From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 02:11:39 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 03:10:49 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <20061017.162520.1744.14.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C15AE97B.3924%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Pat ? thanks so much for sharing your experiences with me. I?m making a
list of places to invite to join the group. We can meet at Riverside
Church, but I don?t yet know what financial arrangements might be required.
Other places of interest, St. John the Divine, Unitarian Universalist, and
I?m going to check out local science organizations, and universities.
Columbia must have something, but I haven?t been able to find the
information on the website.
This group?s encouragement, including Don F?s, really inspires me to forge
ahead. k
On 10/17/06 11:35 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> I am sitting here STUNNED with thrills that
> you are going to start a dialogue group in NYC.
>
> The first dialogue group I started was 11 years ago.
> It was a weekly group. We finally settled in a church
> which allowed us to "pass the hat." A secure meeting PLACE
> is the biggest [organizing] challenge. I [personally] posted flyers
> [5000 of them in a 3 year period - which was necessary in order to
> keep new people coming - in order to have sufficient numbers].
>
> I've been attending a monthly dialogue group for 10 years
> which receives sponsorship of a college. (The physicist who
> started this group had worked with Bohm on his dream of
> 'scientists engaging in dialogue'). This secures a meeting
> place.
>
> pat
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:57:57 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
> writes:
>>
>> 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/20061017/0523fe2b/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 02:22:54 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 03:22:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20061017.162520.1744.15.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C15AEC1E.3926%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Pat, from the information I?ve gleaned, there were two NYC groups that broke
apart because the members did/could not use the content of thought to
separate out the process of thought, and gain some insight as to what was
happening. As B says, there was no space, no time. And there was no
reflection or learning later as far as I can see. As I make calls, I?m
getting questions that are checking out whether I?m allied with any of the
previous factions. Discouraging. We here were able to express courteously
divergent thoughts and ideas about Kris, and acknowledge that as essential
to Dialog without its dividing us. Similar issues here in NYC caused the
boat to sink in the storm. I may have a bigger job on my hands than I
anticipated! k
On 10/17/06 12:28 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Pat suggests in dialogue we shouldn't give too much attention to
> content and more to process. (don)
>
> The suggestion is equal attention, although this would
> be unnecessary as a suggestion where function is indeed
> noticed. "Equal" attention comes naturally at the point
> where function is noticed. With attention to function
> it would be impossible to separate out [be unaware of] content.
> Whereas, strict attention to content hides function. The emphasis on process
> (function of thought) comes because it is the thing that gets very
> little attention [most of us are not yet conversant in relation to
> what is meant by Bohm's "function of thought"]. Interestingly,
> getting caught up in the content of thought has to do with the
> "function of thought."
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/56717cc4/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 02:33:21 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 03:32:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <418E40B3-2CE1-4F8C-BE10-53E70BB58C3C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15AEE91.3928%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
On 10/17/06 12:55 PM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> . 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".?
>
> Have I misunderstood something? I thought one of the purposes of dialog is to
> share perspectives, thereby gaining a larger vision of ?truth?. A larger
> vision ? not ultimate perfection. That larger vision doesn?t have to be a
> vision of the topic. Wasn?t there a term ?impersonal intimacy? or something
> of that nature? A kind of ?spiritual home? that is more important than almost
> anything else? A connection between people ? Hozhoon ? beauty as walking in
> balance with all my relations. That?s enough for me. k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/2b53b0d4/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 02:34:19 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 03:33:41 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <E2A4AACC-B2D6-4826-8174-A621C6CD4B85@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15AEECB.3929%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
On 10/17/06 1:15 PM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I am still hoping to figure out why and/or how.
>
> If you only could! k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/6a722603/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 02:38:40 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 03:38:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0002@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <C15AEFD0.392B%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
I believe it was Countee Cullen who wrote ?...Oh who would care to live, if
life had nothing more to ask, and nothing more to live.? k
On 10/17/06 1:27 PM, "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com> wrote:
> 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 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061017/43dc4591/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 02:39:17 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 03:38:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <B7E8DEEE-5B55-40E2-AD9B-50735FFD6B6C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15AEFF5.392C%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
That works for me. k
On 10/17/06 1:33 PM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 17 Oct 2006, at 18:22, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us or
> how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my mistake.
> If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know,
> that is the end of me.?
>
> However, there is another perspective from which I can see that I am an
> inseparable part of the whole. From this perspective there is no such thing as
> a separate individual human being. To be human is to be part the whole of
> humanity. Everything I know or think or or feel or believe comes from this
> whole which in turn is an inseparable part of its world. There is no such
> thing in nature as an isolated system.
>
> So how do we accommodate both of these perspectives? That is the interesting
> question for me/
>
> 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/fd48176c/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 02:44:35 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 03:43:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D002E@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <C15AF133.392D%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
On 10/17/06 5:20 PM, "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com> wrote:
> As usual I've rattled. I'm not good at making decisions for others. So if
> someone feels harmed, I want them to have a chance. So I try, often against
> good judgment.
>
> If I ever need a lawyer, rattled or not, I?ll come find you! k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/9d97327b/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 02:55:51 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 03:55:00 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <20061017.162520.1744.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C15AF3D7.392F%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
On 10/17/06 4:25 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> As you see I could go on and on.
>
> Pat, I can listen to all you want to say. If 9 ? 11 made a difference, it
> should certainly show up here where it actually happened.
>
> Funding? I would need time to research funding sources, write a proposal, get
> it in on time, and wait for a decision. How many years?
>
> That?s why I hoped to find a collaborator or mentor here in NYC or close by.
> In addition to my inexperience, my hearing impairment puts me at a
> disadvantage face-to-face. Hearing aids amplify, but do not take care of
> mumblers, the higher decibels, and ambient noise. But whatever happens, I?ll
> take it step by step. Improvisation again! The first funding problem I see
> is printing.
>
> I am especially fortunate to have joined this group before taking on the
> project, and I am grateful for Don F?s and your suggestions. All help and
> input will be appreciated.
>
> Do you mind telling me where you are? How about meeting for coffee at
> Starbucks? best, k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061017/d50fb6f6/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Oct 18 11:02:01 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct 19 12:01:15 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <C15AE97B.3924%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C15AE97B.3924%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <6F6F001F-7289-4FB4-9A39-865A590A3A03@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
You might want to try and get hold of David Cook. I think he still
lives in New York. He was a member of this list and designed a
"dialogue center" (as yet unbuilt).He is in the process of changing
professions at the moment but he may know of some places and some
people who could be of helpl
His e-mail is: kdavidcook@yahoo.com
don
On 18 Oct 2006, at 01:11, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
> Pat ? thanks so much for sharing your experiences with me. I?m
> making a list of places to invite to join the group. We can meet
> at Riverside Church, but I don?t yet know what financial
> arrangements might be required. Other places of interest, St. John
> the Divine, Unitarian Universalist, and I?m going to check out
> local science organizations, and universities. Columbia must have
> something, but I haven?t been able to find the information on the
> website.
>
> This group?s encouragement, including Don F?s, really inspires me
> to forge ahead. k
>
>
> On 10/17/06 11:35 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I am sitting here STUNNED with thrills that
>> you are going to start a dialogue group in NYC.
>>
>> The first dialogue group I started was 11 years ago.
>> It was a weekly group. We finally settled in a church
>> which allowed us to "pass the hat." A secure meeting PLACE
>> is the biggest [organizing] challenge. I [personally] posted flyers
>> [5000 of them in a 3 year period - which was necessary in order to
>> keep new people coming - in order to have sufficient numbers].
>>
>> I've been attending a monthly dialogue group for 10 years
>> which receives sponsorship of a college. (The physicist who
>> started this group had worked with Bohm on his dream of
>> 'scientists engaging in dialogue'). This secures a meeting
>> place.
>>
>> pat
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:57:57 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi
>> <tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061018/32fe2857/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Oct 18 11:09:35 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct 19 12:08:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <C15AEE91.3928%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C15AEE91.3928%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <C50B6A27-89F8-4F14-9EA2-8544BB81A95D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Yes, I was writing here about the individual perspective, responding
to DonL's comments. The "impersonal fellowship" or koinonia - I
rather like your idea of impersonal intimacy - is where such an
expanded awareness can occur. But since we can't walk around all the
time with our dialogue group tagging along, I wonder how we can learn
to actually hold multiple perspectives in our minds as we go about
our separate lives.
don
On 18 Oct 2006, at 01:33, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/17/06 12:55 PM, "Don Factor"
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> . 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".
>>
>> Have I misunderstood something? I thought one of the purposes of
>> dialog is to share perspectives, thereby gaining a larger vision
>> of ?truth?. A larger vision ? not ultimate perfection. That
>> larger vision doesn?t have to be a vision of the topic. Wasn?t
>> there a term ?impersonal intimacy? or something of that nature? A
>> kind of ?spiritual home? that is more important than almost
>> anything else? A connection between people ? Hozhoon ? beauty as
>> walking in balance with all my relations. That?s enough for me. 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/20061018/18168f8e/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Oct 18 11:28:10 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct 19 12:27:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] the silent majority
Message-ID: <E19593AA-3537-4209-88F0-33A57A15DACB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Here is an interesting link for those of us who have wondered about
the silent ones on this list
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html
We are not alone.
don
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Oct 18 14:08:17 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 15:07:40 2006
Subject: Subject:[Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <20061019100004.B47CF23F67@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFA298EEC4.2E1E84B2-ON8525720B.0042882F-8525720B.0042AD78@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Welcome back don! Whenever a mountain of the bohm_dialogue emails
needs to be caught-up on, I always start at most resent and work back.
Maybe its a dyslexic sequence -- or perhaps the oriental in me... _R
.
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:09:53 +0100
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject:[Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
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. don
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/0df9d236/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Oct 18 14:17:37 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 15:16:59 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
In-Reply-To: <20061019100004.B47CF23F67@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFC81A395E.67486091-ON8525720B.00416102-8525720B.004387E6@dialogos.com>
Rodger __hi Don L, true, aspects or colors in auras come and go, but
usually if our aura is gone, it is because we are dead. Try getting money
out of a bank without an aura. _R
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:48:03 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
.
Rodger, it seems auras come and go as differing experiences come and go
without anything like a problem presenting.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/f2e6f2ab/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Oct 18 14:28:10 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct 19 15:27:22 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
In-Reply-To: <OFC81A395E.67486091-ON8525720B.00416102-8525720B.004387E6@dialogos.com>
References: <OFC81A395E.67486091-ON8525720B.00416102-8525720B.004387E6@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <1D045869-B715-49DD-9F27-DE6C4582DDDE@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Who do you bank with? I wanna move my account.
don
On 18 Oct 2006, at 13:17, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
> Rodger __hi Don L, true, aspects or colors in auras come and go,
> but usually if our aura is gone, it is because we are dead. Try
> getting money out of a bank without an aura. _R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/6c6968ab/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Oct 18 14:31:33 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 15:30:57 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
In-Reply-To: <20061019100004.B47CF23F67@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF449B7E6D.FACDAD8A-ON8525720B.00439B47-8525720B.0044CE80@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ That brings me to difference between ego/ personae and all the
different circumstances for which each persona is tailored, and the
conscious BEING or one reality, behind the personae changing.
If we mistake personae for conscious BEING, we constantly try to measure
which reality is most real, most true. If we come to rest in our BEING we
tend to see a difference between, say, getting money out of the bank, and,
LOVING.
LOVING, if it is genuine, is WHO we are. Getting things is a personae-part
of WHAT we do. _R
.
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:03:57 -0400
From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
.
I totally agree. That?s what I mean when I talk about walking in and out
of
various realities without losing balance. k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/bf24f9b5/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Oct 18 14:32:39 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct 19 15:31:48 2006
Subject: Subject:[Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <OFA298EEC4.2E1E84B2-ON8525720B.0042882F-8525720B.0042AD78@dialogos.com>
References: <OFA298EEC4.2E1E84B2-ON8525720B.0042882F-8525720B.0042AD78@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <56A14F4D-37FC-4891-89CB-6326EEB00914@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I guess I'm old fashioned. I start at the earliest and work my way
through to the present.
BTW while going through them all I think I recall that you were
asking how you could change
your settings so that you could get posts as they come rather than in
bunches. If you haven't sorted it
already , just go to the list info page - see end of this post - and
you can change your setting.
But if it calls for password and you don't know yours, then I can do
it for you. Just let me know
don
On 18 Oct 2006, at 13:08, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
> Rodger __Welcome back don! Whenever a mountain of the bohm_dialogue
> emails needs to be caught-up on, I always start at most resent and
> work back.
> Maybe its a dyslexic sequence -- or perhaps the oriental in me... _R
> .
> .
> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:09:53 +0100
> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> Subject:[Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> .
> 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. don
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Oct 18 15:25:41 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 16:25:00 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimatestatements
In-Reply-To: <20061019100004.B47CF23F67@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF932973CE.A43EFACD-ON8525720B.004536DD-8525720B.0049C340@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ There are a lot of -seemings- in this statement; granted the
views are as passionately held as any Inquisition. But the accuracy in
observations of fragmentation might be questioned to the degree the
observing is fragmented. And how could the observing not be fragmented?
Experience of what is natural, less fragmented, is NOT simply observing
outworkings of evolution EXTERNAL to us -- pointing a finger and saying,
thats not natural.
Basing ideas of what is Nature upon how things were in previous stages of
evolution is obviously flawed, or bais. And what we refer to as synthetic
happens through humans as an outcome of evolution; Nature. The idea/
opinion of straying-from-Natures path, reflects how our implicit
experience/ level of consciousness shapes perception of the explicit around
us.
My wife and I share a tiny house in the middle of nowhere. We dont have a
TV or a furnace to heat the house in winter. We live what some might
consider a more natural lifestyle. But not because it is morally BETTER to
be natural -- that motive would just perpetuate fragmentation. Choice of
lifestyle is a purely selfish, personal preference.
To the degree ENFOLDING meaning is a conscious experience, a person will
notice how UNFOLDING circumstances were different from the reality that
appeared through fragmented observation. _R
.
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:02:15 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimatestatements
.
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
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/340cfaba/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 15:47:49 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 16:47:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <C50B6A27-89F8-4F14-9EA2-8544BB81A95D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15BA8C5.3940%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
On 10/18/06 5:09 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I wonder how we can learn to actually hold multiple perspectives in our minds
> as we go about our separate lives.
>
> Good Morning, Don -
>
> My personal sense is that somehow all those multiple perspectives become
> integrated in me ? a broadening of the mind and spirit. I refused to
> incorporate my Methodist minister + KuKluxKlan member?s perspective on life,
> and went in search of a better way. I guess both his and King?s perspectives
> wound up making mine. Living with the Navajo showed me American history from
> a very different pov than the one I got through Hollywood.
>
> Best, k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/884c49c1/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 15:55:45 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 16:55:00 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
In-Reply-To: <OFC81A395E.67486091-ON8525720B.00416102-8525720B.004387E6@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C15BAAA1.3942%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
On 10/18/06 8:17 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
> .
> Rodger, it seems auras come and go as differing experiences come and go
> without anything like a problem presenting.
>
> Hi ? I?ve been able to see auras for a number of years. What I see doesn?t
> match everything I read in books. That energy field is usually white and lies
> close to the body. When people become enthusiastic about something, it
> expands. Normally, I see it around a person?s head. Once, I saw it expand to
> the size of the person?s body. Sometimes in their enthusiasm, it becomes
> golden. i cannot see an aura in bright light. k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/e99ab249/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 16:04:42 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:04:00 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <6F6F001F-7289-4FB4-9A39-865A590A3A03@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15BACBA.3943%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Will follow up today. Again, thank you. k
On 10/18/06 5:02 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> You might want to try and get hold of David Cook. I think he still lives in
> New York. He was a member of this list and designed a "dialogue center" (as
> yet unbuilt).He is in the process of changing professions at the moment but he
> may know of some places and some people who could be of helpl?
>
> His e-mail is: kdavidcook@yahoo.com
>
> don
>
> On 18 Oct 2006, at 01:11, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>
>> Pat ? thanks so much for sharing your experiences with me. ?I?m making a
>> list of places to invite to join the group. ?We can meet at Riverside Church,
>> but I don?t yet know what financial arrangements might be required. ?Other
>> places of interest, St. John the Divine, Unitarian Universalist, and I?m
>> going to check out local science organizations, and universities. ?Columbia
>> must have something, but I haven?t been able to find the information on the
>> website.
>>
>> This group?s encouragement, including Don F?s, really inspires me to forge
>> ahead. ??k
>>
>>
>> On 10/17/06 11:35 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am sitting here STUNNED with thrills that
>>> you are going to start a dialogue group in NYC.
>>> ?
>>> The first dialogue group I started was 11 years ago.
>>> It was a weekly group. We finally settled in a church
>>> which allowed us to "pass the hat." A secure meeting PLACE
>>> is the biggest [organizing] challenge. I [personally] posted flyers
>>> [5000 of them in a 3 year period - which was necessary in order to
>>> keep new people coming - in order to have sufficient numbers].
>>> ?
>>> I've been attending a monthly dialogue group for 10 years
>>> which receives sponsorship of a college. (The physicist who
>>> started this group had worked with Bohm on his dream of
>>> 'scientists engaging in dialogue'). This secures a meeting
>>> place.
>>> ?
>>> pat
>>> ?
>>> ?
>>> ?
>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:57:57 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi
>>> <tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>> <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/20061018/7dc5c68b/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Wed Oct 18 16:13:58 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:11:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D005B@msw2k.msw.local>
is there a "ground" upon which we are able to see from different
perspectives that keeps us "grounded"? d
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn
Arizmendi
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:48 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
On 10/18/06 5:09 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
I wonder how we can learn to actually hold multiple perspectives
in our minds as we go about our separate lives.
Good Morning, Don -
My personal sense is that somehow all those multiple
perspectives become integrated in me - a broadening of the mind and
spirit. I refused to incorporate my Methodist minister + KuKluxKlan
member's perspective on life, and went in search of a better way. I
guess both his and King's perspectives wound up making mine. Living
with the Navajo showed me American history from a very different pov
than the one I got through Hollywood.
Best, k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/9d702113/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Wed Oct 18 16:18:28 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:15:54 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D005E@msw2k.msw.local>
did Don mean change rather than here today and gone tomorrow?
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:18 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
Rodger __hi Don L, true, aspects or colors in auras come and go, but
usually if our aura is gone, it is because we are dead. Try getting
money out of a bank without an aura. _R
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:48:03 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
.
Rodger, it seems auras come and go as differing experiences come and go
without anything like a problem presenting.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/ef9c247a/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 16:31:40 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:31:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D005B@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <C15BB30C.3946%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Hi Dorothy ? I just did it. Never thought about it. Never analyzed it. I
just knew there had to be a better way, so I looked for it. k
On 10/18/06 10:13 AM, "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com> wrote:
> is there a "ground" upon which we are able to see from different perspectives
> that keeps us "grounded"? d
>
>
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn Arizmendi
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:48 AM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
>
>
>
>
> On 10/18/06 5:09 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how we can learn to actually hold multiple perspectives in our
>> minds as we go about our separate lives.
>>
>> Good Morning, Don -
>>
>> My personal sense is that somehow all those multiple perspectives become
>> integrated in me ? a broadening of the mind and spirit. I refused to
>> incorporate my Methodist minister + KuKluxKlan member?s perspective on life,
>> and went in search of a better way. I guess both his and King?s
>> perspectives wound up making mine. Living with the Navajo showed me
>> American history from a very different pov than the one I got through
>> Hollywood.
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/373ed47f/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Oct 18 16:32:57 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:32:17 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <20061019100004.B47CF23F67@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF85E4328C.FEAC1F2B-ON8525720B.004F1A8F-8525720B.004FEBED@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Arbitrary? Even to the extent that definition/ limitation of words
makes them an arbitrary thing -- the meaning of arbitrary remains in
accordance, is set to rules, we formed._R
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:59:25 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
.
The thing is, words are said to have definition, limitation that which
means they are arbitrary doesn't it?
..
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/2c5d2269/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Oct 18 16:36:08 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:35:31 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <20061019100004.B47CF23F67@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFF834EF4B.B99C463D-ON8525720B.00501A2B-8525720B.0050367F@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ I think thats very cool._R
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:57:45 -0400
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
.
"What Is" indicates "that which is not limited by the appearances
born of thought."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/02f00c19/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Oct 18 16:41:06 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:40:26 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
In-Reply-To: <20061019100004.B47CF23F67@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF293128FD.85B85F98-ON8525720B.00506287-8525720B.0050AAE0@dialogos.com>
Rodger __ who is drawing the lines of separation, in accordance to which
set of boundaries, definitions?_R
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:19:55 -0400
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
.
.
*An "organism" grows [from] out of itself. That which is "synthetic" comes
into being from outside of itself.
pat
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/65c53776/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 18 18:11:48 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:07:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Message-ID: <20061018.130718.3688.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I like "impersonal intimacy" as well (although it seems redundant -
because dialogue [of any sort] has always seemed like quintessential
intimacy).
As to "holding multiple perspectives" (if I understand what
you are wanting to get at) just seems to be an awareness of each
without particular attachment to any. The term "Holding"
might be counter to this.
pat
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:09:35 +0100 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
Yes, I was writing here about the individual perspective, responding to
DonL's comments. The "impersonal fellowship" or koinonia - I rather like
your idea of impersonal intimacy - is where such an expanded awareness
can occur. But since we can't walk around all the time with our dialogue
group tagging along, I wonder how we can learn to actually hold multiple
perspectives in our minds as we go about our separate lives.
don
On 18 Oct 2006, at 01:33, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
On 10/17/06 12:55 PM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
. 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".
Have I misunderstood something? I thought one of the purposes of dialog
is to share perspectives, thereby gaining a larger vision of ?truth?. A
larger vision ? not ultimate perfection. That larger vision doesn?t have
to be a vision of the topic. Wasn?t there a term ?impersonal intimacy?
or something of that nature? A kind of ?spiritual home? that is more
important than almost anything else? A connection between people ?
Hozhoon ? beauty as walking in balance with all my relations. That?s
enough for me. 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/20061018/7d30b974/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 18 17:50:05 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:07:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061018.130718.3688.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:21:55 +0100 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
On 17 Oct 2006, at 21:46, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
maybe they aren't two perspectives but part of each other. D
Of course, they are, and that's the perspective that draws it all
together.
But is it possible to hold them together while discussing something about
which we feel strongly.
Maybe this is another one of pat's trinities.
don
A Smile [between them] - my favorite "third person."
What was it? Separate and non - separate? Yes. Mutual Love would do it
["Appreciation" for the whole "by" the part, and appreciation
"by" the whole for the part - which "translates" into "unity."
The problem seems to come when languaging this
kind of stuff - so we try things like talking about
tips of ice burgs and stuff.
But there is the kind of "separateness" (tunnel vision) that is defended
while caught up in it which has to do with thought implicitly and
reflexively thinking that thought is "simply telling me the way things
are." [Thus, Bohm
introduces the idea of a "system" (wherein thought is described as
"affecting perception") with the "mechanics" and "implications"
deeply explored].
Certain of the thoughts (assumptions, beliefs) make up the core of
the [self/world] images that are defended, i.e., blocking the ingress of
pertinent info [from "what is"], blocking newness with the "smog" of
incoherent rehash.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/3017f947/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 18 17:52:55 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:08:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten, etc.
Message-ID: <20061018.130718.3688.13.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Tonight I went to see Diane Wilson speaking at a local college library.
She's the "shrimper" who sunk her 40 foot shrimp boat on top of the
chemical drainage pipe pouring great quantities of chemicals in a Texas
bay where four generations of her family had been shrimping for, well,
four generations. She was incredibly inspiring. She spoke to a class of
12 y.o. school kids earlier in the day and the kids went home and
insisted that their mothers come to the night talk. Several Code Pink
women were there too. Anyway, she talked of how she wasn't there to
recruit anyone to her particular cause but to speak about the power of
passion. She lost everything, her house, her husband her friends, her
boat. She was shot at, sued, jailed 18 times. But all she could exude was
optimism because of what she had discovered about her passion and passion
in general. There seems [clearly] to be a universal principle or a "law
of physics" or something that makes "all things possible" in the wake of
this passion. She spoke of how Gandhi ordered that all of his belongings
be burned upon his death because he know that otherwise he would be
"Sainted" bolstering the impression that people who can make a difference
with their passion are somehow special or rare people.
She talked about the agencies that were "in place" to "take care of" what
she was trying to do and how impotent [if not corrupt] they all turned
out to be. She did this thing alone. She found that she had to do it
alone. She seemed to be well suited for that because she had always been
quite a "loner." Very shy of people. She shrimped alone too.
After I started and maintained that weekly dialogue group for a few
years, I tried on 3 different occasions to start other dialogue groups in
other towns, with a group of other people. They all fizzled.
pat
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:22:54 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi
<tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
Pat, from the information I?ve gleaned, there were two NYC groups that
broke apart because the members did/could not use the content of thought
to separate out the process of thought, and gain some insight as to what
was happening. As B says, there was no space, no time. And there was no
reflection or learning later as far as I can see. As I make calls, I?m
getting questions that are checking out whether I?m allied with any of
the previous factions. Discouraging. We here were able to express
courteously divergent thoughts and ideas about Kris, and acknowledge that
as essential to Dialog without its dividing us. Similar issues here in
NYC caused the boat to sink in the storm. I may have a bigger job on my
hands than I anticipated! k
On 10/17/06 12:28 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Pat suggests in dialogue we shouldn't give too much attention to
content and more to process. (don)
The suggestion is equal attention, although this would
be unnecessary as a suggestion where function is indeed
noticed. "Equal" attention comes naturally at the point
where function is noticed. With attention to function
it would be impossible to separate out [be unaware of] content.
Whereas, strict attention to content hides function. The emphasis on
process
(function of thought) comes because it is the thing that gets very
little attention [most of us are not yet conversant in relation to
what is meant by Bohm's "function of thought"]. Interestingly,
getting caught up in the content of thought has to do with the
"function of thought."
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
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/da169474/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 18 17:45:24 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:08:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061018.130718.3688.10.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I wrote a book of poems about 40 years ago the first of which was
The only mistake
I ever make
Is the mistake of thinking
I've made a mistake.
But even before that
I don't think I ever was a "mistake" person
(which seems to go hand in hand with not ever
having been a "regret" person).
My dear friend Tom is both a "mistake"
person and a "regret" person. He also
'suffers' over "decisions."
I've never done this either; I've never
had a sense of being a 'decision maker'.
Being a "decision maker" seems to go hand
in hand with "mistakes" & "regrets."
Yet Tom & I are both very "responsible"
people - whatever that means. And we respect
each other totally, which means that we each
totally respect [and are actually in awe of]
the way the other has lived and interpreted
his/her life.
About 'not following one's better judgment'
this, of course, happens all of the time with me.
Or used to. But up until fairly recently.
There seems to be a voiceless voice that
is always there to inform as to the wise
'way to go' but it is not a "voice" that is
at all demanding or judgmental. It is VERY
quiet and unassuming. It seems to have no
'vested interest' in whether I follow it or not.
It seems to be a different kind of guide than
"my better judgment" which definitely seems
to have a stake of some sort in my 'following
it'. (Then, of course, is the "voice" of my 'not so
good' judgment, which is the loudest of all. It seems
to want to and to be very good at, drowning out any other
"voice").
pat
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:20:05 -0400 "Dorothy Stulberg"
<DStulberg@msw-law.com> writes:
Interesting. Lets say that last week and even Sunday, the day before the
mistake, I knew I was putting something off that needed attention. "I"
was doing that, me by myself. Finally Monday I "looked" in the file and
made a further mistake by looking at what I wanted to be true (a note)
and put it off again.
So I by myself made a moving mistake beginning with the putting off and
then not being careful about what I relied on. And today, the mistake
hit the fan as I realized if something did't get filed today, my client
was out of luck.
The good thing is that with the help of others, I was able to get the
complaint together and someone else drove the many miles to the court to
be timely filed.
You have made me look at why I was in this boat. I didn't want to make a
decision which really was, my client should give up her claim. She was
badly hurt and I just wasn't able to say, there is no justice in this
case. When push came to shove, I couldn't let her down.
As usual I've rattled. I'm not good at making decisions for others. So
if someone feels harmed, I want them to have a chance. So I try, often
against good judgment.
So I think it was my separate self that goofed.
What do you think? What would Bohm say?
I remember something about, knowing when to move on. that there are some
people who will not allow dialogue. Its the moving on that I have
trouble with. D.
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
ae.dropper@juno.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:44 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Did you know, before you 'made the mistake' that it was to be a
"mistake?"
If so, what was it that "knew" - was it the "separate self" or was
it 'something else'?
If not, then in the actual moment that the "mistake" was made,
was it really a mistaken move?
pat
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:22:34 -0400 "Dorothy Stulberg"
<DStulberg@msw-law.com> writes:
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
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 hes 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/20061018/5eb1cafc/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 18 18:29:35 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:08:03 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
Message-ID: <20061018.130718.3688.17.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The distinction is not "set in stone" or 'applicable beyond its domain'.
Distinctions though, can be understood based on the reason for making the
distinction. Then the reason can be questioned for its merits. Might
there be some valid reasons for distinguishing between "Natural" and
"Synthetic?" (Not looking for "truth" in thought, just coherence).
pat
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:41:06 -0400 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes:
Rodger __ who is drawing the lines of separation, in accordance to which
set of boundaries, definitions?_R
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:19:55 -0400
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
statements
.
.
*An "organism" grows [from] out of itself. That which is "synthetic"
comes into being from outside of itself.
pat
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/712a9787/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 18 18:01:02 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:08:04 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
Message-ID: <20061018.130718.3688.15.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Do you mind telling me where you are? How about meeting for coffee at
Starbucks? best, k
There was a guy on this list recently whose thesis was to architecturally
create a Bohm Dialogue space. I think he was in NYC. Does anyone remember
his name? E-mail address? He might be a good contact.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/757a1df8/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 18 17:53:22 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:08:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061018.130718.3688.14.ae.dropper@juno.com>
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:53:34 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
d: separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
don F: Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might
tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it
is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over
and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
dbl: We say we are separated from each other, but as Don F indicates,
we are never separated from the whole that we are part of. We say that
in time, yesterday is separated from tomorrow, and today, etc. Then we
may say that ultimately we are not separated from each other and
ultimately it has little meaning to say the past is separated from the
future, etc.
Maybe we say it has little meaning that we are separated from other
homo-saps, from trees and stones, etc: so what! If I should get knocked
off by a bus, there might be at least a billion Chinese that would never
know; might be far more than that, world wide. How many people die daily
that we know nothing of?
The imaginary scenario of getting knocked off by a bus may make us want
to be careful so that we don't get knocked off, but it is not proof of
actual separation -- is it? Is it possible that separation refers only
to imaginary being but not to that which is? After all, being careful is
reasonable as in that Reason that is said to derive from the logos.
Maybe it is the actuality of the logos which determines whether or not we
are careful, whether or not we get knocked off by a bus.
Very often while driving, the idea of being careful so as to not have an
accident repeats. Is that me repeating that, causing that repetition
which keeps in mind the importance of being careful? I certainly
understand the logic of saying it's me, but since it is a use of reason
and that word derives from the Greek logos, is it not more meaningful to
say that ultimately, the logos is the cause?
I've been working on this for a long time. I will appreciate feed back.
Don L
There is the proprioceptive sense where we have
the ability to put food in our own mouths rather than in someone else's.
Along with this is the proprioceptive ability that we share with other
creatures,
to not bump into things [all of the time] because we know the difference,
without
thinking, between ourselves and telephone poles and ourselves and other
people.
This is something that does not have to do with "thought."
This sense is always with us.
But it is not this sense of which we speak when highlighting the
suffering and its
source that comes from a false sense (from "thought") of what we have
been calling "separateness," or personal identity, or persona idem, or
masks, or "that which is defended reflexively" in situations where there
is no real danger.
Bohm would kind of walk people through the machinations
of 'thought as a system' for a couple of days before suggesting the
implications
regarding the identification with an image that occurs concurrently with
the defensive reflexes that appear as anger, frustration, boredom,
sleepiness, "hunger," the sudden need to smoke or pee, etc.,
in a dialogue group. He did not want to approach self image
issues prematurely; he would take people through an "unfolding"
process that may have facilitated understanding.
It's very hard to "wrap the mind around" as they say, this thing
about the two [self] images in thought [for instance], such as "I"
and "Me," one image trying to change another image (as in the
quote Kathryn sent the other day). It needs to be seen in action,
to see how the images affect the emotions which feed back to the
images (and the text of the concepts adjoined with the images.).
And how the "loop" builds while simultaneously "tunneling" itself
off from feedback from "what actually is."
This kind of situation, which begins with a small anger, for instance,
can build and spread and infect whole cultures over vast pieces of
geography. We're not talking here about a "separation" where
people can distinguish themselves from their keyboards and
computer screens and their dogs, but something else altogether.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/ffc2b46d/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 18 17:46:05 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:08:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061018.130718.3688.11.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I think of "responsibility" like I think of "commitment"
or "passion" or "feeding a hungry baby."
They are things that just occur - unless there
are formidable forces blocking their movement.
pat
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:22:38 -0400 "Dorothy Stulberg"
<DStulberg@msw-law.com> writes:
the part has a responsibility to the whole--
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:13 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts, then
where is personal responsibility? I raised that question directly in a
conversation with him. We were walking at night and he stopped cold. He
was silent for while. Then he came up with an answer that satisfied me.
That was maybe fifteen years ago. The trouble is that I can't remember
the answer. Can you? Or anybody?
don
On 17 Oct 2006, at 20:53, Don Lay wrote:
d: separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
don F: Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might
tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it
is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over
and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
dbl: We say we are separated from each other, but as Don F indicates,
we are never separated from the whole that we are part of. We say that
in time, yesterday is separated from tomorrow, and today, etc. Then we
may say that ultimately we are not separated from each other and
ultimately it has little meaning to say the past is separated from the
future, etc.
Maybe we say it has little meaning that we are separated from other
homo-saps, from trees and stones, etc: so what! If I should get knocked
off by a bus, there might be at least a billion Chinese that would never
know; might be far more than that, world wide. How many people die daily
that we know nothing of?
The imaginary scenario of getting knocked off by a bus may make us want
to be careful so that we don't get knocked off, but it is not proof of
actual separation -- is it? Is it possible that separation refers only
to imaginary being but not to that which is? After all, being careful is
reasonable as in that Reason that is said to derive from the logos.
Maybe it is the actuality of the logos which determines whether or not we
are careful, whether or not we get knocked off by a bus.
Very often while driving, the idea of being careful so as to not have an
accident repeats. Is that me repeating that, causing that repetition
which keeps in mind the importance of being careful? I certainly
understand the logic of saying it's me, but since it is a use of reason
and that word derives from the Greek logos, is it not more meaningful to
say that ultimately, the logos is the cause?
I've been working on this for a long time. I will appreciate feed back.
Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
On 17 Oct 2006, at 18:22, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
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.
Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us
or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my
mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so
far as I know, that is the end of me.
However, there is another perspective from which I can see that I am an
inseparable part of the whole. From this perspective there is no such
thing as a separate individual human being. To be human is to be part the
whole of humanity. Everything I know or think or or feel or believe comes
from this whole which in turn is an inseparable part of its world. There
is no such thing in nature as an isolated system.
So how do we accommodate both of these perspectives? That is the
interesting question for me/
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/20061018/ed87904b/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Wed Oct 18 19:50:59 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:48:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D007D@msw2k.msw.local>
great response, something to think aboutor to "feel" about. d.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
ae.dropper@juno.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:45 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
I wrote a book of poems about 40 years ago the first of which was
The only mistake
I ever make
Is the mistake of thinking
I've made a mistake.
But even before that
I don't think I ever was a "mistake" person
(which seems to go hand in hand with not ever
having been a "regret" person).
My dear friend Tom is both a "mistake"
person and a "regret" person. He also
'suffers' over "decisions."
I've never done this either; I've never
had a sense of being a 'decision maker'.
Being a "decision maker" seems to go hand
in hand with "mistakes" & "regrets."
Yet Tom & I are both very "responsible"
people - whatever that means. And we respect
each other totally, which means that we each
totally respect [and are actually in awe of]
the way the other has lived and interpreted
his/her life.
About 'not following one's better judgment'
this, of course, happens all of the time with me.
Or used to. But up until fairly recently.
There seems to be a voiceless voice that
is always there to inform as to the wise
'way to go' but it is not a "voice" that is
at all demanding or judgmental. It is VERY
quiet and unassuming. It seems to have no
'vested interest' in whether I follow it or not.
It seems to be a different kind of guide than
"my better judgment" which definitely seems
to have a stake of some sort in my 'following
it'. (Then, of course, is the "voice" of my 'not so
good' judgment, which is the loudest of all. It seems
to want to and to be very good at, drowning out any other
"voice").
pat
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:20:05 -0400 "Dorothy Stulberg"
<DStulberg@msw-law.com> writes:
Interesting. Lets say that last week and even Sunday, the day
before the mistake, I knew I was putting something off that needed
attention. "I" was doing that, me by myself. Finally Monday I "looked"
in the file and made a further mistake by looking at what I wanted to be
true (a note) and put it off again.
So I by myself made a moving mistake beginning with the putting
off and then not being careful about what I relied on. And today, the
mistake hit the fan as I realized if something did't get filed today, my
client was out of luck.
The good thing is that with the help of others, I was able to
get the complaint together and someone else drove the many miles to the
court to be timely filed.
You have made me look at why I was in this boat. I didn't want
to make a decision which really was, my client should give up her claim.
She was badly hurt and I just wasn't able to say, there is no justice in
this case. When push came to shove, I couldn't let her down.
As usual I've rattled. I'm not good at making decisions for
others. So if someone feels harmed, I want them to have a chance. So I
try, often against good judgment.
So I think it was my separate self that goofed.
What do you think? What would Bohm say?
I remember something about, knowing when to move on. that there
are some people who will not allow dialogue. Its the moving on that I
have trouble with. D.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
ae.dropper@juno.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:44 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Did you know, before you 'made the mistake' that it was to be a
"mistake?"
If so, what was it that "knew" - was it the "separate self" or
was
it 'something else'?
If not, then in the actual moment that the "mistake" was made,
was it really a mistaken move?
pat
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:22:34 -0400 "Dorothy Stulberg"
<DStulberg@msw-law.com> writes:
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/20061018/7eba2ee6/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Wed Oct 18 19:39:04 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:54:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0000@msw2k.msw.local>
<B7E8DEEE-5B55-40E2-AD9B-50735FFD6B6C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00f101c6f225$f6b31100$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<0E475B20-3637-4B3C-A38E-EB73213576E1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <030701c6f2dc$4f237ad0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
If we accept the idea that we are lost in language meanings, that homo-sap is in a confused state/mode, then it might seem reasonable to think it is man's responsibility to keep in mind that which is, truth. K and B ask, Where did civilization take a wrong turn.
If civilization made a wrong turn, if civilization missed the mark, it seems reasonable to rectify so the mark can be hit, made. I recon that's what most religions are about, aren't they? -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts, then where is personal responsibility? I raised that question directly in a conversation with him. We were walking at night and he stopped cold. He was silent for while. Then he came up with an answer that satisfied me. That was maybe fifteen years ago. The trouble is that I can't remember the answer. Can you? Or anybody?
don
On 17 Oct 2006, at 20:53, Don Lay wrote:
d: separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
don F: Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
dbl: We say we are separated from each other, but as Don F indicates, we are never separated from the whole that we are part of. We say that in time, yesterday is separated from tomorrow, and today, etc. Then we may say that ultimately we are not separated from each other and ultimately it has little meaning to say the past is separated from the future, etc.
Maybe we say it has little meaning that we are separated from other homo-saps, from trees and stones, etc: so what! If I should get knocked off by a bus, there might be at least a billion Chinese that would never know; might be far more than that, world wide. How many people die daily that we know nothing of?
The imaginary scenario of getting knocked off by a bus may make us want to be careful so that we don't get knocked off, but it is not proof of actual separation -- is it? Is it possible that separation refers only to imaginary being but not to that which is? After all, being careful is reasonable as in that Reason that is said to derive from the logos. Maybe it is the actuality of the logos which determines whether or not we are careful, whether or not we get knocked off by a bus.
Very often while driving, the idea of being careful so as to not have an accident repeats. Is that me repeating that, causing that repetition which keeps in mind the importance of being careful? I certainly understand the logic of saying it's me, but since it is a use of reason and that word derives from the Greek logos, is it not more meaningful to say that ultimately, the logos is the cause?
I've been working on this for a long time. I will appreciate feed back. Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
On 17 Oct 2006, at 18:22, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
However, there is another perspective from which I can see that I am an inseparable part of the whole. From this perspective there is no such thing as a separate individual human being. To be human is to be part the whole of humanity. Everything I know or think or or feel or believe comes from this whole which in turn is an inseparable part of its world. There is no such thing in nature as an isolated system.
So how do we accommodate both of these perspectives? That is the interesting question for me/
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/20061018/576b436f/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Oct 18 19:57:05 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:56:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <20061018.130718.3688.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061018.130718.3688.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <48CA946B-B5FD-49F3-9041-1323F8F6AA9A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
"Holding" might be counter to it. But then what are we doing when our
awareness suspends on the walls of its gallery three contradictory
ideas? And keeps them hanging there long enough for - perhaps - an
insight to occur that changes the meanings from the level of
contradiction to something that forms a new synthesis?
While writing the above it occurs to me that this synthesis may not
form or unfold in the way imagined, but something actually does
happen to the meanings of the initial contradictory ideas while they
remain suspended. When the time comes to toss them all out or to
choose one or the other, the obviousness of the one chosen becomes so
clear that , you discover that there never was any choice, even if
you couldn't see the result in the beginning. The meaning will have
changed.
don
On 18 Oct 2006, at 17:11, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> As to "holding multiple perspectives" (if I understand what
> you are wanting to get at) just seems to be an awareness of each
> without particular attachment to any. The term "Holding"
> might be counter to this.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/78889efd/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Wed Oct 18 19:38:36 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:56:47 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>
<001801c6f1fd$14a056b0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<418E40B3-2CE1-4F8C-BE10-53E70BB58C3C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <02f301c6f2dc$3e2de580$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
don F: so far as I can see, all we can know or experience is through our own subjectivity ...
dbl: I deny that subjectivity is mine, yours any more than breathing is mine, yours, etc. Saying subjectivity is mine or yours, something owned by the imagined persona seems disingenuous at best. Ownership of subjectivity doesn't sound right, does it? Maybe it is helpful to view subjectivity like the pulse, breathing, etc. It has very limited use to say that pulse or breathing is mine. Similarly there is very is limited meaning is saying my thought, Bohm's thought, Einstein thought, etc.
Part of the definition of deny is "to declare untrue". I declare the personal identity system is untrue when compared with the truth of the whole (Hegel).
don F: Even if we can transcend the limits of TAS as a material system .
dbl: Maybe we do not, cannot go beyond (transcend) because the anthropomorphic pronoun we may be confused (tas) thought [1] and [2] it is usually limited to physical locality, isn't it?
Personally, I deny being what language says I am, e.g., the separated, personal identity. I assert it has extremely limited meaning. I deny the personal identity has much meaning and zero ultimate meaning. Seems to me that when we identify as a persona, act and pretend being a thing within the SUBJECT VERB OBJECT structure of language, then that structure physically configures the neuro-paths of the brain (Damasio) and creates or constitutes the experience of separated locality (In the sense of Bohm saying that thought creates FEELS).
I like the idea that that which is, TRUTH cannot be known (cannot be put into language) and maybe the best we can do is have a view and a view by definition does not last long because of ultimate flux, holomovement. -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
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
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061018/1f9a77d6/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Wed Oct 18 19:38:51 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:56:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
References: <20061017.162520.1744.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <02fc01c6f2dc$4782d000$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Pat: "What Is" indicates "that which is not limited by the appearances born of thought." [dbl: Yes! ] It is a meaning that cannot be contained in words. [dbl: Yes! ] "What Is" cannot be defined. [dbl: Right! ] It's "meaning" is never the same twice. [dbl: Probably. ] Never the same from person to person. [dbl: Yes. ] "What is" is 'hidden' in its total obviousness. [dbl: Yes. ] "What Is" is what IS. [dbl: Beautiful! ] What IS is not an abstraction [in and of itself] but is inclusive of abstraction[s]. [dbl: Yep! ] "What Is" [as a term being used] is context dependent. -- pat
Don: Pat, seems like you're saying it pretty good. The way you are saying it is the way we are talking about it locally. It is very difficult talking aboiut what actually is, perhap[s because everyday language is is used for finite, limited, LOCAL thingKs. Maybe the mystics have always used this kind of language, and were always laughed at.
Now, however, what with 'scientific' proof re non locality, etc., the language of tyhe mystics does not seem so strange. -- Don L
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:12:08 +0100 Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
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/20061018/af10fcd7/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Wed Oct 18 19:39:30 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:56:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0000@msw2k.msw.local>
<B7E8DEEE-5B55-40E2-AD9B-50735FFD6B6C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00f101c6f225$f6b31100$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<0E475B20-3637-4B3C-A38E-EB73213576E1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <031201c6f2dc$5e5b3380$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts, then where is personal responsibility? don F
Here is some thought: Maybe the answer lies in examining the question for meaning and greater awareness. First, there is the confused situation of persona without awareness of what it is. Maybe when it becomes clear that person, from the Greek and Latin proserpone and persona meaning actor's mask, actor's role, we can clearly see the actor has some duty or obligation to respond to the context of the fictive situation, the stage play or drama.
The first duty or responsability of the actor or persona is to respond to the whole situation, the meaning of the writer, the intention. If he does not, the unity of the play will be lost. Think of unity in literary or graphic art where every element meaningfully relates to the whole.
That's what the persona does in culture: It provides something like laser-like unity to culture -- so long as everyone responds to the fictive idea of the culture (whole). You can see the efficacy of the laser-like unity of the Roman legions (originally only the Greek hoplite had the kind of status the Romans afforded to the persona). The Romans applied this notion to the whole of culture, even in conquered lands. Those who acted and pretended the actuality of persona idem were given legal status, rights, protection, etc. This is no secret! Anyone who can read can see this.
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts, then where is personal responsibility? I raised that question directly in a conversation with him. We were walking at night and he stopped cold. He was silent for while. Then he came up with an answer that satisfied me. That was maybe fifteen years ago. The trouble is that I can't remember the answer. Can you? Or anybody?
don
On 17 Oct 2006, at 20:53, Don Lay wrote:
d: separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
don F: Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
dbl: We say we are separated from each other, but as Don F indicates, we are never separated from the whole that we are part of. We say that in time, yesterday is separated from tomorrow, and today, etc. Then we may say that ultimately we are not separated from each other and ultimately it has little meaning to say the past is separated from the future, etc.
Maybe we say it has little meaning that we are separated from other homo-saps, from trees and stones, etc: so what! If I should get knocked off by a bus, there might be at least a billion Chinese that would never know; might be far more than that, world wide. How many people die daily that we know nothing of?
The imaginary scenario of getting knocked off by a bus may make us want to be careful so that we don't get knocked off, but it is not proof of actual separation -- is it? Is it possible that separation refers only to imaginary being but not to that which is? After all, being careful is reasonable as in that Reason that is said to derive from the logos. Maybe it is the actuality of the logos which determines whether or not we are careful, whether or not we get knocked off by a bus.
Very often while driving, the idea of being careful so as to not have an accident repeats. Is that me repeating that, causing that repetition which keeps in mind the importance of being careful? I certainly understand the logic of saying it's me, but since it is a use of reason and that word derives from the Greek logos, is it not more meaningful to say that ultimately, the logos is the cause?
I've been working on this for a long time. I will appreciate feed back. Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
On 17 Oct 2006, at 18:22, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
However, there is another perspective from which I can see that I am an inseparable part of the whole. From this perspective there is no such thing as a separate individual human being. To be human is to be part the whole of humanity. Everything I know or think or or feel or believe comes from this whole which in turn is an inseparable part of its world. There is no such thing in nature as an isolated system.
So how do we accommodate both of these perspectives? That is the interesting question for me/
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/20061018/873cd65a/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Wed Oct 18 19:04:40 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct 19 20:57:28 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
References: <OFC81A395E.67486091-ON8525720B.00416102-8525720B.004387E6@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <02e401c6f2dc$2add2220$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Yes. the thought was that usually language is not used such auras are held in mind. Language is usually used such that imagery is held in mind. We might be better off with language directing awareness to such as auras. -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
Rodger __hi Don L, true, aspects or colors in auras come and go, but usually if our aura is gone, it is because we are dead. Try getting money out of a bank without an aura. _R
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:48:03 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imaginary Identity
.
Rodger, it seems auras come and go as differing experiences come and go without anything like a problem presenting.
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061018/30409249/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 20:02:44 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Thu Oct 19 21:01:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061018180244.7073.qmail@web52912.mail.yahoo.com>
what comes up is:
separation is a (limited?) perspective.
that's all - thanks don.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:53:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
d: separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
don F: Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
dbl: We say we are separated from each other, but as Don F indicates, we are never separated from the whole that we are part of. We say that in time, yesterday is separated from tomorrow, and today, etc. Then we may say that ultimately we are not separated from each other and ultimately it has little meaning to say the past is separated from the future, etc.
Maybe we say it has little meaning that we are separated from other homo-saps, from trees and stones, etc: so what! If I should get knocked off by a bus, there might be at least a billion Chinese that would never know; might be far more than that, world wide. How many people die daily that we know nothing of?
The imaginary scenario of getting knocked off by a bus may make us want to be careful so that we don't get knocked off, but it is not proof of actual separation -- is it? Is it possible that separation refers only to imaginary being but not to that which is? After all, being careful is reasonable as in that Reason that is said to derive from the logos. Maybe it is the actuality of the logos which determines whether or not we are careful, whether or not we get knocked off by a bus.
Very often while driving, the idea of being careful so as to not have an accident repeats. Is that me repeating that, causing that repetition which keeps in mind the importance of being careful? I certainly understand the logic of saying it's me, but since it is a use of reason and that word derives from the Greek logos, is it not more meaningful to say that ultimately, the logos is the cause?
I've been working on this for a long time. I will appreciate feed back. Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
On 17 Oct 2006, at 18:22, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
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.
Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
However, there is another perspective from which I can see that I am an inseparable part of the whole. From this perspective there is no such thing as a separate individual human being. To be human is to be part the whole of humanity. Everything I know or think or or feel or believe comes from this whole which in turn is an inseparable part of its world. There is no such thing in nature as an isolated system.
So how do we accommodate both of these perspectives? That is the interesting question for me/
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/20061018/5571ad69/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 20:04:07 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Thu Oct 19 21:03:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061018180407.31886.qmail@web52914.mail.yahoo.com>
right - each part is that because of a perspective -- and they are not merely parts but whole/parts
kari
---- Original Message ----
From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:52:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
yeah - maybe we have created an artificial separation between them - such
as the concept of time separating one event from another, mind, body and
soul, etc. We are a whole archetypal self. We're also able to separately
regard ourselves as parts, because we can. But that doesn't mean that we
are a congolmerate of parts rather than whole - all that is contained in
"wholeness."
-Franis
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:46:48 -0400 "Dorothy Stulberg"
<DStulberg@msw-law.com> writes:
> maybe they aren't two perspectives but part of each other. D
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/2c5bca19/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 20:05:44 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Thu Oct 19 21:05:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061018180544.42093.qmail@web52913.mail.yahoo.com>
what do you mean by personal responsibility? choice? the nice illusion of choice? why do we need/want responsibility?
fear?
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:13:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts, then where is personal responsibility? I raised that question directly in a conversation with him. We were walking at night and he stopped cold. He was silent for while. Then he came up with an answer that satisfied me. That was maybe fifteen years ago. The trouble is that I can't remember the answer. Can you? Or anybody?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/43dc670c/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Oct 18 20:09:52 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct 19 21:09:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <02fc01c6f2dc$4782d000$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <20061017.162520.1744.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<02fc01c6f2dc$4782d000$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <7131654E-F677-492B-AD46-23DC382F6A0F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Is it worth trying to say "what is" in a non-local sort of frame? Or
might it not be better to just do what is actually Necessary?
If this involves using words, so be it.
don
On 18 Oct 2006, at 18:38, Don Lay wrote:
>
>
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> Pat: "What Is" indicates "that which is not limited by the
> appearances born of thought." [dbl: Yes! ] It is a meaning
> that cannot be contained in words. [dbl: Yes! ] "What Is"
> cannot be defined. [dbl: Right! ] It's "meaning" is never the
> same twice. [dbl: Probably. ] Never the same from person to
> person. [dbl: Yes. ] "What is" is 'hidden' in its total
> obviousness. [dbl: Yes. ] "What Is" is what IS. [dbl:
> Beautiful! ] What IS is not an abstraction [in and of itself]
> but is inclusive of abstraction[s]. [dbl: Yep! ] "What
> Is" [as a term being used] is context dependent. -- pat
>
> Don: Pat, seems like you're saying it pretty good. The way you
> are saying it is the way we are talking about it locally. It is
> very difficult talking aboiut what actually is, perhap[s because
> everyday language is is used for finite, limited, LOCAL thingKs.
> Maybe the mystics have always used this kind of language, and were
> always laughed at.
>
> Now, however, what with 'scientific' proof re non locality, etc.,
> the language of tyhe mystics does not seem so strange. -- Don L
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:12:08 +0100 Don Factor
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 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/20061018/f0fab329/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Oct 18 20:39:16 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct 19 21:38:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <031201c6f2dc$5e5b3380$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0000@msw2k.msw.local>
<B7E8DEEE-5B55-40E2-AD9B-50735FFD6B6C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00f101c6f225$f6b31100$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<0E475B20-3637-4B3C-A38E-EB73213576E1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<031201c6f2dc$5e5b3380$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <4039BF8C-348C-417E-8FB6-F1182E3BCE72@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Okay, but lets see if it also might work if we eliminate a few terms
such as fictive, and pretended. Doesn't that bring us to the
recognition of necessity? If we are "but players" and it is our duty
to act on our obligation to the content of the situation, why not be
satisfied with that? What does it add to say, "but of course its all
a fiction"? Does that make it any less necessary, or more? Any less
essential, or of the essence?
don
On 18 Oct 2006, at 18:39, Don Lay wrote:
> If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts,
> then where is personal responsibility? don F
>
> Here is some thought: Maybe the answer lies in examining the
> question for meaning and greater awareness. First, there is the
> confused situation of persona without awareness of what it is.
> Maybe when it becomes clear that person, from the Greek and Latin
> proserpone and persona meaning actor's mask, actor's role, we can
> clearly see the actor has some duty or obligation to respond to the
> context of the fictive situation, the stage play or drama.
>
> The first duty or responsability of the actor or persona is to
> respond to the whole situation, the meaning of the writer, the
> intention. If he does not, the unity of the play will be lost.
> Think of unity in literary or graphic art where every element
> meaningfully relates to the whole.
>
> That's what the persona does in culture: It provides something like
> laser-like unity to culture -- so long as everyone responds to the
> fictive idea of the culture (whole). You can see the efficacy of
> the laser-like unity of the Roman legions (originally only the
> Greek hoplite had the kind of status the Romans afforded to the
> persona). The Romans applied this notion to the whole of culture,
> even in conquered lands. Those who acted and pretended the
> actuality of persona idem were given legal status, rights,
> protection, etc. This is no secret! Anyone who can read can see
> this.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
>
> If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts,
> then where is personal responsibility? I raised that question
> directly in a conversation with him. We were walking at night and
> he stopped cold. He was silent for while. Then he came up with an
> answer that satisfied me. That was maybe fifteen years ago. The
> trouble is that I can't remember the answer. Can you? Or anybody?
>
> don
>
> On 17 Oct 2006, at 20:53, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> d: separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
>>
>> don F: Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the
>> language might tell us or how our the culture might condition us.
>> If I make a mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus,
>> it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end
>> of me.
>>
>> dbl: We say we are separated from each other, but as Don F
>> indicates, we are never separated from the whole that we are part
>> of. We say that in time, yesterday is separated from tomorrow,
>> and today, etc. Then we may say that ultimately we are not
>> separated from each other and ultimately it has little meaning to
>> say the past is separated from the future, etc.
>> Maybe we say it has little meaning that we are separated from
>> other homo-saps, from trees and stones, etc: so what! If I should
>> get knocked off by a bus, there might be at least a billion
>> Chinese that would never know; might be far more than that, world
>> wide. How many people die daily that we know nothing of?
>>
>> The imaginary scenario of getting knocked off by a bus may make us
>> want to be careful so that we don't get knocked off, but it is not
>> proof of actual separation -- is it? Is it possible that
>> separation refers only to imaginary being but not to that which
>> is? After all, being careful is reasonable as in that Reason that
>> is said to derive from the logos. Maybe it is the actuality of
>> the logos which determines whether or not we are careful, whether
>> or not we get knocked off by a bus.
>>
>> Very often while driving, the idea of being careful so as to not
>> have an accident repeats. Is that me repeating that, causing that
>> repetition which keeps in mind the importance of being careful? I
>> certainly understand the logic of saying it's me, but since it is
>> a use of reason and that word derives from the Greek logos, is it
>> not more meaningful to say that ultimately, the logos is the cause?
>>
>> I've been working on this for a long time. I will appreciate feed
>> back. Don L
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Factor
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
>>
>>
>> On 17 Oct 2006, at 18:22, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might
>> tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a
>> mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me
>> that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
>>
>> However, there is another perspective from which I can see that I
>> am an inseparable part of the whole. From this perspective there
>> is no such thing as a separate individual human being. To be human
>> is to be part the whole of humanity. Everything I know or think or
>> or feel or believe comes from this whole which in turn is an
>> inseparable part of its world. There is no such thing in nature as
>> an isolated system.
>>
>> So how do we accommodate both of these perspectives? That is the
>> interesting question for me/
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/a4e19ef5/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 20:41:54 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Thu Oct 19 21:41:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20061018.130718.3688.13.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C15BEDB2.3961%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Pat ? I will persevere! Thanks for the words of encouragement. k
On 10/18/06 11:52 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Tonight I went to see Diane Wilson speaking at a local college library. She's
> the "shrimper" who sunk her 40 foot shrimp boat on top of the chemical
> drainage pipe pouring great quantities of chemicals in a Texas bay where four
> generations of her family had been shrimping for, well, four generations. She
> was incredibly inspiring. She spoke to a class of 12 y.o. school kids earlier
> in the day and the kids went home and insisted that their mothers come to the
> night talk. Several Code Pink women were there too. Anyway, she talked of how
> she wasn't there to recruit anyone to her particular cause but to speak about
> the power of passion. She lost everything, her house, her husband her friends,
> her boat. She was shot at, sued, jailed 18 times. But all she could exude was
> optimism because of what she had discovered about her passion and passion in
> general. There seems [clearly] to be a universal principle or a "law of
> physics" or something that makes "all things possible" in the wake of this
> passion. She spoke of how Gandhi ordered that all of his belongings be burned
> upon his death because he know that otherwise he would be "Sainted" bolstering
> the impression that people who can make a difference with their passion are
> somehow special or rare people.
>
> She talked about the agencies that were "in place" to "take care of" what she
> was trying to do and how impotent [if not corrupt] they all turned out to be.
> She did this thing alone. She found that she had to do it alone. She seemed to
> be well suited for that because she had always been quite a "loner." Very shy
> of people. She shrimped alone too.
>
> After I started and maintained that weekly dialogue group for a few years, I
> tried on 3 different occasions to start other dialogue groups in other towns,
> with a group of other people. They all fizzled.
>
> pat
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:22:54 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
> writes:
>>
>> Pat, from the information I?ve gleaned, there were two NYC groups that broke
>> apart because the members did/could not use the content of thought to
>> separate out the process of thought, and gain some insight as to what was
>> happening. As B says, there was no space, no time. And there was no
>> reflection or learning later as far as I can see. As I make calls, I?m
>> getting questions that are checking out whether I?m allied with any of the
>> previous factions. Discouraging. We here were able to express courteously
>> divergent thoughts and ideas about Kris, and acknowledge that as essential
>> to Dialog without its dividing us. Similar issues here in NYC caused the
>> boat to sink in the storm. I may have a bigger job on my hands than I
>> anticipated! k
>>
>>
>> On 10/17/06 12:28 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> Pat suggests in dialogue we shouldn't give too much attention to
>> content and more to process. (don)
>>
>> The suggestion is equal attention, although this would
>> be unnecessary as a suggestion where function is indeed
>> noticed. "Equal" attention comes naturally at the point
>> where function is noticed. With attention to function
>> it would be impossible to separate out [be unaware of] content.
>> Whereas, strict attention to content hides function. The emphasis on process
>> (function of thought) comes because it is the thing that gets very
>> little attention [most of us are not yet conversant in relation to
>> what is meant by Bohm's "function of thought"]. Interestingly,
>> getting caught up in the content of thought has to do with the
>> "function of thought."
>>
>> pat
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/6b3f10e7/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Oct 18 22:21:59 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Oct 19 23:26:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Message-ID: <20061018.132200.2344.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
When people say 'grounding,' they all do a very different thing - so it's
not a very good word to use if you want people to participate with you.
It's better to describe what you want people to do rather than use the
word 'grounding."
Some people think of "wiping the slate clean."
Some people think of their new age music teacher.
Some people think of their yoga teacher's class.
Some people think of their American Indian ancestors or the sweat lodge.
Some people, (like K) think of using creative thinking strategies to
improve.
Some people think of the holographic universe that allows the fly-eye
perceptions of multiple realities - the action you're refferring to.
I think of getting back to bottom-line essentials, not necessarily
choosing a "better" way or establishing priority, but actions that are
common to all priorities in humans. But then I know I'm rarely
representative of what most people would do.
Franis
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:31:40 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi
<tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
> Hi Dorothy I just did it. Never thought about it. Never analyzed
> it. I
> just knew there had to be a better way, so I looked for it. k
>
>
> On 10/18/06 10:13 AM, "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
> wrote:
>
> > is there a "ground" upon which we are able to see from different
> perspectives
> > that keeps us "grounded"? d
> >
> >
> > From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> > [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn
> Arizmendi
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:48 AM
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/18/06 5:09 AM, "Don Factor"
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder how we can learn to actually hold multiple perspectives
> in our
> >> minds as we go about our separate lives.
> >>
> >> Good Morning, Don -
> >>
> >> My personal sense is that somehow all those multiple
> perspectives become
> >> integrated in me a broadening of the mind and spirit. I
> refused to
> >> incorporate my Methodist minister + KuKluxKlan memberšs
> perspective on life,
> >> and went in search of a better way. I guess both his and Kingšs
> >> perspectives wound up making mine. Living with the Navajo
> showed me
> >> American history from a very different pov than the one I got
> through
> >> Hollywood.
> >>
> >> 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 DStulberg at msw-law.com Wed Oct 18 23:19:15 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Fri Oct 20 00:16:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D008F@msw2k.msw.local>
Actions that are common to all priorities in humans- I'm not sure what that means. If it is another way to say bottom-line essentials (there's that word again), that is what grounding means to me---being real. d
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Franis Engel
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:22 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
When people say 'grounding,' they all do a very different thing - so it's not a very good word to use if you want people to participate with you.
It's better to describe what you want people to do rather than use the word 'grounding."
Some people think of "wiping the slate clean."
Some people think of their new age music teacher.
Some people think of their yoga teacher's class.
Some people think of their American Indian ancestors or the sweat lodge.
Some people, (like K) think of using creative thinking strategies to improve.
Some people think of the holographic universe that allows the fly-eye perceptions of multiple realities - the action you're refferring to.
I think of getting back to bottom-line essentials, not necessarily choosing a "better" way or establishing priority, but actions that are common to all priorities in humans. But then I know I'm rarely representative of what most people would do.
Franis
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:31:40 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
> Hi Dorothy ? I just did it. Never thought about it. Never analyzed
> it. I
> just knew there had to be a better way, so I looked for it. k
>
>
> On 10/18/06 10:13 AM, "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
> wrote:
>
> > is there a "ground" upon which we are able to see from different
> perspectives
> > that keeps us "grounded"? d
> >
> >
> > From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> > [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn
> Arizmendi
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:48 AM
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/18/06 5:09 AM, "Don Factor"
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder how we can learn to actually hold multiple perspectives
> in our
> >> minds as we go about our separate lives.
> >>
> >> Good Morning, Don -
> >>
> >> My personal sense is that somehow all those multiple
> perspectives become
> >> integrated in me ? a broadening of the mind and spirit. I
> refused to
> >> incorporate my Methodist minister + KuKluxKlan member?s
> perspective on life,
> >> and went in search of a better way. I guess both his and King?s
> >> perspectives wound up making mine. Living with the Navajo
> showed me
> >> American history from a very different pov than the one I got
> through
> >> Hollywood.
> >>
> >> 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 ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 18 20:42:11 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 20 06:08:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061018.230819.2116.2.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Trying to think of when the idea of "parts" is useful (aside from tech or
practical purposes). Let's say I'm sitting with my friend and I see a
snake near his foot. So I say "Friend, there is a snake near your foot."
But that's "practical" isn't.
The tyranny of the parts has us going to "foot doctors" and the like.
pat
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Karilen Mays
<tubakari@yahoo.com> writes:
right - each part is that because of a perspective -- and they are not
merely parts but whole/parts
kari
---- Original Message ----
From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:52:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
yeah - maybe we have created an artificial separation between them - such
as the concept of time separating one event from another, mind, body and
soul, etc. We are a whole archetypal self. We're also able to separately
regard ourselves as parts, because we can. But that doesn't mean that we
are a congolmerate of parts rather than whole - all that is contained in
"wholeness."
-Franis
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:46:48 -0400 "Dorothy Stulberg"
<DStulberg@msw-law.com> writes:
> maybe they aren't two perspectives but part of each other. D
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/b48c5dca/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 18 21:39:25 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 20 06:08:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061018.230819.2116.3.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The difference between the "We-ness" & the
"They-ness" here is critical. Of course if I recognize
that it is I that is confused, I am already a little bit 'not confused'.
And this recognition happens when it happens. Bohm's stuff had seemed to
be packed with material to facilitate such recognitions, but, alas, ...
beauty in eye of beholder.
But then seeing it is not I at all that is confused, but thought that is
confused,
well, that comes as really good news!
pat
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:39:04 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
If we accept the idea that we are lost in language meanings, that
homo-sap is in a confused state/mode, then it might seem reasonable to
think it is man's responsibility to keep in mind that which is, truth. K
and B ask, Where did civilization take a wrong turn.
If civilization made a wrong turn, if civilization missed the mark, it
seems reasonable to rectify so the mark can be hit, made. I recon that's
what most religions are about, aren't they? -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts, then
where is personal responsibility? I raised that question directly in a
conversation with him. We were walking at night and he stopped cold. He
was silent for while. Then he came up with an answer that satisfied me.
That was maybe fifteen years ago. The trouble is that I can't remember
the answer. Can you? Or anybody?
don
On 17 Oct 2006, at 20:53, Don Lay wrote:
d: separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
don F: Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might
tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it
is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over
and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
dbl: We say we are separated from each other, but as Don F indicates,
we are never separated from the whole that we are part of. We say that
in time, yesterday is separated from tomorrow, and today, etc. Then we
may say that ultimately we are not separated from each other and
ultimately it has little meaning to say the past is separated from the
future, etc.
Maybe we say it has little meaning that we are separated from other
homo-saps, from trees and stones, etc: so what! If I should get knocked
off by a bus, there might be at least a billion Chinese that would never
know; might be far more than that, world wide. How many people die daily
that we know nothing of?
The imaginary scenario of getting knocked off by a bus may make us want
to be careful so that we don't get knocked off, but it is not proof of
actual separation -- is it? Is it possible that separation refers only
to imaginary being but not to that which is? After all, being careful is
reasonable as in that Reason that is said to derive from the logos.
Maybe it is the actuality of the logos which determines whether or not we
are careful, whether or not we get knocked off by a bus.
Very often while driving, the idea of being careful so as to not have an
accident repeats. Is that me repeating that, causing that repetition
which keeps in mind the importance of being careful? I certainly
understand the logic of saying it's me, but since it is a use of reason
and that word derives from the Greek logos, is it not more meaningful to
say that ultimately, the logos is the cause?
I've been working on this for a long time. I will appreciate feed back.
Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
On 17 Oct 2006, at 18:22, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
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.
Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us
or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my
mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so
far as I know, that is the end of me.
However, there is another perspective from which I can see that I am an
inseparable part of the whole. From this perspective there is no such
thing as a separate individual human being. To be human is to be part the
whole of humanity. Everything I know or think or or feel or believe comes
from this whole which in turn is an inseparable part of its world. There
is no such thing in nature as an isolated system.
So how do we accommodate both of these perspectives? That is the
interesting question for me/
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/20061018/e7828ce4/attachment.html