isn't that the essence off what B and K say when they indicate the significance of awareness of what's going on in the brain/mind systems, "in there"? -- Don L
From: Kathryn Arizmendi
"We have the sense of separation because our culture tells us that each individual is separate, and therefore we perceive it that way." from "Thought"
The Vision of Dialog, p.205
We are sharing a common meaning...We would share this kind of bond, which is called "impersonal fellowship".
It seems to me he's saying the same thing that poet John Donne said Some 400 years ago, , "No man is an island unto himself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." That this idea is illusion, and the cause of much misery. k
On 10/15/06 11:02 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
How can people get past the programming of culture that they are a separate
individuality and why would they want to do that? -- Franis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/5990c537/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 17 15:47:35 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:46:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
References: <C158F0ED.389D%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <001801c6f1f2$cddf9740$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Franis: How can people get past the programming of culture that they are a separate individuality ... -- Franis
Maybe we get past the programming of culture by talking about the programming of culture instead of mechanically, reflexively (Bohm, tas) identifying as the persona idem. It seems clear to me that when talking about this present region of the whole (right here) doing this typing, it is clear that this region is not separated from the whole, whatever the whole is.
It also seems quite clear that my personal identity as Don Lay has limited meaning just as the persona mask of David Bohm has limited meaning. Perhaps those assuming their masks of identity or their persona idem has ultimate meaning are confusing the cultural, societal use of the personal mask with that which is, what actually is.
Franis: ... and why would they want to do that?
Don: Maybe what we want to do is to stop suffering, stop the pain, stop hurting others. Maybe the idea or sense of being a separated, isolated THINGK is painful. It may be that if/when we act and pretend that separation is not painful, that's when we are willing to harm others, kill others (because we see no pain or harm in doing so).
Bohm says to become aware of what the words do (in the brain/mind functioning) -Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathryn Arizmendi
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
"We have the sense of separation because our culture tells us that each individual is separate, and therefore we perceive it that way." from "Thought"
The Vision of Dialog, p.205
We are sharing a common meaning...We would share this kind of bond, which is called "impersonal fellowship".
It seems to me he's saying the same thing that poet John Donne said Some 400 years ago, , "No man is an island unto himself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." That this idea is illusion, and the cause of much misery. k
On 10/15/06 11:02 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
How can people get past the programming of culture that they are a separate
individuality and why would they want to do that? -- Franis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061017/cdd3f734/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 17 15:47:47 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:47:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
References: <20061014.112431.3988.60.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <002101c6f1f2$d72fc6d0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)Something ultimate about meaning. -- Pat
If we ask what is ultimate about meaning, we might say the same that is ultimate about the Earth, Moon, Sun and Stars,etc. That is, when dark clouds occur and then rain occurs, we say that dark clouds have meaning, and that the meaning is built in; meaning it is not something that is just said.
Maybe when we talk about ultimate, we should always contrast it with what language says -- or perhaps with what tas says as per Bohm.
If someone says it is going to rain, but there are no signs of rain, it has far less meaning than if there are signs of rain. It seems the natural signs have more meaning than the meaning of what people say. -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] rea
son-ance, logos-ance (resent)
This generalization of all this translates immediately
to an experience of ultimacy.
I'm with you up to the point of "ultimacy". Do you mean it as "most perfect underlying reality"? k
Have to look at the context to see what I may have meant (so I re-pasted it below), but I have no problem with "most perfect underlying reality."
What I said had referred to don L's "there is something ultimate about meaning."
pat
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:53:31 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
On 10/14/06 10:28 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
This generalization of all this translates immediately
to an experience of ultimacy.
I'm with you up to the point of "ultimacy". Do you mean it as "most perfect underlying reality"? k
When I look at Meaning as a member of the Matter, Energy, Meaning "Trinity," a very meaningful interpretation in relation to Ultimacy comes easily. Energy is the first "member" from which Matter [second "member"] proceeds and Meaning [as the third "member"] "reunites" Energy and Matter. They are one. The "two" are one. Energy IS Matter. [Einstein was a mystic, no?] And, the "three" are one. Energy IS Matter IS Meaning. This is quite meaningful as well.
This generalization of all this translates immediately
to an experience of ultimacy.
This also translates into a general "meaning of life."
And here again, meaning also works well as identical
with my sense of "logos" (as in dia-logos).
Interestingly though, here (in this trinity) "logos" becomes
the third person [member] of the trinity where in the Roman version
"logos" is the "second person {member]."
pat
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:41:37 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
is there any question that words have temporary and arbitrary definitions? -- D.
What about meaning? It seems easy to see that definitions are arbitrary. Is it easy to see that meaning is not, that there is something ultimate about meaning. For example, dark clouds mean rain. Thick bark on the North side of a tree may mean a cold winter is on the way.
Is the meaning of dark clouds as ultimate as is energy and matter? Is the meaning of heavier bark on the North side of a tree as fundamental, as ultimate as matter and energy?
Is there some kind of experience in homo-sap that is as ultimate and as meaningful as dark clouds and thick bark?
What is human experience is as meaningful as storm clouds or thicker bark prior to severe winter}? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothy Stulberg
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
is there any question that words have temporary and arbitrary definitions? D.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn Arizmendi
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 7:59 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Could it possibly mean that words have temporary and arbitrary definitions?
My research yesterday on improvisation definitely bears this out. Will elaborate more when I've sorted out my notes, and have more to take and incorporate today at CCNY.
Preliminary findings are that by the application of Bohm ideas and principles, we will forge a new path.
Hurray! k
On 10/13/06 8:44 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
I'm in! Let's work with it.
pat
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:23:15 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
What does it mean that the Greek logos has been interpreted as meaning reason? as meaning Ratio? as meaning meaning? What is the meaning?
Could it possibly mean that words have temporary and arbitrary definitions? What would happen if we decided, for just an experiment, to use the idea that logos means meaning?
Then perhaps we could seriously consider dialogue as dia meaning or in terms of dia meaning. -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: reason-ance, logos-ance
Rodger __Lead the way Don. Tell us about Reason-ance, logos-ance, ratio-ance. _R
..
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
..
It seems to me that so long as we continue talking about the persona instead of instead of the processes, we continue to pollute experience. Reason-ance, logos-ance, ratio-ance? -- Don L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/048ac089/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 17 15:48:03 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:47:14 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
References: <OF50A8E2F0.BE8620D8-ON85257209.003CB0BF-85257209.0040B9AC@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <002c01c6f1f2$de7a8970$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Rodger, it seems auras come and go as differing experiences come and go without anything like a problem presenting. However, there are societal laws regarding the personal identity -- try getting money out of the bank without personal identity. A problem seems to occur when the personal identity is used without awareness that it is a cultural thing, societal thing -- don't you agree?
It seems that thought processes are always telling us something, reflexively, mechanically as per tas. However, these thought processes are so very useful that we neglect to see them as processes that need to be distinguished from what actually is. Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:46 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
Rodger __ This is cool Don. If you are refering to an increasing awareness about self-identity already having an image, prior to any of our ego made persona, then I suggest those original self-images are also seen through ranges of our senses, less often used.
Perception of AURAS for instance, is an example of how our visual sense is engaged, on levels less often used, to see an image of self-identity.
The interpretaion of someones auras brings us back to the neural pidgeon-holing of PRESENT input into PAST references, catagories, meanings.
And interpretation is an essential part of a healing process, for instance, so I am not suggesting anything wrong about having abilities to interpret.
Similarly, sounds we hear in a persons voice -- we can also engage our audio sense on levels less often used -- so listening moves beyond the vocal intonations trained into a person's voice, re: dialect, emotional-enviroment, cultural bais, etc. And we begin to hear -the sound of a person, re: our original self/identity image comes with sounds.
I think this leads to seeing and hearing something of the MEANING of one another. Not in freeze-frame mental conclusion form, -- aah now I know who you are!
But as a glimpsing of a river of original self, that is flowing into an ocean. _R
.
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:02:47 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity [was
reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)]
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
.
Seems to me Bohm and K seriously suggest that lack of awareness is the answer -- not lack of awareness of the imagined, imaginary self (ego??)-- rather, there is lack of awareness that the self-identity itself is identity with an image
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061017/d1668223/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 16:03:57 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 18 17:03:06 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
In-Reply-To: <002c01c6f1f2$de7a8970$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <C15A5B0D.38EF%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
I totally agree. That?s what I mean when I talk about walking in and out of
various realities without losing balance. k
On 10/17/06 9:48 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
> However, there are societal laws regarding the personal identity -- try
> getting money out of the bank without personal identity. A problem seems to
> occur when the personal identity is used without awareness that it is a
> cultural thing, societal thing -- don't you agree?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/a9d9c1fa/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 16:07:06 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 18 17:06:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <001801c6f1f2$cddf9740$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <C15A5BCA.38F1%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
On 10/17/06 9:47 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
> is: How can people get past the programming of culture that they are a
> separate individuality ... -- Franis
>
> Hi Franis ? my way was to go live with several different cultures. The only
> one I didn?t actually ?live? in was Haiti, but I was an integral part of that
> community here in NYC. best, k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/ca5e0a05/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 16:10:53 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 18 17:09:56 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <B3E12877-BE29-4EE5-8A87-4F13E691CA3D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15A5CAD.38F3%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Thanks, Don. I will. Another idea I had was to start the group as a book
group, reading and discussing ?On Creativity? and ?Thought As a System?,
then extending into the more traditional Bohm dialog. I have been told that
one of the problems with the previous group was that no one knew anything at
all about Bohm. k
On 10/17/06 9:18 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> A useful start is to make copies of Dialogue - A Proposal which is widely
> available on the web give all the partivipants a copy and then work through it
> with them for the first session or two. You will find that very quicly
> everyone is in a dialogue. But don't have high expectations that it will run
> smoothly. A dialogue group, in my experience, needs quite a few months before
> the participants actually begin to get what it is they are trying to do. Good
> luck and please keep us informed of progress.
>
> don
> On 17 Oct 2006, at 12:57, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>
>> Absolutely!
>>
>> I?m starting a dialog group in NYC, and I?m new at this. ?There used to be
>> one, and the co-coordinator crossed over. ?Particularly FIONS and Riverside
>> Church want this, but I?m the only one who will do the footwork to get it
>> going. ?Is there anyone here you could refer me to for support?
>>
>> Thanks, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/17/06 6:58 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Rodger__I think ideas of an ideal state, and collective freedom, are usually
>>> a product of the polluted state; projections of greener-grass, learned.
>>> Or sometimes a vision of a future comes as an inspiration or revelation --
>>> and that of course, takes us into prophesy/ intuition.
>>>
>>> But increasing awareness about our behavior/thought process, re: the
>>> hot-points behind our pain/ pleasure, and why we contribute toward painful/
>>> pleasurable experiences in others__that growing awareness can be increasing
>>> our -grounding- in the here and now._R
>>> .
>>> .
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:42:10 -0400
>>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> .
>>> So the inference seems to be that we must work through all these polluted
>>> thought forms wherever they are, in order to reach the ideal state
>>> collective freedom.
>>> Thoughts? ??k
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> <http://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/20061017/4a5c14c8/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 16:36:59 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 18 17:36:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten
In-Reply-To: <F4576563-F29A-488B-8A45-0D954A74BFFA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15A62CB.38F5%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Hi Again, Don -
I wanted to dialog with an identity, however impermanent, that I interpreted
as false at the time, one that was not an attempt to stay where he had been
rejected, and one of his own choosing. I wanted to know HIM or HER or even
HIM/ER, if that was the case. His determination to stay with the group
connected with Malcolm X, "by any means necessary" - and my own persistence
in the face of all odds. That can be folded into many layers. To be
creative and "other" is not easy. See Alice Miller, "The Drama of the
Gifted Child".
So -
I took Kirs/ten and reversed Kirs into Kris - a unisex name, in my view. It
was a symbolic gesture of my desire to know him/er on his own terms, and an
indication that perhaps I could either speak his language or learn it, or we
could find a way to share povs. In a sense, it was a token of respect for
him as a person. He replied that Kris was fine with him, so Kris it was.
I began to see that there was a lot he was trying to say, and began to watch
my own responses to him. I learned a lot about myself from that. I hope he
found something useful in our brief exchange.
Best, k
On 10/17/06 8:54 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Kathryn, how did you come to start calling kirsten Kris? Nobody else
> here has used that name for her so far as I know.
> don
>
> On 16 Oct 2006, at 13:50, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/15/06 12:38 PM, "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But don't worry - Peter/Kirsten/etc. will be back on the list as
>>> soon as
>>> he figures out how to impersonate someone else from somewhere else
>>> other
>>> than his blackberry handheld.
>>
>> Hi Fran - In light of all the stuff I dug up on examining anger in
>> "Thought", including what I just posted to Pat, + the image
>> overload on the
>> server, it would seem to me that Kris shouldn't have to create a
>> new cyber
>> identity to post again. As far as Blackberries are concerned, lots of
>> people must own them, or the company wouldn't be in business.
>>
>> I'm neither a Bohm nor a computer expert, and cyber groups have
>> issues that
>> face-to-face groups don't have, but that's the way it seems.
>>
>> Best, k
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 16:46:25 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 18 17:45:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <001201c6f1f2$c95b2090$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <C15A6501.38F7%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
On 10/17/06 9:47 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
> We also have a sense of separation because of the Subject Verb Object
> structure of language (Bohm, Wholeness ...; Tillich, Systematic ...).
>
> Your comment makes me realize that probably because I have been with so many
> different cultures with different languages and world views, maybe I somehow
> bypass at least some of the language confinements of my natal language. Just
> as I have rejected many of its philosophies and thought and behavior
> prescriptions. When I read, I pen my objections and critiques in the margins.
> I am careful with definitions because I realize that I may have a completely
> different definition that the one that forms part of the underlying
> assumption. I also believe that once we are aware of the syntax, we can think
> beyond it.
>
> So, my answer here is, Yes ? I agree. k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/4adb99fb/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 17 17:01:04 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 18 18:04:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
References: <C156E3D7.3841%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
<008101c6eff9$871fa110$a503a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<69076C40-003C-4648-BDD2-E544C5982E4D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001801c6f1fd$14a056b0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
For me the question remains, what do we mean when we say, "what is"? -- don
Maybe it means we don't know what is, that what actually is cannot be subject to the subject verb object structure of language (Tillich, Bohm and others).
Again, that which is, TRUTH or (hat actually is) cannot be known (Bohm, others). You can see the beginning of this formulation in the Judeo-Christian origin of the modern Western world -- not religion. Forget that, says Tillich. However, let us not forget how we got to where are now: fragmented, isolated, alienated, estranged, etc. -- Don L
From: Don Factor
sorry about that empty reply. For me the question remains, what do we mean when we say, "what is"?
don
On 15 Oct 2006, at 02:27, Don Lay wrote:
Knowing has two meanings. Knowing means participating in and it also means saying, language.
It seems reasonable to say, by definition, all that is participates in the whole, doesn't it?
What is said though is quite something different. Korzybski says that no matter how much description is used, the description cannot ever exhaustively describe what actually is, that which is.
Makes sense to me. -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathryn Arizmendi
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
On 10/14/06 3:30 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
t what actually is cannot be known
why not, Don? Maybe not in my lifetime or yours, but never? That is, if the planet survives, or we all don?t mutate into who-knows-what! k
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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/20061017/71ff2f71/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 17 17:01:32 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 18 18:04:57 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
References: <OF611C017D.BEA41828-ON8525720A.003E639E-8525720A.00413BBC@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <002a01c6f1fd$25d19570$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Interesting ideas.
However, there are very few people who have not erred. maybe the idea is that just as we err daily, it is possible that homo-sap has erred in creating laws that determine the future of homo-sap individually and collectively. -?- -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
Rodger __What makes man? Do we really believe that the Nature which causes humankind into Being, somehow stops causing humankind into expression at some point and the -we- take over?
And therefore humankinds expression is distinct and apart from the very Nature of what causes humanity into existance?
Are we really so self important as all that? Would we know so much about our brains etc., that we claim to be the designer of the brain and all it does, and as such, we are sufficiently aware of the thought process that we might discern the difference between synthetid and what Nature sets in motion?. Or is synthetic and natural merely an intellectual, bias preference?
Nothing wrong with preference.
Maybe relax our judgements a bit, to see how levels of understanding are evolving -Nature enfolding- so we can grasp how our capabilities are not separate from Nature Unfolding.._R
.
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:42:50 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
.
A thingk is something manmade, synthetic.
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061017/373ef2fb/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 17 17:02:15 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 18 18:06:33 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
References: <OF611C017D.BEA41828-ON8525720A.003E639E-8525720A.00413BBC@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c6f1fd$3c77ec70$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
What makes man? Do we really believe that the Nature which causes humankind into Being ... -- Rodger
The thingk is -- we seem to live in ideas instead of nature. That is, we seem to live in a made-up world that is obviously different, other than the kind of environment used by all other creatures, etc. Isn't that synthetic? A problem to deal with? -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
Rodger __What makes man? Do we really believe that the Nature which causes humankind into Being, somehow stops causing humankind into expression at some point and the -we- take over?
And therefore humankinds expression is distinct and apart from the very Nature of what causes humanity into existance?
Are we really so self important as all that? Would we know so much about our brains etc., that we claim to be the designer of the brain and all it does, and as such, we are sufficiently aware of the thought process that we might discern the difference between synthetid and what Nature sets in motion?. Or is synthetic and natural merely an intellectual, bias preference?
Nothing wrong with preference.
Maybe relax our judgements a bit, to see how levels of understanding are evolving -Nature enfolding- so we can grasp how our capabilities are not separate from Nature Unfolding.._R
.
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:42:50 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
.
A thingk is something manmade, synthetic.
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061017/b81d34fe/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 17 17:01:17 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 18 18:06:56 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
References: <20061014190313.73210.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com>
<000401c6eff7$8b439320$a503a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<ECB6FA0E-0E37-43CB-99A6-FBCFB68CB37F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001e01c6f1fd$1c77f000$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Me too! -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
No need. Its somewhere in most of the texts that we have by Bohm. For years it drove me crazy, but then I began to get the idea. Now I am at the stage where I am trying to explain what it means in different words.
don
On 14 Oct 2006, at 20:58, Don Lay wrote:
Yes! Don F says somewhere, Being is meaning, and meaning is Being -- something like that. I'll try and find that and repost it -- because it makes me FEEL good to say it. Bohm says that words create FEELS, and these words come with wonderful FEELS.-- DBL
----- Original Message -----
From: Karilen Mays
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
how about
meaning is
and
there is
no end
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:06:34 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Interesting here, that old cliche "The means are the end."
How about "The meanings are the end."
pat
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:20:56 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
Ultimate is defined as foundation and aim or end. Thus, isn't the experience of 'being' ultimate in that being is the foundation of all experience as well as the aim and intention of all experience? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathryn Arizmendi
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Is there an ?ultimate experience??
On 10/14/06 9:48 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
Kathryn, then don't we say that 'ultimate experience' is what the Parmenides/Heracllitus called logos -- rather than the imaginary personal identity experience? The idea I'm working on is that the personal identity experience derives from or occurs with the use of words that direct awareness to the personal identity ... without awareness that it is being done. -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathryn Arizmendi <mailto:tangykatt@earthlink.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Yes! k
On 10/14/06 8:32 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com> wrote:
Rodger __What is interesting to me about logos & inspiration, is the way this dialogue gave rise to the two topics at the same juncture in time. And how the relationship between Logos and Intuition is what takes ones experience of MEANING beyond the proceeds of reason. _R
.
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:41:37 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
.
Is there some kind of experience in homo-sap that is as ultimate and as meaningful as dark clouds and thick bark?
What is human experience is as meaningful as storm clouds or thicker bark prior to severe winter}? -- Don L
----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061017/29d04a8c/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 18:35:24 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 19:34:27 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <C15A5CAD.38F3%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C15A5CAD.38F3%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <E6266A84-48AE-424F-AEC4-0E8EE7D3A13D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 17 Oct 2006, at 15:10, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
> I have been told that one of the problems with the previous group
> was that no one knew anything at all about Bohm. k
Yes, I can see that this would have created problems.
When Bohm was alive he would usually have weekend seminars in which
he would use the first day or so to talk about his ideas and
encourage questions and discussion, Then the final day was for actual
dialogue during which he would simply sit with everyone else and join
in as an ordinary participant. Of course, the others still looked to
him as the expert, but he did his best not to be seduced by it. We
did it ourselves later, using the proposal as a starting point. New
people joined and some left during those years but there was a core
group of around six or seven of us that gave it a certain coherence.
So if you find that you have to begin with a very small group -
smaller than the recommended 20 - that may be okay because it will
give you a chance to develop such a core and new people can come
along. What happened for us was that the discussion of the proposal
quickly segued into a free sort of dialogue much more quickly than
we thought it would. Our London group lasted for about ten years
before it finally got tired, and one in Lancashire is still going.
One bit of advice I would add is that it would be valuable to
emphasise that perseverance is needed. The process can be very
frustrating in that it often doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. But
it takes the participants some time to get used to the idea that
they won't see any obvious results - at least not in any sort of
cause and effect sort of way. And also another universal cause for
frustration is that nobody every wants to stick to a subject for any
length of time. This too, though, is meat for the dialogue.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/86a5f5fc/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Tue Oct 17 18:45:40 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Oct 18 19:44:44 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <E43C4A14-0561-40E8-969A-701FFDFAB6F8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15A64D4.78E1%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
I am fascinated in the definitions of ?doxa, glory? and ?dox, appearances,
opinions, perceptions? - as a recognition of awe in the face of the created,
impermanent, uncertain universe which we can only perceive & about which
hold only opinions.
Lynne
On 10/16/06 2:46 PM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> And don't forget the doxology.
>
> A doxology (from the Greek <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language>
> doxa, glory + logos <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos> , word or speaking)
> is a short hymn <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymn> of praise to God
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God> in various Christian
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity> worship services, often added to
> the end of canticles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canticle> , psalms
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms> , and hymns. The tradition derives from
> a similar practice in the Jewish <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew> synagogue
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue> .
>
> Anyone for a doxologue?
>
>
> On 6 Oct 2006, at 20:21, Don Lay wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> *There are only 3 "dox" words in the dictionary.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Orthodox - Right Opinion.
>>
>> Heterodox - Other Opinion.
>>
>> Paradox - Beyond Opinion? -- pat
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Yes.? Incidently you might find Tillich's treatment of this most?fasinating.?
>> Source upon request.??-- dbl
>>
>> ?
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>
>>> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:11 PM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the source
>>> of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of Permenides and
>>> Heraclitus. -- Rodger
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Is there another source for the words dialogue, dia logos,?than Parmenides
>>> and Heraclitus?? If Bohm cites the source, why would we ignore it?? Why
>>> would we act or pretend that Bohm was not influenced by early Greek thought?
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> There's some confusion here, perhaps self-deception (part of the story of
>>> my life).? Perhaps?the confusion?regards some difference between Bohm's
>>> writings and Bohm Dialogue Online.? -- Don L
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Bohm WAS the quintessential "source" guy. Gadszooks!
>>>
>>> He was so "sourcey" that we struggle now with things like
>>>
>>> "meanings of meanings."
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> But the attraction to "sourciness" can easily be lost to those
>>>
>>> whose interests [paths?] are other than "through meanings of words."
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Utter Clarity about meanings [of words and word combinations]
>>>
>>> is a way that dead ends itself into POOF! - Silence. Into POOF!
>>>
>>> - utter clarity. Into POOF!?- Freedom.
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Often it is paradox that collapses the structure just 'prior'
>>>
>>> to the clarity. Para Dox is "Beyond Opinion."* (Interestingly,
>>>
>>> Permenides worked with the "Dox" term a lot. Appearances. Opinions.
>>>
>>> Perceptions).
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> *There are only 3 "dox" words in the dictionary.
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Orthodox - Right Opinion.
>>>
>>> Heterodox - Other Opinion.
>>>
>>> Paradox - Beyond Opinion
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> pat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/b3a97a6d/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 18:51:48 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 18 19:50:56 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <E6266A84-48AE-424F-AEC4-0E8EE7D3A13D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15A8264.38FF%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Great suggestions. I was lucky to get started with our group, because it?s
anything but frustrating! Maybe because I have so many experienced
participants that have formed a core group. I hoped there was a remnant of
a core group here that I could connect with.
I suspect I will have to start with only a few.
By the way, I just Googled you. If you?re the same person who went through
cancer ? I?m so happy you were able to beat it. I lost my husband to liver
cancer that metastasized up the spine to the brain. Beyond grief. I am
just coming to terms with it.
Best, k
On 10/17/06 12:35 PM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 17 Oct 2006, at 15:10, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>
>> I have been told that one of the problems with the previous group was that no
>> one knew anything at all about Bohm. ???k
>
> Yes, I can see that this would have created problems.?
>
> When Bohm was alive he would usually have weekend seminars in which he would
> use the first day or so to talk about his ideas and encourage questions and
> discussion, Then the final day was for actual dialogue during which he would
> simply sit with everyone else and join in as an ordinary participant. Of
> course, the others still looked to him as the expert, but he did his best not
> to be seduced by it. We did it ourselves later, using the proposal as a
> starting point. ?New people joined and some left during those years but there
> was a core group of around six or seven of us that gave it a certain
> coherence. So if you find that you have to begin with a very small group -
> smaller than the recommended 20 - that may be okay because it will give you a
> chance to develop such a core and new people can come along. What happened for
> us was that the discussion of the proposal quickly segued into a free sort of
> dialogue much? more quickly than we? thought it would.? Our London group
> lasted for about ten years before it finally got tired, and one in Lancashire
> is still going. One bit of advice I would add is that it would be valuable to
> emphasise that?perseverance is needed. The process can be very frustrating in
> that it often doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. But it takes the
> participants some?time to get used to the idea that? they won't see any
> obvious results - at least not in any sort of cause and effect sort of way.
> And also another universal cause for frustration is that nobody every wants to
> stick to a subject for any length of time. This too, though, is meat for the
> dialogue.
>
> don
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/dda0f6a4/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 18:55:00 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 19:54:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <001801c6f1fd$14a056b0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <C156E3D7.3841%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
<008101c6eff9$871fa110$a503a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<69076C40-003C-4648-BDD2-E544C5982E4D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001801c6f1fd$14a056b0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <418E40B3-2CE1-4F8C-BE10-53E70BB58C3C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 17 Oct 2006, at 16:01, Don Lay wrote:
> For me the question remains, what do we mean when we say, "what
> is"? -- don
> Maybe it means we don't know what is, that what actually is cannot
> be subject to the subject verb object structure of language
> (Tillich, Bohm and others).
>
> Again, that which is, TRUTH or (hat actually is) cannot be known
> (Bohm, others). You can see the beginning of this formulation in
> the Judeo-Christian origin of the modern Western world -- not
> religion. Forget that, says Tillich. However, let us not forget
> how we got to where are now: fragmented, isolated, alienated,
> estranged, etc. -- Don L
Yes, the formulation is there. And we agree that it cannot be known,
as such. So again, I have to ask, what is it that we mean when we say
we are aiming at truth or "that which is"? My point is that so far as
I can see, all we can know or experience is through our own
subjectivity. Even if we can transcend the limits of TAS as a
material system, which I believe we can do from time to time, there
is still the limitation of point of view or perspective. At a
conscious level the best we can do is have a pretty good idea of what
"it" may be from our particular perspective and that's a far cry from
"truth".
don
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Don Factor
>
> sorry about that empty reply. For me the question remains, what do
> we mean when we say, "what is"?
> don
> On 15 Oct 2006, at 02:27, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> Knowing has two meanings. Knowing means participating in and it
>> also means saying, language.
>>
>> It seems reasonable to say, by definition, all that is
>> participates in the whole, doesn't it?
>>
>> What is said though is quite something different. Korzybski says
>> that no matter how much description is used, the description
>> cannot ever exhaustively describe what actually is, that which is.
>>
>> Makes sense to me. -- Don L
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/06 3:30 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>> t what actually is cannot be known
>>
>> why not, Don? Maybe not in my lifetime or yours, but never? That
>> is, if the planet survives, or we all don?t mutate into who-knows-
>> what! k
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20061017/e2739194/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 17 19:15:57 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 18 20:15:01 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <C15A8264.38FF%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C15A8264.38FF%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <E2A4AACC-B2D6-4826-8174-A621C6CD4B85@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Yes, I am that one. I am sorry to hear about your husband. I was one
of the lucky ones. I had a zero chance of recovery but I survived -
it was 20 years ago - and I am still hoping to figure out why and/or
how.
don
On 17 Oct 2006, at 17:51, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
> Great suggestions. I was lucky to get started with our group,
> because it?s anything but frustrating! Maybe because I have so
> many experienced participants that have formed a core group. I
> hoped there was a remnant of a core group here that I could connect
> with.
>
> I suspect I will have to start with only a few.
>
> By the way, I just Googled you. If you?re the same person who went
> through cancer ? I?m so happy you were able to beat it. I lost my
> husband to liver cancer that metastasized up the spine to the
> brain. Beyond grief. I am just coming to terms with it.
>
> Best, k
>
>
> On 10/17/06 12:35 PM, "Don Factor"
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 Oct 2006, at 15:10, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>>
>>> I have been told that one of the problems with the previous group
>>> was that no one knew anything at all about Bohm. k
>>
>> Yes, I can see that this would have created problems.
>>
>> When Bohm was alive he would usually have weekend seminars in
>> which he would use the first day or so to talk about his ideas and
>> encourage questions and discussion, Then the final day was for
>> actual dialogue during which he would simply sit with everyone
>> else and join in as an ordinary participant. Of course, the others
>> still looked to him as the expert, but he did his best not to be
>> seduced by it. We did it ourselves later, using the proposal as a
>> starting point. New people joined and some left during those
>> years but there was a core group of around six or seven of us that
>> gave it a certain coherence. So if you find that you have to begin
>> with a very small group - smaller than the recommended 20 - that
>> may be okay because it will give you a chance to develop such a
>> core and new people can come along. What happened for us was that
>> the discussion of the proposal quickly segued into a free sort of
>> dialogue much more quickly than we thought it would. Our London
>> group lasted for about ten years before it finally got tired, and
>> one in Lancashire is still going. One bit of advice I would add is
>> that it would be valuable to emphasise that perseverance is
>> needed. The process can be very frustrating in that it often
>> doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. But it takes the participants
>> some time to get used to the idea that they won't see any obvious
>> results - at least not in any sort of cause and effect sort of
>> way. And also another universal cause for frustration is that
>> nobody every wants to stick to a subject for any length of time.
>> This too, though, is meat for the dialogue.
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/59b6c4ea/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Tue Oct 17 19:22:34 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Wed Oct 18 20:19:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0000@msw2k.msw.local>
Could the sense of separation be more than language and culture but that
there is a normal (real-real) separation--and that some times we need to
take responsibility for our acts made separately by us/ i.e. i made a
huge mistake today, feeling really bad about it, not anyone else was
responsible. That is more than a "sense" of separation.
Believe me, I understand that my acts affect others so in that sense we
are not separate but, here I go again, thanking separateness is a part
of the whole. Make any sense? d.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:47 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
"We have the sense of separation because our culture tells us that each
individual is separate, and therefore we perceive it that way." -- Bohm
... TAS ... . -- Kathryn
We also have a sense of separation because of the Subject Verb Object
structure of language (Bohm, Wholeness ...; Tillich, Systematic ...).
I tend to correlate the expressed views of Bohm and Tillich. T writes
about the infinite power as g-d, and relates it to Christian thought by
way of Philo's notions regarding the Greek logos [Meaning, Ratio,
Reason], saying it is the son of the infinite power. Bohm writes of the
infinite plenum or sea of energy (correlating with infinite power)
without raising the issue of deity although it is raised at his
seminars.
Tillich, explicating the Christian view, says homo-sap is separated from
the g-d and can return or re-unite via the logos [Meaning, Ratio,
Reason]. Bohm, indicates the significance of the Greek logos [Meaning,
Ratio, Reason] by suggesting that dialogue [dia logos as Meaning, Ratio,
Reason] may be the way to overcome the destructiveness of fragmentation,
estrangement, alienation, separation, etc.
Seems to me the problems raised by Bohm, Krishnamurti, Tillich such as
fragmentation, alienation, estrangement, separation, etc., might be
overcome by looking at language. Isn't that the essence off what B and
K say when they indicate the significance of awareness of what's going
on in the brain/mind systems, "in there"? -- Don L
From: Kathryn Arizmendi <mailto:tangykatt@earthlink.net>
"We have the sense of separation because our culture tells us
that each individual is separate, and therefore we perceive it that
way." from "Thought"
The Vision of Dialog, p.205
We are sharing a common meaning...We would share this kind of
bond, which is called "impersonal fellowship".
It seems to me he's saying the same thing that poet John Donne
said Some 400 years ago, , "No man is an island unto himself. Every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." That this idea is
illusion, and the cause of much misery. k
On 10/15/06 11:02 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com"
<ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
How can people get past the programming of culture that
they are a separate
individuality and why would they want to do that? --
Franis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/0c87e7c2/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Tue Oct 17 19:27:03 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Wed Oct 18 20:24:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0002@msw2k.msw.local>
not knowing coupled with no "power" is deadly. d
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:05 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
On 16 Oct 20