From zoechuzero at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 00:27:13 2006
From: zoechuzero at yahoo.com (Zoe Chu)
Date: Mon Sep 18 01:19:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060916.115611.2248.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20060916222713.62257.qmail@web55007.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Pat, Bohm, right out of the gate: "I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. many people would think that such a
statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which
to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet is looks as if the
thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems." From the very first pages of TAS -- Zoe
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: So many possible approaches to this question. What have you read? What books do you have access to? I can maybe suggest certain sections based on this info. Bohm was very careful to not call thought a "problem" or to qualify the word if it slipped out.
I do not consider thought to be a problem. "Problem" implies "goal." "How do I fix my leaky bathtub faucet" is a "problem." The idea of "fixing" thought seems to be based
on a faulty assumption. Faulty assumptions are perhaps "problematic" in that they create suffering but that does not suggest that there is something "wrong with TAS."
pat
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and I read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does anybody here know? Appreciating - Zoe
---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/a39afc2c/attachment.html
From zoechuzero at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 00:30:12 2006
From: zoechuzero at yahoo.com (Zoe Chu)
Date: Mon Sep 18 01:22:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <B827455F-432F-4C4F-BC76-60DB809A7C80@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20060916223012.15413.qmail@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 16 Sep 2006, at 16:40, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I do not consider thought to be a problem. "Problem" implies "goal." "How do I fix my leaky bathtub faucet" is a "problem." The idea of "fixing" thought seems to be based
on a faulty assumption. Faulty assumptions are perhaps "problematic" in that they create suffering but that does not suggest that there is something "wrong with TAS."
pat
So, Pat, what is the faulty assumption? Is it a faulty assumption about TAS that is not part of the thought system? If so, where is the observer in all this?
You say you do not consider thought to be a problem, and that this word implies a goal. But we do have goals, and it would by silly to say that we do what we do without a purpose. Bohm only went so far as to say that dialogue should not have a fixed purpose.
The tone of many of the posts on this list, including many your own, do treat thought as a problem.
My Impression too. Part of my reason to ask. I did not get it; do not -- Zoe
And avoiding the word "problem" doesn't make it go away.
Treating thought as a problem has been the general presumption here and in just about every dialogue group I have ever participated in.
However, I agree with you that though isn't a problem. It's nature does present certain limitations that are not obvious and these require attention. Our normal education does not take these limitations into account and so they are seldom noticed. But the problem will never go away so long as we continue to treat thought as something that we can observe from the outside and name as TAS, or whatever.
We are the thinkers. The memory that we call upon to guide us is ours. It may be clumsy and misleading, but until we can own and not say things like "Oh, well, thought is trying to lie to us and tell us that there is something in here that is doing it," there will be no possibility of dissolving the blocks and incoherence that suppresses our creativity.
It is creativity that is needed to cure the ills of our thought process. And the question for me is how do we increase this aspect of the process?
don
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/b78a739e/attachment.html
From zoechuzero at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 00:32:43 2006
From: zoechuzero at yahoo.com (Zoe Chu)
Date: Mon Sep 18 01:25:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F23A39F22537967F7D9D1B6A82F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20060916223243.30314.qmail@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Kirsten - Bohm was suffering from depression? Suicidal? Can you say more? Interesting -- Zoe
kirsten schneide <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Zoe -
No Thinkg 'wrong' with TAS !
... The fellow who 'came up' with this belief&system, Bohm,
Was 'just' a(nother) clinically depressed person
[To the point of being suicidal, matter-of-factly speaking]
&
One typically gets a lot more Bang out of
Filling a few books & conference-rooms by talking about
"Gott und die Welt"
Rather than getting into one's own mess
Love & Melon, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and I
read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what
should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does anybody
here know? Appreciating - Zoe
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/2f3af9e7/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Sun Sep 17 01:13:32 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Mon Sep 18 02:09:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
Message-ID: <20060916.161333.848.3.franis_franis@juno.com>
How to be free of something that would involve using the process
itself to obtain the freedom from it?
Strategy, and there are many, many different strategies.
One strategy: You identify the pervasive coersion you don't want, and
then you interrupt it from starting and taking over. Then you describe
what is left.
If that doesn't work in your application, then get past the limiations of
TAS by using creative solutions. Such as stepping stone techniques,
reversal, there are a million creative ways to get beyond assumptions
into possibilities you never imagined from your limited ways of thinking.
Many of the thinking techniques of Edward de Bono have been designed to
get beyond the limitations of thought - as applied and proved by coming
up with a brilliant idea for a specific problem. de Bono termed this sort
of thing, "lateral thinking."
wikipedia on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_Thinking
a quote from that: Lateral Thinking vrs. Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is primarily concerned with judging the truth value of
statements and seeking errors. Lateral Thinking is more concerned with
the movement value of statements and ideas. A person would use lateral
thinking when they want to move from one known idea to creating new
ideas.
For example the statement, "Cars should have square wheels." When
considered with critical thinking, this would be evaluated as a poor
suggestion and dismissed as impractical. The Lateral Thinking treatment
of the same statement would be to speculate where it leads. Humor is
taken intentfully with lateral thinking. A person would imagine "as if"
this was the case, and describe the effects or qualities. Someone might
observe: square wheels would produce very predictable bumps. If bumps can
be predicted, then suspension can be designed to compensate. How could
this car predict bumps? It could be a laser or sonar on the front of the
car. This leads to the idea of active suspension. A sensor connected to
suspension could examine the road surface ahead on cars with round wheels
too. A car could have a sensor for determining when it was going to hit a
bump that feeds back to suspension that would know to compensate.
The initial "provocative" statement has been left behind, but it has also
been used to indirectly generate the new and potentially more useful
idea.
more about de Bono and his many books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Bono
Franis
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
writes:
> Pat, Bohm, right out of the gate: "I'm saying that the source is
> basically in thought. many people would think that such a
> statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with
> which
> to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet is looks as
> if the
> thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our
> problems." From the very first pages of TAS -- Zoe
>
>
>
> ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: So many possible approaches to this
> question. What have you read? What books do you have access to? I
> can maybe suggest certain sections based on this info. Bohm was very
> careful to not call thought a "problem" or to qualify the word if it
> slipped out.
>
> I do not consider thought to be a problem. "Problem" implies
> "goal." "How do I fix my leaky bathtub faucet" is a "problem." The
> idea of "fixing" thought seems to be based
> on a faulty assumption. Faulty assumptions are perhaps
> "problematic" in that they create suffering but that does not
> suggest that there is something "wrong with TAS."
>
> pat
>
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu
> <zoechuzero@yahoo.com> writes:
> Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some
> time, and I read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to
> figure out what should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the
> problem? Does anybody here know? Appreciating - Zoe
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo!
> Small Business.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and
> 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Sep 17 03:30:07 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Sep 18 04:38:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
Message-ID: <20060916.214409.2248.26.ae.dropper@juno.com>
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
writes:
Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 16 Sep 2006, at 16:40, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I do not consider thought to be a problem. "Problem" implies "goal." "How
do I fix my leaky bathtub faucet" is a "problem." The idea of "fixing"
thought seems to be based
on a faulty assumption. Faulty assumptions are perhaps "problematic" in
that they create suffering but that does not suggest that there is
something "wrong with TAS."
pat
So, Pat, what is the faulty assumption? Is it a faulty assumption about
TAS that is not part of the thought system?
[Bohm's favorite example of THE faulty assumption regarding
how thought thinks about thought is "Thought is simply telling me the way
things are." He speculated that through proprioception of thought
(the movement of thought aware of itself) this "direct awareness
that thought is affecting perception" might kind of "update" the
system in terms of assumptions about how it operates. There is
no separate observer in proprioception. Check out p 75 from
On Dialogue for some elaboration on this. -- pat]
If so, where is the observer in all this?
You say you do not consider thought to be a problem, and that this word
implies a goal. But we do have goals, and it would by silly to say that
we do what we do without a purpose. Bohm only went so far as to say that
dialogue should not have a fixed purpose.
[He was not into "fixing thought" but developing awareness
of thought's movement as an inclusive system which includes
an awareness of thought trying to fix itself.
His whole thing was about awareness and
attention. -- pat]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/800f57cb/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Sep 17 03:03:51 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Sep 18 04:38:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
Message-ID: <20060916.214409.2248.25.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Great. Glad you have access to that book.
Perhaps you have On Dialogue also. Chapter 4
is THE PROBLEM AND THE PARADOX where
he goes into certain difficulties when thinking of
something as a problem in a domain where the idea
of a "solution" does not only not apply, but
perpetuates the difficulty.
Bohm did talk about a "fault" in thought which I have
always liked to think of as analogous to an earthquake
"fault," an apparent separation between two parts
of thought as a system, one part being the reflexive
words or images or symbols and the other part being
the reflexive feelings, sensations, emotions from memory).
pat
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
writes:
Pat, Bohm, right out of the gate: "I'm saying that the source is
basically in thought. many people would think that such a
statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which
to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet is looks as if
the
thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems."
>From the very first pages of TAS -- Zoe
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
So many possible approaches to this question. What have you read? What
books do you have access to? I can maybe suggest certain sections based
on this info. Bohm was very careful to not call thought a "problem" or to
qualify the word if it slipped out.
I do not consider thought to be a problem. "Problem" implies "goal." "How
do I fix my leaky bathtub faucet" is a "problem." The idea of "fixing"
thought seems to be based
on a faulty assumption. Faulty assumptions are perhaps "problematic" in
that they create suffering but that does not suggest that there is
something "wrong with TAS."
pat
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
writes:
Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and
I read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what
should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does
anybody here know? Appreciating - Zoe
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small
Business.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2?/min or less.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060916/cf25c12e/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 17 11:17:32 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 18 12:10:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060916223243.30314.qmail@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F24753FAA27F64774C41566A82C0@phx.gbl>
Dear Zoe, I "have" "no" time right now, suffice to say:
A - yes, Bohm was bogged down by life-long depression. For details please
see David Peat's bio.
B - depression is a loss/deficit of: courage
'Gotta' run (escape ;-?) !
Love & Sneakers
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>From: Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Kirsten - Bohm was suffering from depression? Suicidal? Can you say more?
>Interesting -- Zoe
>
>kirsten schneide <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Dear Zoe -
>
>No Thinkg 'wrong' with TAS !
>
>
>
>... The fellow who 'came up' with this belief&system, Bohm,
>
>Was 'just' a(nother) clinically depressed person
>
>[To the point of being suicidal, matter-of-factly speaking]
>
>&
>
>One typically gets a lot more Bang out of
>
>Filling a few books & conference-rooms by talking about
>
>"Gott und die Welt"
>
>Rather than getting into one's own mess
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Love & Melon, Kirsten
>--------------------------
>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
>Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and I
>read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what
>should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does anybody
>here know? Appreciating - Zoe
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
>http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
> Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 17 14:07:51 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 18 15:00:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060916.214409.2248.25.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F27A6D6FEE125B7E33630DDA82C0@phx.gbl>
Dropper, Dear ~ ~
Today is a special day. He wasn't much of a bohemian himself until a
psychology student told him about a CIA-funded experiment being conducted at
the Veterans Administration Hospital in Menlo Park. For $75 a day, they
would inject you with drugs that were supposed to simulate insanity and then
they would ask you to describe your experience. Kesey thought that sounded
interesting, so he signed up, and became one of the first Americans to be
exposed to a new drug called LSD. His birth. Day.
Love & Penny, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> Great. Glad you have access to that book.
>Perhaps you have On Dialogue also. Chapter 4
>is THE PROBLEM AND THE PARADOX where
>he goes into certain difficulties when thinking of
>something as a problem in a domain where the idea
>of a "solution" does not only not apply, but
>perpetuates the difficulty.
>
>Bohm did talk about a "fault" in thought which I have
>always liked to think of as analogous to an earthquake
>"fault," an apparent separation between two parts
>of thought as a system, one part being the reflexive
>words or images or symbols and the other part being
>the reflexive feelings, sensations, emotions from memory).
>
>pat
>
>On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>writes:
>Pat, Bohm, right out of the gate: "I'm saying that the source is
>basically in thought. many people would think that such a
>statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which
>to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet is looks as if
>the
>thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems."
> >From the very first pages of TAS -- Zoe
>
>
>
>ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>So many possible approaches to this question. What have you read? What
>books do you have access to? I can maybe suggest certain sections based
>on this info. Bohm was very careful to not call thought a "problem" or to
>qualify the word if it slipped out.
>
>I do not consider thought to be a problem. "Problem" implies "goal." "How
>do I fix my leaky bathtub faucet" is a "problem." The idea of "fixing"
>thought seems to be based
>on a faulty assumption. Faulty assumptions are perhaps "problematic" in
>that they create suffering but that does not suggest that there is
>something "wrong with TAS."
>
>pat
>
>On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>writes:
>Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and
>I read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what
>should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does
>anybody here know? Appreciating - Zoe
>
>
>Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small
>Business.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
>countries) for 2¢/min or less.
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Sun Sep 17 14:10:31 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Mon Sep 18 15:03:18 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] proprioception (meeting)
In-Reply-To: <20060917100002.C8CA422D20@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFF07BC3CE.F439DD43-ON852571EC.00407231-852571EC.0042E182@dialogos.com>
Rodger__ Ah finally, home again.
The thought of our list of names becoming a person-to-person experience
within this dialogue is attractive/ distracting, but possibly essential in
regards to reaching new levels of understanding regarding thought. And
well, if nothing else, sharing an enjoyable bit of time.
The latter is by no means of minor significance. From what I have seen all
the biggest life-theories in the world fade, eventually, in light of the
genuine hellos a person makes in their life.
Having said that, my wife & and I are often in Toronto -- have many friends
in California, Oregon, Boston, New Hampshire and spend considerable time in
England. I think we will be in Vancouver over Christmas. So sooner or
later I hope to meet you folks._R
.
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:45:16 -0700
From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] proprioception (meeting)
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
I'll be in HI by mid-December - the Big Island, visiting my boyfriend,
who will probably sublet out his place because he'll be house-sitting.
Perhaps we can meet there?
Franis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060917/d7f9d4aa/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Sun Sep 17 15:22:37 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Mon Sep 18 16:15:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: trust
In-Reply-To: <20060917100002.C8CA422D20@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF06BD5268.DD6DF803-ON852571EC.0044E741-852571EC.00497B9E@dialogos.com>
Rodger __I couldnt agree more kari, while at the same time, when things are
not on one-to-one basis, I can tend to be cautious.
In fact the first time I helped organize HUC 83 where David Bohm did a
public presentation on dialogue at U-o-Warwickshire, UK -- soon after David
spoke the stage was suddenly occupied by a number of Sikh extremists who
refused to let the next presenters on stage. Eventually things were sorted
out.
Also in the eighties at a large presentation on spirituality at U-o-T;
Because the topic was spirituality no security was thought neccessary. But
half way through the key presentation an ex-navy guy walked in, went to the
key presenter and without a word, seriously assaulted the man.
Police later confirmed that the 2 men had never met. The ex-navy man said
he just wanted to make the point that you can talk all you want about
-awakening- but it wont ever wake a group up as thoroughly as he just did.
Oddly enough, I found that the ex-navy fellow was in my custody until the
police arrived -- as we exchanged views on what he should do next, he
started to undress until he was totally naked, where-upon he looked me in
the eye and said -- you see, I am naked and unashamed!
On a slightly more collective level, I was in Johannesburg in the late
nineties over the months when things were most violent, and in Moscow after
the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc, so I recognize how badly
freedom/liberty can pop a social norm -- like a good champagne?
AND by comparison, I still feel that sharing trust with others, whether in
friendship or dialogue or both -- is the only way to go._R
.
.
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:Vol 19, Issue15
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
So when people always bring up the safety issue in dialogue and other
groups I am curious about this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060917/a5386027/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Sep 17 17:11:12 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Sep 18 18:05:40 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
Message-ID: <20060917.111113.2248.30.ae.dropper@juno.com>
"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
by the fact that the complex face of truth
is the false face of truth. It is falsity
passing for truth.
One question might be: how to know
the difference. And one of the answers to this
can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
which is not enigmatic at all (except to
thought, or, except in attempts to
speak about truth). The
differences between truth and
the false faces of truth are many. But
the "many" that occur, occur only in the
vast number of different 'false faces' that
exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
folding meet. It is the interface between the
two which are not two. Truth makes itself
known in every movement, in every action
and in the disappearance of every
movement and action.
There is no "place" where truth is not.
But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
The system of thought is porous to truth,
yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
parts of the system, certain assumptions.
And they don't so much get "clogged"
as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
a distracting activity stirred up by
the seeming truth of the assumption.
An assumption vying for weight is not
truth. It is not even a part of truth.
It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
meaningless. It has departed
from any wholeness within itself
by the ruckus it attempts to make,
by its flurry. Truth is very very
quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
demand nothing. What more could "what
is" possibly need, than itself?
pat
*indebted to don lay for rendering the
term "exist" so useful.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060917/bf8ceda4/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 17 19:27:24 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 18 20:20:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <20060917.111113.2248.30.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F241AED96B098583647D7EFA82C0@phx.gbl>
Dear Blower Dropper
http://www.kerrycrutcher.com/images/Jana400.jpg
Psss: Does she really believe in what she out puts... what puts out of 'her'
?
Love & Soap
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
>It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
>and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
>by the fact that the complex face of truth
>is the false face of truth. It is falsity
>passing for truth.
>
>One question might be: how to know
>the difference. And one of the answers to this
>can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
>which is not enigmatic at all (except to
>thought, or, except in attempts to
>speak about truth). The
>differences between truth and
>the false faces of truth are many. But
>the "many" that occur, occur only in the
>vast number of different 'false faces' that
>exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
>own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
>it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
>
>Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
>point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
>folding meet. It is the interface between the
>two which are not two. Truth makes itself
>known in every movement, in every action
>and in the disappearance of every
>movement and action.
>
>There is no "place" where truth is not.
>But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
>The system of thought is porous to truth,
>yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
>parts of the system, certain assumptions.
>And they don't so much get "clogged"
>as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
>a distracting activity stirred up by
>the seeming truth of the assumption.
>
>An assumption vying for weight is not
>truth. It is not even a part of truth.
>It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
>meaningless. It has departed
>from any wholeness within itself
>by the ruckus it attempts to make,
>by its flurry. Truth is very very
>quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
>demand nothing. What more could "what
>is" possibly need, than itself?
>
>pat
>
>*indebted to don lay for rendering the
>term "exist" so useful.
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From Matti.Vaittinen at uta.fi Sun Sep 17 20:14:40 2006
From: Matti.Vaittinen at uta.fi (Matti Vaittinen)
Date: Mon Sep 18 21:07:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060916223012.15413.qmail@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <20060916223012.15413.qmail@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060917211440.a97vni9a5d4o08c4@imp2.uta.fi>
Lainaus Zoe
>
>> The tone of many of the posts on this list, including many your
>> own, do treat thought as a problem.
>
> My Impression too. Part of my reason to ask. I
> did not get it; do not -- Zoe
>
Nothing wrong with thought?
There is nothing wrong with automobiles, either; the fault is with the
drivers, or poor roads, rusty traffic signs, bad weather, or darkness
or animals.
--
matti
From Matti.Vaittinen at uta.fi Sun Sep 17 20:45:13 2006
From: Matti.Vaittinen at uta.fi (Matti Vaittinen)
Date: Mon Sep 18 21:38:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060916223243.30314.qmail@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <20060916223243.30314.qmail@web55006.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060917214513.8ihvrf69ce0wg40c@imp2.uta.fi>
Zoe, I recommend that you read the "Infinite Potential" by David F Peat.
The question is, keeping in mind the enourmous amount of creative
thinking, new material that David Bohm produced in his life-time - to
my understanding nearly all his life - it would be just amazing if he
had avoided depression at some point. I read somewhere that after
finishing his book on evolution, Charles Darwin felt too tired to even
pick a pencil to write, for seven years. Tells something about the
amount of psychic energy creative work demands. And when the work is
done, well then ...
Try it ! ;-)
---
matti
Lainaus Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>:
> Kirsten - Bohm was suffering from depression? Suicidal? Can you say
> more? Interesting -- Zoe
>
> kirsten schneide <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Zoe -
>
> No Thinkg 'wrong' with TAS !
>
>
>
> ... The fellow who 'came up' with this belief&system, Bohm,
>
> Was 'just' a(nother) clinically depressed person
>
> [To the point of being suicidal, matter-of-factly speaking]
>
> &
>
> One typically gets a lot more Bang out of
>
> Filling a few books & conference-rooms by talking about
>
> "Gott und die Welt"
>
> Rather than getting into one's own mess
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & Melon, Kirsten
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and I
> read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what
> should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does anybody
> here know? Appreciating - Zoe
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
> http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
From donlay at gte.net Sun Sep 17 23:38:39 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 19 00:31:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
References: <20060917.111113.2248.30.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00d601c6daa1$a67bf850$b77e153f@DL01>
Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about truth!
Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the true from the false.
Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly, reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is faulty. Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system as elements of the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells us we are a THINGK that we are not. Later, when tas is used to differentiate what is and what is not, tas clearly tells us that tas was faulty -- doesn't it?
Don L
ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's analysis of existence. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
by the fact that the complex face of truth
is the false face of truth. It is falsity
passing for truth.
One question might be: how to know
the difference. And one of the answers to this
can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
which is not enigmatic at all (except to
thought, or, except in attempts to
speak about truth). The
differences between truth and
the false faces of truth are many. But
the "many" that occur, occur only in the
vast number of different 'false faces' that
exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
folding meet. It is the interface between the
two which are not two. Truth makes itself
known in every movement, in every action
and in the disappearance of every
movement and action.
There is no "place" where truth is not.
But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
The system of thought is porous to truth,
yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
parts of the system, certain assumptions.
And they don't so much get "clogged"
as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
a distracting activity stirred up by
the seeming truth of the assumption.
An assumption vying for weight is not
truth. It is not even a part of truth.
It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
meaningless. It has departed
from any wholeness within itself
by the ruckus it attempts to make,
by its flurry. Truth is very very
quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
demand nothing. What more could "what
is" possibly need, than itself?
pat
*indebted to don lay for rendering the
term "exist" so useful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20060917/d2b965f4/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sun Sep 17 23:51:25 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 19 00:44:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
References: <20060916223012.15413.qmail@web55002.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
<20060917211440.a97vni9a5d4o08c4@imp2.uta.fi>
Message-ID: <00d901c6daa3$6ed783e0$b77e153f@DL01>
I believe Bohm suggests tas is problematic when it replaces awareness or
when there's no awareness of its systematic, mechanical and reflexive
occurrence.
Seems to me the same is true with the personal identity system is used: a
problem occurs when there's no awareness that it is a system. Another way to
say that: The PIS becomes problematic when the personal self is elevated to
a position causing pain, hurt, destruction.
Maybe, as Pat and Matti suggests, any THINGK may be problematic when used
without adequate awareness -- without that awareness in which
differentiation of what is from what is not appears.
Don L
From: "Matti Vaittinen" <Matti.Vaittinen@uta.fi>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
> Lainaus Zoe
>
>>
>>> The tone of many of the posts on this list, including many your own,
>>> do treat thought as a problem.
>>
>> My Impression too. Part of my reason to ask. I did
>> not get it; do not -- Zoe
>
> Nothing wrong with thought?
>
> There is nothing wrong with automobiles, either; the fault is with the
> drivers, or poor roads, rusty traffic signs, bad weather, or darkness or
> animals.
>
>
> --
>
> matti
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Sep 17 23:58:53 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 19 00:51:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <00d601c6daa1$a67bf850$b77e153f@DL01>
References: <20060917.111113.2248.30.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<00d601c6daa1$a67bf850$b77e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <D633918A-A793-4443-BAB1-70DAB2295B5F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
unanswered. You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the
thought. And that this thought is faulty.
Who then is the observer here?
don
On 17 Sep 2006, at 22:38, Don Lay wrote:
>
> Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about
> truth!
>
> Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the
> true from the false.
>
> Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly,
> reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is
> faulty. Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system
> as elements of the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells
> us we are a THINGK that we are not. Later, when tas is used to
> differentiate what is and what is not, tas clearly tells us that
> tas was faulty -- doesn't it?
>
> Don L
>
> ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's
> analysis of existence. -- dbl
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
>
> "Truth" is a very interesting subject.
> It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
> and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
> by the fact that the complex face of truth
> is the false face of truth. It is falsity
> passing for truth.
>
> One question might be: how to know
> the difference. And one of the answers to this
> can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
> which is not enigmatic at all (except to
> thought, or, except in attempts to
> speak about truth). The
> differences between truth and
> the false faces of truth are many. But
> the "many" that occur, occur only in the
> vast number of different 'false faces' that
> exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
> own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
> it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
>
> Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
> point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
> folding meet. It is the interface between the
> two which are not two. Truth makes itself
> known in every movement, in every action
> and in the disappearance of every
> movement and action.
>
> There is no "place" where truth is not.
> But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
> The system of thought is porous to truth,
> yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
> parts of the system, certain assumptions.
> And they don't so much get "clogged"
> as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
> a distracting activity stirred up by
> the seeming truth of the assumption.
>
> An assumption vying for weight is not
> truth. It is not even a part of truth.
> It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
> meaningless. It has departed
> from any wholeness within itself
> by the ruckus it attempts to make,
> by its flurry. Truth is very very
> quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
> demand nothing. What more could "what
> is" possibly need, than itself?
>
> pat
>
> *indebted to don lay for rendering the
> term "exist" so useful.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060917/61d3a61c/attachment.html