From DStulberg at msw-law.com Mon Sep 18 00:11:12 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Tue Sep 19 01:03:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695518D4@msw2k.msw.local>
truth is so temporary and context related and relevant. It isn't a
single truth. It is many at one time. And many of the truths are
discordent.
Even what "is" isn't always one truth.
Or am I just not getting it? d.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 4:39 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about
truth!
Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the true
from the false.
Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly,
reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is faulty.
Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system as elements of
the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells us we are a THINGK
that we are not. Later, when tas is used to differentiate what is and
what is not, tas clearly tells us that tas was faulty -- doesn't it?
Don L
ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's
analysis of existence. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
by the fact that the complex face of truth
is the false face of truth. It is falsity
passing for truth.
One question might be: how to know
the difference. And one of the answers to this
can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
which is not enigmatic at all (except to
thought, or, except in attempts to
speak about truth). The
differences between truth and
the false faces of truth are many. But
the "many" that occur, occur only in the
vast number of different 'false faces' that
exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
folding meet. It is the interface between the
two which are not two. Truth makes itself
known in every movement, in every action
and in the disappearance of every
movement and action.
There is no "place" where truth is not.
But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
The system of thought is porous to truth,
yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
parts of the system, certain assumptions.
And they don't so much get "clogged"
as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
a distracting activity stirred up by
the seeming truth of the assumption.
An assumption vying for weight is not
truth. It is not even a part of truth.
It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
meaningless. It has departed
from any wholeness within itself
by the ruckus it attempts to make,
by its flurry. Truth is very very
quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
demand nothing. What more could "what
is" possibly need, than itself?
pat
*indebted to don lay for rendering the
term "exist" so useful.
________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060917/13e74e7d/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 00:15:23 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 19 01:08:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060917211440.a97vni9a5d4o08c4@imp2.uta.fi>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F225B8C7C47065A5AD37C77A82C0@phx.gbl>
Tvmatti, Dear ~
How long have you subscribed to the dialog of Bohm now?
And it still has no penetrated your circuits
That it is not i-matti running/driving the show (thoughts)
But the 'other' way a round I-?
Ta Ts Ts
Some think/s never give (change)!
Love & Curtains, Kirsten
>Nothing wrong with thought?
>
>
>There is nothing wrong with automobiles, either; the fault is with the
>drivers, or poor roads, rusty traffic signs, bad weather, or darkness or
>animals.
>
>
>--
>
>matti
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 00:18:53 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 19 01:11:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695518D4@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F15E3550E7685DD9863FE4AA82C0@phx.gbl>
>truth is so temporary and context related and relevant. It isn't a
>single truth. It is many at one time. And many of the truths are
>discordent.
>Even what "is" isn't always one truth.
Dear d.
Thank you
Head on
Ps: why "thank you"?
Love & Waves, Kirsten
>truth is so temporary and context related and relevant. It isn't a
>single truth. It is many at one time. And many of the truths are
>discordent.
>Even what "is" isn't always one truth.
>Or am I just not getting it? d.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
>Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 4:39 PM
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
>
>
>
>Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about
>truth!
>
>Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the true
>from the false.
>
>Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly,
>reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is faulty.
>Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system as elements of
>the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells us we are a THINGK
>that we are not. Later, when tas is used to differentiate what is and
>what is not, tas clearly tells us that tas was faulty -- doesn't it?
>
> Don L
>
>ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's
>analysis of existence. -- dbl
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
>
> "Truth" is a very interesting subject.
> It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
> and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
> by the fact that the complex face of truth
> is the false face of truth. It is falsity
> passing for truth.
>
> One question might be: how to know
> the difference. And one of the answers to this
> can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
> which is not enigmatic at all (except to
> thought, or, except in attempts to
> speak about truth). The
> differences between truth and
> the false faces of truth are many. But
> the "many" that occur, occur only in the
> vast number of different 'false faces' that
> exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
> own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
> it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
>
> Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
> point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
> folding meet. It is the interface between the
> two which are not two. Truth makes itself
> known in every movement, in every action
> and in the disappearance of every
> movement and action.
>
> There is no "place" where truth is not.
> But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
> The system of thought is porous to truth,
> yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
> parts of the system, certain assumptions.
> And they don't so much get "clogged"
> as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
> a distracting activity stirred up by
> the seeming truth of the assumption.
>
> An assumption vying for weight is not
> truth. It is not even a part of truth.
> It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
> meaningless. It has departed
> from any wholeness within itself
> by the ruckus it attempts to make,
> by its flurry. Truth is very very
> quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
> demand nothing. What more could "what
> is" possibly need, than itself?
>
> pat
>
> *indebted to don lay for rendering the
> term "exist" so useful.
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 00:22:18 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 19 01:15:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <00d601c6daa1$a67bf850$b77e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F96ED2CEAAC1654EF6A895A82C0@phx.gbl>
Subscriber Donl: Sometimes, tas tells us we are a THINGK that we are not.
'Better"
Yet
Even
The thinkg that you 'are' you isn't
Love & Orgasm, Kirsten
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Mon Sep 18 00:40:06 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Tue Sep 19 01:32:40 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695518D6@msw2k.msw.local>
is it that you are vulnerable with people you love and for that matter
people you work with or anyone who could make a decision that affects
your future? the easy trust is that I won't ever meet this person again
and whatever she or I do won't have any effect on the other?
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Karilen Mays
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:05 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
I have heard it is often easier to reveal information about oneself more
freely when involved with people we might never see again and dont have
a long standing relationship with.
I was in a dialogue last weekend where we had a really deep level of
trust it seemed, revealing highly personal heart-thoughts (though I tend
to just say what I want most of the time now!), and we did not know each
other well. We didnt waste time beating around the bush with life
histories or anything, and just shared what had been coming up with us.
Someone remarked that people tend to tell people on airplanes (who they
most likely will never see again) things that they might never tell
their close friends or family. There is no, or less, fear of rejection
with someone you think you will never see again.
An apparent paradox is trust in that one has to make themselves
vulnerable to create trust, but usually people dont develop that deep
connection until there is trust.
I seem to not have much of a problem knowing almost instantly if I can
just be myself (whatever that is), meaning say what arises without
censoring when I meet a person. I dont care if they reciprocate; its
just the way I am. If they connect then it is icing on the cake. So
maybe there is no paradox. Maybe what I normally do is sense if the
person is comfortable interacting on an uncensored level, and then go
from there. If they are not revealing, defensive, or impersonal, or
robotic, then I don't always push them. I have a difficult time not
flowing freely so I dont spend lots of time around people who are
interested in mistaking their stories for who they are. It makes me feel
shut down. That's one of the reasons I resigned from my current job.
(Yay!)
So when people always bring up the safety issue in dialogue and other
groups I am curious about this.
Of course some people on here may think I am full of it, and that is
fine.
Thanks,!
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 1:28:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15
Rodger: Possibly some further consideration should go into the list, re:
how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names.
The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by
way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R
I'd like to know more of who I'm talking with, because I think when
people are more personal, they take more care in how they say what they
mean. I've gone to the trouble of traveling to meet some of these people
on this Dialouge group, and it was enlightening. The most interesting
was how some people merely continued the conversation however we'd left
off in Dialogue, and some assummed they were meeting me for the first
time, as if what we'd been writing made no difference at all. It was
surprising!
I'd love more of that.
I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, (Marin county, 15 miles north of SF,)
if anyone from somewhere else travels near here or lives anywhere near.
I'm heading to HI, which is a great place to visit!
- Franis
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060917/8503ebce/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 00:59:13 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 19 01:52:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695518D4@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F170C18C3FF68B128BD820BA82C0@phx.gbl>
Factor: Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
unanswered. You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the
thought.
Dear Don ,
Never
Say
Never.....
Who would have thought
I would be
Right be hind
You one day
Dropper & Lay:
You 're
Not making
"Sense"
...................but not that you have too, of course
Love & Plaster, Kirsten
_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 01:50:55 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 19 02:43:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060917214513.8ihvrf69ce0wg40c@imp2.uta.fi>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F27A914E9C97B3CBD918B15A82C0@phx.gbl>
Looks like Bohm 's one of 'those'
Animals that get stuck (s'trapped)
In a ("positive") feedback loop
Of a thought/process (operation of tas)
(In the attempt of) going after
Itself
.......... desperate to get "it"
O well, "shit happens"
Love & Sheets
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>Zoe, I recommend that you read the "Infinite Potential" by David F Peat.
>
>
>The question is, keeping in mind the enourmous amount of creative
>thinking, new material that David Bohm produced in his life-time - to my
>understanding nearly all his life - it would be just amazing if he had
>avoided depression at some point. I read somewhere that after finishing
>his book on evolution, Charles Darwin felt too tired to even pick a pencil
>to write, for seven years. Tells something about the amount of psychic
>energy creative work demands. And when the work is done, well then ...
>
>
>Try it ! ;-)
>
>
>---
>matti
>
>
>Lainaus Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>:
>
>>Kirsten - Bohm was suffering from depression? Suicidal? Can you say
>>more? Interesting -- Zoe
>>
>>kirsten schneide <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Dear Zoe -
>>
>>No Thinkg 'wrong' with TAS !
>>
>>
>>
>>... The fellow who 'came up' with this belief&system, Bohm,
>>
>>Was 'just' a(nother) clinically depressed person
>>
>>[To the point of being suicidal, matter-of-factly speaking]
>>
>>&
>>
>>One typically gets a lot more Bang out of
>>
>>Filling a few books & conference-rooms by talking about
>>
>>"Gott und die Welt"
>>
>>Rather than getting into one's own mess
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Love & Melon, Kirsten
>>--------------------------
>>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>>Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and I
>>read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what
>>should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does anybody
>>here know? Appreciating - Zoe
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
>>http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>> Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Sep 18 02:21:17 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Sep 19 03:15:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
Message-ID: <20060917.202117.3300.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
"Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception?
pat
Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
unanswered. You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the
thought. And that this thought is faulty.
Who then is the observer here?
don
On 17 Sep 2006, at 22:38, Don Lay wrote:
Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about truth!
Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the true
from the false.
Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly,
reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is faulty.
Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system as elements of
the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells us we are a THINGK
that we are not. Later, when tas is used to differentiate what is and
what is not, tas clearly tells us that tas was faulty -- doesn't it?
Don L
ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's
analysis of existence. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
by the fact that the complex face of truth
is the false face of truth. It is falsity
passing for truth.
One question might be: how to know
the difference. And one of the answers to this
can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
which is not enigmatic at all (except to
thought, or, except in attempts to
speak about truth). The
differences between truth and
the false faces of truth are many. But
the "many" that occur, occur only in the
vast number of different 'false faces' that
exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
folding meet. It is the interface between the
two which are not two. Truth makes itself
known in every movement, in every action
and in the disappearance of every
movement and action.
There is no "place" where truth is not.
But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
The system of thought is porous to truth,
yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
parts of the system, certain assumptions.
And they don't so much get "clogged"
as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
a distracting activity stirred up by
the seeming truth of the assumption.
An assumption vying for weight is not
truth. It is not even a part of truth.
It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
meaningless. It has departed
from any wholeness within itself
by the ruckus it attempts to make,
by its flurry. Truth is very very
quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
demand nothing. What more could "what
is" possibly need, than itself?
pat
*indebted to don lay for rendering the
term "exist" so useful.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060917/385c2d49/attachment.html
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 03:08:37 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Tue Sep 19 04:01:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <20060917.202117.3300.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F2032843118B414ADCF0A25B72D0@phx.gbl>
"Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception? (pat)
observation: the ability to notice things, esp. significant details
proprioception is observation, awareness — observer and observed are one
Regina
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
>Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:21:17 -0400
>
>"Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception?
>
>pat
>
>Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
>unanswered. You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the
>thought. And that this thought is faulty.
>
>
>Who then is the observer here?
>
>
>don
>
>
>On 17 Sep 2006, at 22:38, Don Lay wrote:
>
>
>
>Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about truth!
>
>Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the true
>from the false.
>
>Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly,
>reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is faulty.
>Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system as elements of
>the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells us we are a THINGK
>that we are not. Later, when tas is used to differentiate what is and
>what is not, tas clearly tells us that tas was faulty -- doesn't it?
>
> Don L
>
>ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's
>analysis of existence. -- dbl
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
>
>
>"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
>It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
>and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
>by the fact that the complex face of truth
>is the false face of truth. It is falsity
>passing for truth.
>
>One question might be: how to know
>the difference. And one of the answers to this
>can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
>which is not enigmatic at all (except to
>thought, or, except in attempts to
>speak about truth). The
>differences between truth and
>the false faces of truth are many. But
>the "many" that occur, occur only in the
>vast number of different 'false faces' that
>exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
>own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
>it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
>
>Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
>point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
>folding meet. It is the interface between the
>two which are not two. Truth makes itself
>known in every movement, in every action
>and in the disappearance of every
>movement and action.
>
>There is no "place" where truth is not.
>But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
>The system of thought is porous to truth,
>yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
>parts of the system, certain assumptions.
>And they don't so much get "clogged"
>as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
>a distracting activity stirred up by
>the seeming truth of the assumption.
>
>An assumption vying for weight is not
>truth. It is not even a part of truth.
>It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
>meaningless. It has departed
>from any wholeness within itself
>by the ruckus it attempts to make,
>by its flurry. Truth is very very
>quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
>demand nothing. What more could "what
>is" possibly need, than itself?
>
>pat
>
>*indebted to don lay for rendering the
>term "exist" so useful.
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 18 05:09:49 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 19 06:02:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
References: <20060917.111113.2248.30.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<00d601c6daa1$a67bf850$b77e153f@DL01>
<D633918A-A793-4443-BAB1-70DAB2295B5F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002b01c6dacf$ed691490$fb0a153f@DL01>
You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the thought. -- don F
Wrong. Bohm says that tas says we are "in there" ..., and that tas "has a fault", doesn't he? Yes. Don L
Who then is the observer here?-- don F
Don, the who-word begs the question, doesn't it? Doesn't it assume, presuppose the imaginary personal identity is the (separated, imaginary) observer? -- Don L
From: Don Factor
Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains unanswered. You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the thought. And that this thought is faulty.
Who then is the observer here?
don
On 17 Sep 2006, at 22:38, Don Lay wrote:
Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about truth!
Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the true from the false.
Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly, reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is faulty. Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system as elements of the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells us we are a THINGK that we are not. Later, when tas is used to differentiate what is and what is not, tas clearly tells us that tas was faulty -- doesn't it?
Don L
ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's analysis of existence. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
by the fact that the complex face of truth
is the false face of truth. It is falsity
passing for truth.
One question might be: how to know
the difference. And one of the answers to this
can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
which is not enigmatic at all (except to
thought, or, except in attempts to
speak about truth). The
differences between truth and
the false faces of truth are many. But
the "many" that occur, occur only in the
vast number of different 'false faces' that
exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
folding meet. It is the interface between the
two which are not two. Truth makes itself
known in every movement, in every action
and in the disappearance of every
movement and action.
There is no "place" where truth is not.
But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
The system of thought is porous to truth,
yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
parts of the system, certain assumptions.
And they don't so much get "clogged"
as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
a distracting activity stirred up by
the seeming truth of the assumption.
An assumption vying for weight is not
truth. It is not even a part of truth.
It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
meaningless. It has departed
from any wholeness within itself
by the ruckus it attempts to make,
by its flurry. Truth is very very
quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
demand nothing. What more could "what
is" possibly need, than itself?
pat
*indebted to don lay for rendering the
term "exist" so useful.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060917/2623fee6/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 18 05:20:14 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 19 06:13:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060916.115611.2248.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<DEC66EC8-E3C2-434C-BBC3-784A47FAACBB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <004f01c6dad1$5e511530$fb0a153f@DL01>
What is the truth for me? -- don F
What is this "me" that you speak of? Is it only imaginary? Does anyone
other than you know what it is? If this "me" you speak of is only
imaginary, as suggested by Bohm, what could be the possible meaning of truth
for this image? -- dbl
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> It seems that you and I, Pat, have very different approaches to inquiry.
> You, say, pick a distraction and inquire into it regarding the truth of
> it. Almost any distraction will do, it seems.
>
> My approach is to inquire into the meaning of distraction itself, to ask
> what is a distraction, what purpose does it serve? And then to ask what
> about such a purpose? Does it make sense?What would a life without
> distractions be like? Would this be better or more creative or worse? And
> so on.
>
> Then you say you want to find the "truth" of it.
>
> I want to find out what people mean by "truth". What is the truth for me?
>
> I don't mean to demean your way but it sounds like the "one day at a
> time" method of outfits like AA. And I have seen too many instances where
> such methods produce new addictions - as often as not, addiction to the
> method, because there will always be another something, a problem, or
> paradox or a discomfort or fear, that wants to be inquired into.
>
> That may be of value to you but I am still obsessed - and probably
> addicted - to wanting to understand the whole thing. Whatever that might
> actually mean
>
> In recent years my approach is to try to understand Bohm's approach to
> "the whole thing" and to see what sense it makes to me. I am not trying
> to free myself from incoherence or pain or fear or anything, although all
> that would be nice.
>
> My basic assumption - which I have to stop and question from time to
> time - is that, as my understanding grows the "work" that I am doing
> will serve to bring about some more coherence and occasionally even a
> smattering of intelligence.
>
> But I put the highest value on being able to do this in a group. where I
> can test my views against those of others and engage in a dialogue about
> their differences and similarities which in turn helps me to extend my
> own views.
>
> My present view is that although looking at the complexity of the human
> condition, although it might sometimes be a distraction, has been far
> more fruitful than say,suspending the fact that I occasionally get angry
> with someone, for the simple reason that my suspension and proprioception
> has given me a certain amount of awareness of the causes but it has done
> little to cure the disease, if disease is what it is.
>
> don
>
>
> On 16 Sep 2006, at 16:56, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> Going further and further in
>> the direction of complication
>> in inquiry only increases the 'ya
>> buts' that make up the smoke screen
>> of self - sustaining confusion,
>> proportionally.
>>
>> Inquiry is not at all complicated. it's
>> the distractions that are complicated.
>> But, pick any one of them [distractions]
>> and submit it to inquiry regarding the "truth"
>> of it. Inquiry into "distractions" is simple -
>> and fruitful - [because of the attachment
>> to them] (but 'do' just one at a time).
>>
>> pat
From donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 18 05:22:34 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 19 06:15:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
References: <BAY107-F24753FAA27F64774C41566A82C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <005401c6dad1$b17bd2e0$fb0a153f@DL01>
"B - depression is a loss/deficit of: courage" --??
Where does this come from? What might this mean? -- dbl
From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:17 AM
> Dear Zoe, I "have" "no" time right now, suffice to say:
>
>
>
>
> A - yes, Bohm was bogged down by life-long depression. For details please
> see David Peat's bio.
>
> B - depression is a loss/deficit of: courage
>
>
>
>
> 'Gotta' run (escape ;-?) !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & Sneakers
>
>
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
>
>>From: Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
>>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>>Kirsten - Bohm was suffering from depression? Suicidal? Can you say more?
>>Interesting -- Zoe
>>
>>kirsten schneide <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Dear Zoe -
>>
>>No Thinkg 'wrong' with TAS !
>>
>>
>>
>>... The fellow who 'came up' with this belief&system, Bohm,
>>
>>Was 'just' a(nother) clinically depressed person
>>
>>[To the point of being suicidal, matter-of-factly speaking]
>>
>>&
>>
>>One typically gets a lot more Bang out of
>>
>>Filling a few books & conference-rooms by talking about
>>
>>"Gott und die Welt"
>>
>>Rather than getting into one's own mess
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Love & Melon, Kirsten
>>--------------------------
>>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>>Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some time, and I
>>read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out what
>>should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does anybody
>>here know? Appreciating - Zoe
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
>>http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>> Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
> http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Mon Sep 18 05:57:05 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Tue Sep 19 06:49:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <20060917.202117.3300.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C1337531.71E0%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
I don?t know if this is useful here. I had an experience which seemed to me
to illustrate at least what I have understood of what I have read of Bohm in
this regard. I am taking a class (by phone) with a man who is well trained
in NLP and Aikido (Charlie Badenhop). The class is called Embodied
Presence. In the session, we became very present and aware of the body?s
movements and sensations, then were asked to speak of our experience in that
moment. The word that came up for me was ?adequate.? My mind immediately
went to recent feelings of ?inadequate? with regard to my trying to take
care of grandchildren and aging parents. Charlie pointed out the change in
my breathing and speech patterns, and how I jumped from a positive
experience to a ?story? of the opposite. In retrospect, I saw this as what
Bohm termed the reflex triggered by thought (adequate/inadequate). With
enough awareness to catch the reflex as it occurred, I could have chosen to
just look at that impulse (to go to the story) (suspension), and maybe
chosen to stay with the first, immediate experience (freedom?)
This may be obvious, but to me, having the experience and then seeing the
theories reflected there was really powerful. I can see the value of
dialogue to help to catch these reflexes & impulses. (Not so sure it can
work with words on a screen, which tend to be more purely cognitive and
verbal.)
Anyway, wouldn?t this awareness of the reflex (if it could come at the time
of the reflex) be something of what Bohm meant by proprioception of thought?
As for who is observing, wouldn?t the observer, who is aware in the present,
be somewhat different from that ?me? who is remembered in the story?
Lynne
On 9/17/06 6:21 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> "Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception?
>
> pat
>
> Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains unanswered.
> You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the thought. And that
> this thought is faulty.
>
> Who then is the observer here?
>
> don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060917/39d2df37/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Mon Sep 18 10:08:14 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Sep 19 11:22:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
Message-ID: <20060918.012607.976.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
I thought that depression is merely a lack of certain chemicals in the
brain, the cause of which may vary.
In my case, it was a screwed up thyroid. Once that was adressed, I've
never been depressed since.
For some reason, people are very quick to jump to conclusions that they
know what the reason is. More often, their conclusions are too simplistic
of an answer that is an unduly negative one. I've decided that being able
to spot a potential problem is one of the survival reactions built into
the species. So that's the reason people come up with the most
simplistic, negative answer when faced with what they do not understand.
Franis
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:22:34 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
> "B - depression is a loss/deficit of: courage" --??
>
> Where does this come from? What might this mean? -- dbl
>
>
>
>
> From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:17 AM
>
>
> > Dear Zoe, I "have" "no" time right now, suffice to say:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A - yes, Bohm was bogged down by life-long depression. For details
> please
> > see David Peat's bio.
> >
> > B - depression is a loss/deficit of: courage
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 'Gotta' run (escape ;-?) !
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Love & Sneakers
> >
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
> >>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
> >>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
> >>
> >>Kirsten - Bohm was suffering from depression? Suicidal? Can you
> say more?
> >>Interesting -- Zoe
> >>
> >>kirsten schneide <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Dear Zoe -
> >>
> >>No Thinkg 'wrong' with TAS !
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>... The fellow who 'came up' with this belief&system, Bohm,
> >>
> >>Was 'just' a(nother) clinically depressed person
> >>
> >>[To the point of being suicidal, matter-of-factly speaking]
> >>
> >>&
> >>
> >>One typically gets a lot more Bang out of
> >>
> >>Filling a few books & conference-rooms by talking about
> >>
> >>"Gott und die Welt"
> >>
> >>Rather than getting into one's own mess
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Love & Melon, Kirsten
> >>--------------------------
> >>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some
> time, and I
> >>read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out
> what
> >>should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does
> anybody
> >>here know? Appreciating - Zoe
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day
> trial!
> >>http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>info:
> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>
> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>dialogue facilitator:
> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>Administrator of the mailing list:
> >>admin@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------
> >>Do you Yahoo!?
> >> Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
> >
> >
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>info:
> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>
> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>dialogue facilitator:
> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>Administrator of the mailing list:
> >>admin@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
> > http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 franis_franis at juno.com Mon Sep 18 10:26:03 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Sep 19 11:22:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
Message-ID: <20060918.012607.976.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
Yes, Lynne - that's proprioception of thought. That's understanding how
your thinking processes work, rather than being pulled into the content
of what you are thinking that TAS encourages you to stay trapped in.
Essentially, now that you're telling it, the story is just a story. I
don't see how this had changed your identity.
But, as you use the new insight, things may change quite a bit. You now
have a new tool to continue to be attentive with. You know now when it
tends to happen: when you have a positive experience and describe it,
immediately the opposite negative objections come rushing in. Now that
you know you can do such a needless thing, you can find it yourself,
"catching yourself" in the act. The key is to not punish yourself when
you discover yourself doing it again. The challenge is to become aware
that you are doing it sooner and sooner in the process.
It's been my experience that the awareness of the reflex arrives
gradually as you practice it on your own. One day, one moment, you get to
become aware just before you were going to go into the reflex. This is
very important moment.
It's at that moment that you'll find the motive for the reflex to go off.
Once you know that motive, then you forgive yourself for all that
understandable reacting, and you can choose another possible response.
Then - you're completely free of it!
It may not work this way for you, but for me the motive was completely
hidden. So this is the process I had to take to find the origin of why I
did that mysterious, stupid reaction that I wanted to get rid of, but
that would go off when I wasn't noticing.
Franis
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:57:05 -0600 Lynne Tolk
<lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
> I don¹t know if this is useful here. I had an experience which
> seemed to me
> to illustrate at least what I have understood of what I have read of
> Bohm in
> this regard. I am taking a class (by phone) with a man who is well
> trained
> in NLP and Aikido (Charlie Badenhop). The class is called Embodied
> Presence. In the session, we became very present and aware of the
> body¹s
> movements and sensations, then were asked to speak of our experience
> in that
> moment. The word that came up for me was ³adequate.² My mind
> immediately
> went to recent feelings of ³inadequate² with regard to my trying to
> take
> care of grandchildren and aging parents. Charlie pointed out the
> change in
> my breathing and speech patterns, and how I jumped from a positive
> experience to a ³story² of the opposite. In retrospect, I saw this
> as what
> Bohm termed the reflex triggered by thought (adequate/inadequate).
> With
> enough awareness to catch the reflex as it occurred, I could have
> chosen to
> just look at that impulse (to go to the story) (suspension), and
> maybe
> chosen to stay with the first, immediate experience (freedom?)
>
> This may be obvious, but to me, having the experience and then
> seeing the
> theories reflected there was really powerful. I can see the value
> of
> dialogue to help to catch these reflexes & impulses. (Not so sure
> it can
> work with words on a screen, which tend to be more purely cognitive
> and
> verbal.)
>
> Anyway, wouldn¹t this awareness of the reflex (if it could come at
> the time
> of the reflex) be something of what Bohm meant by proprioception of
> thought?
> As for who is observing, wouldn¹t the observer, who is aware in the
> present,
> be somewhat different from that ³me² who is remembered in the story?
>
> Lynne
>
> On 9/17/06 6:21 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception?
> >
> > pat
> >
> > Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
> unanswered.
> > You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the thought.
> And that
> > this thought is faulty.
> >
> > Who then is the observer here?
> >
> > don
>
>
From franis_franis at juno.com Mon Sep 18 10:03:42 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Sep 19 11:23:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
Message-ID: <20060918.012607.976.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
> "Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception? (pat)-
Why, it's the little 3-dimensional video camera that is recording
everything that goes on inside me for future reference.
Franis
Regina :
> observation: the ability to notice things, esp. significant details
> proprioception is observation, awareness — observer and observed are
> one
>
>
> Regina
>
>
> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
> >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:21:17 -0400
> >
> >"Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception?
> >
> >pat
> >
> >Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
> >unanswered. You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing
> the
> >thought. And that this thought is faulty.
> >
> >
> >Who then is the observer here?
> >
> >
> >don
> >
> >
> >On 17 Sep 2006, at 22:38, Don Lay wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about
> truth!
> >
> >Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the
> true
> >from the false.
> >
> >Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly,
> >reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is
> faulty.
> >Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system as
> elements of
> >the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells us we are a
> THINGK
> >that we are not. Later, when tas is used to differentiate what is
> and
> >what is not, tas clearly tells us that tas was faulty -- doesn't
> it?
> >
> > Don L
> >
> >ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's
> >analysis of existence. -- dbl
> >
> >
> >http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
> >Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
> >
> >
> >"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
> >It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
> >and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
> >by the fact that the complex face of truth
> >is the false face of truth. It is falsity
> >passing for truth.
> >
> >One question might be: how to know
> >the difference. And one of the answers to this
> >can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
> >which is not enigmatic at all (except to
> >thought, or, except in attempts to
> >speak about truth). The
> >differences between truth and
> >the false faces of truth are many. But
> >the "many" that occur, occur only in the
> >vast number of different 'false faces' that
> >exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
> >own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
> >it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
> >
> >Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
> >point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
> >folding meet. It is the interface between the
> >two which are not two. Truth makes itself
> >known in every movement, in every action
> >and in the disappearance of every
> >movement and action.
> >
> >There is no "place" where truth is not.
> >But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
> >The system of thought is porous to truth,
> >yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
> >parts of the system, certain assumptions.
> >And they don't so much get "clogged"
> >as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
> >a distracting activity stirred up by
> >the seeming truth of the assumption.
> >
> >An assumption vying for weight is not
> >truth. It is not even a part of truth.
> >It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
> >meaningless. It has departed
> >from any wholeness within itself
> >by the ruckus it attempts to make,
> >by its flurry. Truth is very very
> >quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
> >demand nothing. What more could "what
> >is" possibly need, than itself?
> >
> >pat
> >
> >*indebted to don lay for rendering the
> >term "exist" so useful.
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From w at david-bohm.net Mon Sep 18 10:52:42 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Tue Sep 19 11:45:39 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695518D4@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <0MKwh2-1GPEry3zKx-0003lM@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Dorothy Stulberg:
>truth is so temporary and context related and
>relevant.? It isn't a single truth.? It is many
>at one time.? And many of the truths are
>discordent.? Even what "is" isn't always one
>truth. Or am I just not getting it? d.
I would say that the truth is a concept created by man (humankind). In
Bohmian terminology it is a 'thought'. In my view, it is an example of
relativity. The truth is a kind of relationship or alignment of one thing to
another; one thing is true to another thing. If something is true then the
implicit question is true to what? If you change the "what" then the truth
(the concept) must follow otherwise it ceases to be true. So, yes I agree,
many things can be true at the same time, and it is constantly changing.
This is because reality or actuality as a whole is so complex that we can
only capture some aspects of it. This means the truth is always a caption of
some part of the whole. In this sense, there can be no such thing as an
absolute truth.
This raises an interesting question of what happens when the "what" is
another truth. Since a truth is a concept of thought (a caption) it could
itself be the subject of truth building. So, theoretically, we could make a
truth that is true to another truth. We could build a complex structure of
consistent truths; one truth based on another truth. But someone else, or
some other culture, could also make a consistent structure of truths.
However, since every truth is a caption of the whole, it is quite
conceivable that different cultures build different structures of truth.
This could create a situation where each structure of truth may be
consistent within itself but are nevertheless incompatible with other
structures of truths. At this point is relatively important to remember that
these truths are self-made constructs of thought and not something absolute
because otherwise we might get into a war about which is the real truth.
william
From w at david-bohm.net Mon Sep 18 11:01:47 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Tue Sep 19 11:54:46 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060918.012607.976.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <0ML25U-1GPF0n2wx6-0007dR@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Franis Engel
>I thought that depression is merely a lack
>of certain chemicals in the brain, the cause
>of which may vary.
Yes, he had a very bad blood circulation due to his heart condition. He
always looked very pale in his face as if he was about to collapse. I always
thought that his depression was caused by the chemistry in the brain as a
result of the poor blood circulation. It has never occurred to me that his
depression might have had psychological reasons, although he was very upset
about the Iraq war (the first one).
william
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 11:29:43 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 19 12:22:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <005401c6dad1$b17bd2e0$fb0a153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F35E9C8C3B0C33B0DF4108A82D0@phx.gbl>
Dear Donl, Actor&Pretender&Painter&Subscriber&....
I bet you
Perfectly 'well'
Know
Love & Lipstick, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>"B - depression is a loss/deficit of: courage" --??
>
>Where does this come from? What might this mean? -- dbl
_________________________________________________________________
Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live
Toolbar Today! http://get.live.com/toolbar/overview
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 11:36:08 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 19 12:29:16 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <0ML25U-1GPF0n2wx6-0007dR@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F36FA1968DF4DBE4BD569E7A82D0@phx.gbl>
Dear I-always-thought-William:
Better late than never ___
As the saying goes
And I know of an idiot-proof way
To ingrease the blood
Circulation to the brain, by the way ;-!
Love & Exercise, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>Yes, he had a very bad blood circulation due to his heart condition. He
>always looked very pale in his face as if he was about to collapse. I
>always
>thought that his depression was caused by the chemistry in the brain as a
>result of the poor blood circulation. It has never occurred to me that his
>depression might have had psychological reasons, although he was very upset
>about the Iraq war (the first one).
>
>william
_________________________________________________________________
Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo
ttp://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com/
From descf at aol.com Mon Sep 18 12:27:54 2006
From: descf at aol.com (DesCF)
Date: Tue Sep 19 13:20:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060918.012607.976.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
References: <20060918.012607.976.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <op.tf2ko1qjupgxg0@descstar>
I don't think there's any mystery about Bohm's depression. A brief glance
at a review of 'Infinite Potential' reveals all the necessary
constituents. It would be rather surprising if he didn't suffer from
depression.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:08:14 +0100, Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
wrote:
> I thought that depression is merely a lack of certain chemicals in the
> brain, the cause of which may vary.
> In my case, it was a screwed up thyroid. Once that was adressed, I've
> never been depressed since.
> For some reason, people are very quick to jump to conclusions that they
> know what the reason is. More often, their conclusions are too simplistic
> of an answer that is an unduly negative one. I've decided that being able
> to spot a potential problem is one of the survival reactions built into
> the species. So that's the reason people come up with the most
> simplistic, negative answer when faced with what they do not understand.
>
> Franis
>
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:22:34 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
>> "B - depression is a loss/deficit of: courage" --??
>>
>> Where does this come from? What might this mean? -- dbl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:17 AM
>>
>>
>> > Dear Zoe, I "have" "no" time right now, suffice to say:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A - yes, Bohm was bogged down by life-long depression. For details
>> please
>> > see David Peat's bio.
>> >
>> > B - depression is a loss/deficit of: courage
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 'Gotta' run (escape ;-?) !
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Love & Sneakers
>> >
>> >
>> > --------------------------
>> > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>From: Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>> >>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
>> >>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
>> >>
>> >>Kirsten - Bohm was suffering from depression? Suicidal? Can you
>> say more?
>> >>Interesting -- Zoe
>> >>
>> >>kirsten schneide <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Dear Zoe -
>> >>
>> >>No Thinkg 'wrong' with TAS !
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>... The fellow who 'came up' with this belief&system, Bohm,
>> >>
>> >>Was 'just' a(nother) clinically depressed person
>> >>
>> >>[To the point of being suicidal, matter-of-factly speaking]
>> >>
>> >>&
>> >>
>> >>One typically gets a lot more Bang out of
>> >>
>> >>Filling a few books & conference-rooms by talking about
>> >>
>> >>"Gott und die Welt"
>> >>
>> >>Rather than getting into one's own mess
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Love & Melon, Kirsten
>> >>--------------------------
>> >>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some
>> time, and I
>> >>read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out
>> what
>> >>should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does
>> anybody
>> >>here know? Appreciating - Zoe
>> >>
>> >>_________________________________________________________________
>> >>All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day
>> trial!
>> >>http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>info:
>> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>
>> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >>dialogue facilitator:
>> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >>Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >>admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>---------------------------------
>> >>Do you Yahoo!?
>> >> Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
>> >
>> >
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>info:
>> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>
>> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >>dialogue facilitator:
>> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >>Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >>admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
>> > http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 18 13:44:37 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 19 14:37:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <20060917.202117.3300.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060917.202117.3300.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <1016744B-94DF-439E-ACA8-4FF34CF4F6BF@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Another good question even if it is answering a question with a
question.
So I will attempt to give an answer.
It seems to me that in all these cases the observer is that internal
part of the somasignificant system that we call the person or the
individual. This is the one who feels the sensation, then with the
aid of innate reflexes along with memory and knowledge that is
stored muscularly along with whatever else might be contained in the
personal identity system, conceptualises them. Then, hopefully, some
intelligence or awareness fills out and adjusts the meaning which
changes the whole system, and on and on it goes.
This is probably what is meant by the sound-byte: "The observer is
the observed", but seen from the perspective of process and movement
rather than in the static sounding way that the phrase generally
gets used.
Any other approaches?
don
On 18 Sep 2006, at 01:21, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> "Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception?
>
> pat
>
> Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
> unanswered. You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing
> the thought. And that this thought is faulty.
>
> Who then is the observer here?
>
> don
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060918/c3970515/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 18 13:50:08 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 19 14:43:08 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <0MKwh2-1GPEry3zKx-0003lM@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
References: <0MKwh2-1GPEry3zKx-0003lM@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Message-ID: <B8344CCA-AAD4-4C0B-889A-5D52D599E39C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Interesting use of the word caption. But is this the truth?
don
On 18 Sep 2006, at 09:52, william wrote:
> Dorothy Stulberg:
>> truth is so temporary and context related and
>> relevant. It isn't a single truth. It is many
>> at one time. And many of the truths are
>> discordent. Even what "is" isn't always one
>> truth. Or am I just not getting it? d.
>
> I would say that the truth is a concept created by man (humankind). In
> Bohmian terminology it is a 'thought'. In my view, it is an example of
> relativity. The truth is a kind of relationship or alignment of one
> thing to
> another; one thing is true to another thing. If something is true
> then the
> implicit question is true to what? If you change the "what" then
> the truth
> (the concept) must follow otherwise it ceases to be true. So, yes I
> agree,
> many things can be true at the same time, and it is constantly
> changing.
> This is because reality or actuality as a whole is so complex that
> we can
> only capture some aspects of it. This means the truth is always a
> caption of
> some part of the whole. In this sense, there can be no such thing
> as an
> absolute truth.
>
> This raises an interesting question of what happens when the "what" is
> another truth. Since a truth is a concept of thought (a caption) it
> could
> itself be the subject of truth building. So, theoretically, we
> could make a
> truth that is true to another truth. We could build a complex
> structure of
> consistent truths; one truth based on another truth. But someone
> else, or
> some other culture, could also make a consistent structure of truths.
> However, since every truth is a caption of the whole, it is quite
> conceivable that different cultures build different structures of
> truth.
> This could create a situation where each structure of truth may be
> consistent within itself but are nevertheless incompatible with other
> structures of truths. At this point is relatively important to
> remember that
> these truths are self-made constructs of thought and not something
> absolute
> because otherwise we might get into a war about which is the real
> truth.
>
> william
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 14:21:21 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 19 15:14:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ________ "bodily" proprioception?
In-Reply-To: <20060917.202117.3300.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F36F81CCCF272D2065EE49BA82D0@phx.gbl>
Dear Dropper
You don't stop
To blow my
Mind how many
Decades now
Have you stuck
Your nose/head in to
Books
..... ever come across
that thinkg (called):
the unconscious (observer)?
O boy!
Love & Cinnamon, Kirsten
>"Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception?
>
>pat
>
>Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
>unanswered. You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the
>thought. And that this thought is faulty.
>
>
>Who then is the observer here?
>
>
>don
>
>
>On 17 Sep 2006, at 22:38, Don Lay wrote:
>
>
>
>Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about truth!
>
>Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the true
>from the false.
>
>Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly,
>reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is faulty.
>Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system as elements of
>the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells us we are a THINGK
>that we are not. Later, when tas is used to differentiate what is and
>what is not, tas clearly tells us that tas was faulty -- doesn't it?
>
> Don L
>
>ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's
>analysis of existence. -- dbl
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
>
>
>"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
>It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
>and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
>by the fact that the complex face of truth
>is the false face of truth. It is falsity
>passing for truth.
>
>One question might be: how to know
>the difference. And one of the answers to this
>can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
>which is not enigmatic at all (except to
>thought, or, except in attempts to
>speak about truth). The
>differences between truth and
>the false faces of truth are many. But
>the "many" that occur, occur only in the
>vast number of different 'false faces' that
>exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
>own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
>it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
>
>Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
>point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
>folding meet. It is the interface between the
>two which are not two. Truth makes itself
>known in every movement, in every action
>and in the disappearance of every
>movement and action.
>
>There is no "place" where truth is not.
>But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
>The system of thought is porous to truth,
>yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
>parts of the system, certain assumptions.
>And they don't so much get "clogged"
>as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
>a distracting activity stirred up by
>the seeming truth of the assumption.
>
>An assumption vying for weight is not
>truth. It is not even a part of truth.
>It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
>meaningless. It has departed
>from any wholeness within itself
>by the ruckus it attempts to make,
>by its flurry. Truth is very very
>quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
>demand nothing. What more could "what
>is" possibly need, than itself?
>
>pat
>
>*indebted to don lay for rendering the
>term "exist" so useful.
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 14:34:06 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Tue Sep 19 15:27:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ________ "bodily" proprioception?
In-Reply-To: <20060917.202117.3300.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F254212BC3D2C0A314D895EA82D0@phx.gbl>
Dear Dropper
You don't stop
To blow my
Mind how many
Decades now
Have you stuck
Your nose/head in to
Books
..... ever come across
that thinkg (called):
the unconscious (observer)?
O boy!
Love & Cinnamon, Kirsten
>"Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception?
>
>pat
>
>Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
>unanswered. You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the
>thought. And that this thought is faulty.
>
>
>Who then is the observer here?
>
>
>don
>
>
>On 17 Sep 2006, at 22:38, Don Lay wrote:
>
>
>
>Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about truth!
>
>Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the true
>from the false.
>
>Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly,
>reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is faulty.
>Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system as elements of
>the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells us we are a THINGK
>that we are not. Later, when tas is used to differentiate what is and
>what is not, tas clearly tells us that tas was faulty -- doesn't it?
>
> Don L
>
>ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's
>analysis of existence. -- dbl
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
>
>
>"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
>It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
>and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
>by the fact that the complex face of truth
>is the false face of truth. It is falsity
>passing for truth.
>
>One question might be: how to know
>the difference. And one of the answers to this
>can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
>which is not enigmatic at all (except to
>thought, or, except in attempts to
>speak about truth). The
>differences between truth and
>the false faces of truth are many. But
>the "many" that occur, occur only in the
>vast number of different 'false faces' that
>exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
>own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
>it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
>
>Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
>point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
>folding meet. It is the interface between the
>two which are not two. Truth makes itself
>known in every movement, in every action
>and in the disappearance of every
>movement and action.
>
>There is no "place" where truth is not.
>But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
>The system of thought is porous to truth,
>yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
>parts of the system, certain assumptions.
>And they don't so much get "clogged"
>as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
>a distracting activity stirred up by
>the seeming truth of the assumption.
>
>An assumption vying for weight is not
>truth. It is not even a part of truth.
>It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
>meaningless. It has departed
>from any wholeness within itself
>by the ruckus it attempts to make,
>by its flurry. Truth is very very
>quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
>demand nothing. What more could "what
>is" possibly need, than itself?
>
>pat
>
>*indebted to don lay for rendering the
>term "exist" so useful.
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 18 14:36:06 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 19 15:29:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <004f01c6dad1$5e511530$fb0a153f@DL01>
References: <20060916.115611.2248.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<DEC66EC8-E3C2-434C-BBC3-784A47FAACBB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<004f01c6dad1$5e511530$fb0a153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <58C76D40-2C8A-4C74-8955-B60E80B3748F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 18 Sep 2006, at 04:20, Don Lay wrote:
> If this "me" you speak of is only imaginary, as suggested by Bohm,
> what could be the possible meaning of truth for this image? -- dbl
That's a pretty big if
don
From zoechuzero at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 14:47:27 2006
From: zoechuzero at yahoo.com (Zoe Chu)
Date: Tue Sep 19 15:40:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
In-Reply-To: <20060918.012607.976.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20060918124727.47051.qmail@web55008.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Hi list, you might find that of interest
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=true&print=yes
Rethinking the Fall of Easter Island
New evidence points to an alternative explanation for a civilization's
collapse
Zoe
Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com> wrote:
I thought that depression is merely a lack of certain chemicals in the
brain, the cause of which may vary.
In my case, it was a screwed up thyroid. Once that was adressed, I've
never been depressed since.
For some reason, people are very quick to jump to conclusions that they
know what the reason is. More often, their conclusions are too simplistic
of an answer that is an unduly negative one. I've decided that being able
to spot a potential problem is one of the survival reactions built into
the species. So that's the reason people come up with the most
simplistic, negative answer when faced with what they do not understand.
Franis
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:22:34 -0400 "Don Lay" writes:
> "B - depression is a loss/deficit of: courage" --??
>
> Where does this come from? What might this mean? -- dbl
>
>
>
>
> From: "kirsten schneide"
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:17 AM
>
>
> > Dear Zoe, I "have" "no" time right now, suffice to say:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A - yes, Bohm was bogged down by life-long depression. For details
> please
> > see David Peat's bio.
> >
> > B - depression is a loss/deficit of: courage
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 'Gotta' run (escape ;-?) !
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Love & Sneakers
> >
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: Zoe Chu
> >>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problems
> >>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
> >>
> >>Kirsten - Bohm was suffering from depression? Suicidal? Can you
> say more?
> >>Interesting -- Zoe
> >>
> >>kirsten schneide wrote:
> >>
> >>Dear Zoe -
> >>
> >>No Thinkg 'wrong' with TAS !
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>... The fellow who 'came up' with this belief&system, Bohm,
> >>
> >>Was 'just' a(nother) clinically depressed person
> >>
> >>[To the point of being suicidal, matter-of-factly speaking]
> >>
> >>&
> >>
> >>One typically gets a lot more Bang out of
> >>
> >>Filling a few books & conference-rooms by talking about
> >>
> >>"Gott und die Welt"
> >>
> >>Rather than getting into one's own mess
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Love & Melon, Kirsten
> >>--------------------------
> >>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi Bohm-List - I have been watching your postings now for some
> time, and I
> >>read some Bohm. Yet I really have a hard time trying to figure out
> what
> >>should be wrong with TAS, as you call it. What's the problem? Does
> anybody
> >>here know? Appreciating - Zoe
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day
> trial!
> >>http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>info:
> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>
> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>dialogue facilitator:
> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>Administrator of the mailing list:
> >>admin@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------
> >>Do you Yahoo!?
> >> Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
> >
> >
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>info:
> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>
> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>dialogue facilitator:
> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>Administrator of the mailing list:
> >>admin@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
> > http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060918/06cd2b9b/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 18 14:47:50 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 19 15:40:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
References: <BAY123-F2032843118B414ADCF0A25B72D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <002601c6db20$ace80100$981d153f@DL01>
observer and observed are one -- Regina
This seems entirely coherent to me. Seems to me it fits that line of
thinking beginning with Parmenides, Heraclitus which does not presuppose the
SOS split. --Don L
Regina
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Regina Bensch-Coe" <benschcoe@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
> "Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception? (pat)
>
>
> observation: the ability to notice things, esp. significant details
>
> proprioception is observation, awareness - observer and observed are one
>
>
> Regina
>
>
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
>>Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:21:17 -0400
>>
>>"Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception?
>>
>>pat
>>
>>Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
>>unanswered. You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the
>>thought. And that this thought is faulty.
>>
>>
>>Who then is the observer here?
>>
>>
>>don
>>
>>
>>On 17 Sep 2006, at 22:38, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Pat, what a beautiful way to begin looking at truth, talking about truth!
>>
>>Maybe the greatest importance, as suggested, is differentiating the true
>>from the false.
>>
>>Why? Because, according to a great thinker, thought constantly,
>>reflexively "tells us" something, and often what it tells us is faulty.
>>Example, tas says we are in there (in the thought system as elements of
>>the system) doing the thought. Sometimes, tas tells us we are a THINGK
>>that we are not. Later, when tas is used to differentiate what is and
>>what is not, tas clearly tells us that tas was faulty -- doesn't it?
>>
>> Don L
>>
>>ps: thanks for the credit, but I must credit philosopher Tillich's
>>analysis of existence. -- dbl
>>
>>
>>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:11 AM
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
>>
>>
>>"Truth" is a very interesting subject.
>>It is at once, utterly simple (it is 'what is'),
>>and impossibly complex. But we are rescued
>>by the fact that the complex face of truth
>>is the false face of truth. It is falsity
>>passing for truth.
>>
>>One question might be: how to know
>>the difference. And one of the answers to this
>>can be as seemingly enigmatic at truth itself -
>>which is not enigmatic at all (except to
>>thought, or, except in attempts to
>>speak about truth). The
>>differences between truth and
>>the false faces of truth are many. But
>>the "many" that occur, occur only in the
>>vast number of different 'false faces' that
>>exist*. Truth itself, while being different in its
>>own way, every 'time' is always the same in that
>>it never ventures away from being 'what is'.
>>
>>Truth is the guiding moment of life. It is the
>>point where the ever moving unfolding and en-
>>folding meet. It is the interface between the
>>two which are not two. Truth makes itself
>>known in every movement, in every action
>>and in the disappearance of every
>>movement and action.
>>
>>There is no "place" where truth is not.
>>But truth goes unrecognized 'all of the time.'
>>The system of thought is porous to truth,
>>yet the "pores" get clogged by certain
>>parts of the system, certain assumptions.
>>And they don't so much get "clogged"
>>as veiled by a kind of frantic energy,
>>a distracting activity stirred up by
>>the seeming truth of the assumption.
>>
>>An assumption vying for weight is not
>>truth. It is not even a part of truth.
>>It is a fragment. It, in itself, is
>>meaningless. It has departed
>>from any wholeness within itself
>>by the ruckus it attempts to make,
>>by its flurry. Truth is very very
>>quiet. It demands nothing. It needs
>>demand nothing. What more could "what
>>is" possibly need, than itself?
>>
>>pat
>>
>>*indebted to don lay for rendering the
>>term "exist" so useful.
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 18 14:56:56 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 19 15:49:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
References: <20060918.012607.976.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <003701c6db21$ef084c60$981d153f@DL01>
A 'lot of this' makes a 'lot of sense to me'. -- Don L
From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 4:26 AM
> Yes, Lynne - that's proprioception of thought. That's understanding how
> your thinking processes work, rather than being pulled into the content
> of what you are thinking that TAS encourages you to stay trapped in.
>
> Essentially, now that you're telling it, the story is just a story. I
> don't see how this had changed your identity.
> But, as you use the new insight, things may change quite a bit. You now
> have a new tool to continue to be attentive with. You know now when it
> tends to happen: when you have a positive experience and describe it,
> immediately the opposite negative objections come rushing in. Now that
> you know you can do such a needless thing, you can find it yourself,
> "catching yourself" in the act. The key is to not punish yourself when
> you discover yourself doing it again. The challenge is to become aware
> that you are doing it sooner and sooner in the process.
>
> It's been my experience that the awareness of the reflex arrives
> gradually as you practice it on your own. One day, one moment, you get to
> become aware just before you were going to go into the reflex. This is
> very important moment.
> It's at that moment that you'll find the motive for the reflex to go off.
> Once you know that motive, then you forgive yourself for all that
> understandable reacting, and you can choose another possible response.
> Then - you're completely free of it!
>
> It may not work this way for you, but for me the motive was completely
> hidden. So this is the process I had to take to find the origin of why I
> did that mysterious, stupid reaction that I wanted to get rid of, but
> that would go off when I wasn't noticing.
> Franis
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:57:05 -0600 Lynne Tolk
> <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
>> I don?t know if this is useful here. I had an experience which
>> seemed to me
>> to illustrate at least what I have understood of what I have read of
>> Bohm in
>> this regard. I am taking a class (by phone) with a man who is well
>> trained
>> in NLP and Aikido (Charlie Badenhop). The class is called Embodied
>> Presence. In the session, we became very present and aware of the
>> body?s
>> movements and sensations, then were asked to speak of our experience
>> in that
>> moment. The word that came up for me was ?adequate.? My mind
>> immediately
>> went to recent feelings of ?inadequate? with regard to my trying to
>> take
>> care of grandchildren and aging parents. Charlie pointed out the
>> change in
>> my breathing and speech patterns, and how I jumped from a positive
>> experience to a ?story? of the opposite. In retrospect, I saw this
>> as what
>> Bohm termed the reflex triggered by thought (adequate/inadequate).
>> With
>> enough awareness to catch the reflex as it occurred, I could have
>> chosen to
>> just look at that impulse (to go to the story) (suspension), and
>> maybe
>> chosen to stay with the first, immediate experience (freedom?)
>>
>> This may be obvious, but to me, having the experience and then
>> seeing the
>> theories reflected there was really powerful. I can see the value
>> of
>> dialogue to help to catch these reflexes & impulses. (Not so sure
>> it can
>> work with words on a screen, which tend to be more purely cognitive
>> and
>> verbal.)
>>
>> Anyway, wouldn?t this awareness of the reflex (if it could come at
>> the time
>> of the reflex) be something of what Bohm meant by proprioception of
>> thought?
>> As for who is observing, wouldn?t the observer, who is aware in the
>> present,
>> be somewhat different from that ?me? who is remembered in the story?
>>
>> Lynne
>>
>> On 9/17/06 6:21 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "Who" is the observer where there is "bodily" proprioception?
>> >
>> > pat
>> >
>> > Don, I will ask you the same question that I asked Pat. It remains
>> unanswered.
>> > You say that TAS tells us that we are in there doing the thought.
>> And that
>> > this thought is faulty.
>> >
>> > Who then is the observer here?
>> >
>> > don
From donlay at gte.net Mon Sep 18 15:52:54 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Sep 19 16:46:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060916.115611.2248.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<DEC66EC8-E3C2-434C-BBC3-784A47FAACBB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<004f01c6dad1$5e511530$fb0a153f@DL01>
<58C76D40-2C8A-4C74-8955-B60E80B3748F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000f01c6db29$c38e1ad0$077c153f@DL01>
> That's a pretty big if -- don F
Yes. Don, when "I" look at "me", become aware of "me" -- who else in the
whole of Being has that awareness? Who else knows what my "me" is? How
could they possibly know?
Does this not say that my "me" is only my image? Is your image of me -
"me"?
I have an image of you. Is that "you", identical with your image of your
"me"? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
> On 18 Sep 2006, at 04:20, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> If this "me" you speak of is only imaginary, as suggested by Bohm, what
>> could be the possible meaning of truth for this image? -- dbl
>
> That's a pretty big if
>
> 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 donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 18 16:04:24 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 19 16:57:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <004f01c6dad1$5e511530$fb0a153f@DL01>
References: <20060916.115611.2248.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<DEC66EC8-E3C2-434C-BBC3-784A47FAACBB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<004f01c6dad1$5e511530$fb0a153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BCCB891E-4427-4840-9DED-4CE9D8A16A90@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 18 Sep 2006, at 04:20, Don Lay wrote:
> What is the truth for me? -- don F
>
> What is this "me" that you speak of? Is it only imaginary? Does
> anyone other than you know what it is? If this "me" you speak of
> is only imaginary, as suggested by Bohm, what could be the possible
> meaning of truth for this image? -- dbl
>
By asking this are you suggesting that there is no "me"? That whoever
or whatever dbl is can only be thought of as imaginary? And if
something like this is the case, then who or what is it who is doing
the imagining?
Some aides:
There is a self, but what it is, is not what we think it is.
David Bohm, personal conversation 1992
"One must say that there is a self - an individual self - but it's
not the whole thing, and it has to be seen properly within its
limits, although it may be far greater than we know. But still, it
must be limited. Our real self is nothing but 'I am'. It could always
unfold, and it has limited potential, but in some way this is still
not the total, perhaps enfolded in the whole."
"The individual self may enfold the whole. But it's like a hologram,
which enfolds the whole but in an incomplete way. So still, the
danger is to identify this with the total 'I am' - the total meaning
of the word 'I am'."
Both: David Bohm. From a collection of quotes that I saved but,
unfortunately without the sources
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060918/33a7feea/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Sep 18 17:58:09 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Sep 19 18:51:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
In-Reply-To: <C1337531.71E0%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <20060918155809.13530.qmail@web52908.mail.yahoo.com>
Lynne,
You are speaking my language! Proprioception of thought as you are describing it is what I have interpreted to be one of the points of dialogue and what Bohm meant by it.
I think that with practice it is possible to do this with words on a screen.
Thanks for sharing that!
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 8:57:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth
I don?t know if this is useful here. I had an experience which seemed to me to illustrate at least what I have understood of what I have read of Bohm in this regard. I am taking a class (by phone) with a man who is well trained in NLP and Aikido (Charlie Badenhop). The class is called Embodied Presence. In the session, we became very present and aware of the body?s movements and sensations, then were asked to speak of our experience in that moment. The word that came up for me was ?adequate.? My mind immediately went to recent feelings of ?inadequate? with regard to my trying to take care of grandchildren and aging parents. Charlie pointed out the change in my breathing and speech patterns, and how I jumped from a positive experience to a ?story? of the opposite. In retrospect, I saw this as what Bohm termed the reflex triggered by thought (adequate/inadequate). With enough awareness to catch the reflex as it occurred, I could have chosen to just
look at that impulse (to go to the story) (suspension), and maybe chosen to stay with the first, immediate experience (freedom?)
This may be obvious, but to me, having the experience and then seeing the theories reflected there was really powerful. I can see the value of dialogue to help to catch these reflexes & impulses. (Not so sure it can work with words on a screen, which tend to be more purely cognitive and verbal.)
Anyway, wouldn?t this awareness of the reflex (if it could come at the time of the reflex) be something of what Bohm meant by proprioception of thought? As for who is observing, wouldn?t the observer, who is aware in the present, be somewhat different from that ?me? who is remembered in the story?
Lynne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060918/b1824bcc/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Sep 18 18:08:27 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Sep 19 19:02:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <BCCB891E-4427-4840-9DED-4CE9D8A16A90@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <20060916.115611.2248.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<DEC66EC8-E3C2-434C-BBC3-784A47FAACBB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<004f01c6dad1$5e511530$fb0a153f@DL01>
<BCCB891E-4427-4840-9DED-4CE9D8A16A90@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <3F81C8F3-0375-43E4-A7DF-8173F2BF0C92@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Here by the way, is a valuable take on the whole subject of
awareness, personal identity,"the observer and the observed" and the
'self' by Arthur Deikman
don.
DEIKMAN on AWARENESS and persona idem
Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3 (4), pp. 350-6.
Arthur J. Deikman, 1 Department of Psychiatry, University of California,
Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, 401 Parnassus Avenue, San
Francisco,
CA 94143, USA. Email: deikman@att.net
Abstract: Introspection reveals that the core of subjectivity -
the 'I' - is identical to awareness. This 'I' should be
differentiated from the various aspects of the physical person and
its mental contents which form the `self. Most discussions of
consciousness confuse the 'I' and the 'self'. In fact, our experience
is fundamentally dualistic - not the dualism of mind and matter -
but that of the 'I' and that which is observed. The identity of
awareness and the 'I' means that we know awareness by being it, thus
solving the problem of the infinite regress of observers. It follows
that whatever our ontology of awareness may be, it must also be the
same for ' I'.
We seem to have numerous 'I's. There is the I of `I want', the I
of `I wrote a letter', the I of `I am a psychiatrist' or 'I am
thinking'. But there is another I that is basic, that underlies
desires, activities and physical characteristics. This I is the
subjective sense of our existence. It is different from self-image,
the body, passions, fears, social category these are aspects of our
person that we usually refer to when we speak of the self, but they
do not refer to the core of our conscious being, they are not the
origin of our sense of personal existence.
Experiment 1: Stop for a moment and look inside. Try and sense the
very origin of your most basic, most personal `I', your core
subjective experience. What is that root of the 'I' feeling? Try to
findit.
When you introspect you will find that no matter what the
contents of your mind, the most basic `I' is something different.
Every time you try to observe the `I' it takes a jump back with you,
remaining out of sight. At first you may say, `When I look inside as
you suggest, all I find is content of one sort or the other.' I
reply, `Who is looking? Is it not you? If that 'I' is a content can
you describe it? Can you observe it?' The core `I' of subjectivity is
different from any content because it turns out to be that which
witnesses - not that which is observed. The 'I' can be experienced,
but it cannot be `seen'. `I' is the observer, the experiencer, prior
to all conscious content.
In contemporary psychology and philosophy, the 'I' usually is not
differentiated from the physical person and its mental contents. The
self is seen as a construct and the crucial duality is overlooked. As
Susan Blackmore puts it,
Our sense of self came about through the body image we must construct
in order to control behaviour, the vantage point given by our senses
and our knowledge of our own abilities - that is the abilities of
the body-brain-mind. Then along came language. Language turns the
self into a thing and gives it attributes and powers. (Blackmore, 1994)
Dennett comments similarly that what he calls the `Center of
Narrative Gravity' gives us a spurious sense of a unitary self.
A self, according to my theory, is not any old mathematical point,
but an abstraction defined by the myriads of attributions and
interpretations (including self-attributions and self-
interpretations) that have composed the biography of the living body
whose Center of Narrative Gravity it is (Dennett, 1991).
However, when we use introspection to search for the origin of
our subjectivity, we find that the search for 'I' leaves the
customary aspects of personhood behind and takes us closer and closer
to awareness, per se. If this process of introspective observation is
carried to its conclusion, even the background sense of core
subjective self disappears into awareness. Thus, if we proceed
phenomenologically, we find that the 'I' is identical to awareness:
'I' = awareness.
Awareness
Awareness is something apart from, and different from, all that
of which we are aware: thoughts, emotions, images, sensations,
desires and memory. Awareness is the ground in which the mind's
contents manifest themselves; they appear in it and disappear once
again.
I use the word 'awareness' to mean this ground of all experience.
Any attempt to describe it ends in a description of what we are aware
of. On this basis some argue that awareness per se doesn't exist. But
careful introspection reveals that the objects of awareness -
sensations, thoughts, memories, images and emotions - are constantly
changing and superseding each other. In contrast, awareness continues
independent of any specific mental contents.
Experiment 2: Look straight ahead. Now shut your eyes. The rich
visual world has disappeared to be replaced by an amorphous field of
blackness, perhaps with red and yellow tinges. But awareness hasn't
changed. You will notice that awareness continues as your thoughts
come and go, as memories arise and replace each other, as desires
emerge and fantasies develop, change and vanish. Now try and observe
awareness. You cannot. Awareness cannot be made an object of
observation because it is the very means whereby you can observe.
Awareness may vary in intensity as our total state changes, but
it is usually a constant. Awareness cannot itself be observed, it is
not an object, not a thing. Indeed, it is featureless, lacking form,
texture, colour, spatial dimensions. These characteristics indicate
that awareness is of a different nature than the contents of the
mind; it goes beyond sensation, emotions, ideation, memory. Awareness
is at a different level, it is prior to contents, more fundamental.
Awareness has no intrinsic content, no form, no surface
characteristics - it is unlike everything else we experience, unlike
objects, sensations, emotions, thoughts, or memories.
Thus, experience is dualistic, not the dualism of mind and matter
but the dualism of awareness and the contents of awareness. To put it
another way, experience consists of the observer and the observed.
Our sensations, our images, our thoughts - the mental activity by
which we engage and define the physical world - are all part of the
observed. In contrast, the observer - the 'I' - is prior to
everything else; without it there is no experience of existence. If
awareness did not exist in its own right there would be no 'I'. There
would be 'me', my personhood, my social and emotional identity - but
no 'I', no transparent centre of being.
Confusion of Awareness and Contents
In the very centre of the finite world is the ?I?. It doesn't
belong in that world, it is radically different. In saying this, I am
not suggesting a solipsistic ontology. The physical world exists for
someone else even when I am sleeping. But any ontology that relegates
awareness to a secondary or even an emergent status ignores the basic
duality of experience. Currently, there are many voices denying the
dualistic ontology of awareness and contents. For example, Searle
attacks mind_body dualism, regarding consciousness (awareness) as an
emergent property of material reality. He likens it to liquidity, a
property that emerges from the behaviour of water molecules composed
of hydrogen and oxygen - atoms that do not themselves exhibit
liquidity. `Consciousness is not a ?stuff,? it is a feature or
property of the brain in the sense, for example, that liquidity is a
feature of water' (Searle, 1992) 2 But liquidity, understandable as
it may be from considerations of molecular attraction, is part of the
observed world, similar to it from that ontological perspective. To
state that the subjective 'emerges' from the objective is quite a
different proposition, about which the physical sciences have nothing
to say.
Colin McGinn also insists that there is no duality of mind and
matter -all can ultimately be explained in physical terms -but he
asserts that the critical process by which a transition occurs from
one to the other will never be understood because of our limited
intellectual capacity (McGinn, 1991). McGinn believes that the
observer/observed duality is apparent rather than real; there is a
physical transition from the observed to the observer. But the
ontological gap between a thought and a neuron is less than that
between the observer and the observed; there is nothing to be
compared to the `I', while thoughts and neurons are linked by their
being objects of observation, contents of `1', sharing some
characteristics such as time and locality. 3 Granted that a blow on
my head may banish `I', its relationship to the observed is
fundamentally different from anything else we can consider. The best
that can be said for the materialist interpretation is that the brain
is a necessary condition for 'I'.
Confusion about `I'
One can read numerous psychology texts and not find any that
treat awareness as a phenomenon in its own right, something distinct
from the contents of consciousness. Nor do their authors recognize
the identity of 'I' and awareness. To the contrary, the phenomenon of
awareness is usually confused with one type of content or another.
William James made this mistake in his classic, Principles of
Psychology. When he introspects on the core `self of all other
selves' he ends up equating the core self with `a feeling of bodily
activities . . .' concluding that our experience of the `I', the
subjective self, is really our experience of the body:
. . . the body, and the central adjustments which accompany the act
of thinking in the head. These are the real nucleus of our personal
identity, and it is their actual existence, realized as a solid,
present fact, which makes us say `as sure as I exist' (James, 1950).
To the contrary, I would say that I am sure I exist because my
core `I' is awareness itself, my ground of being. It is that
awareness that is the `self of all other selves'. Bodily feelings are
observed: `I' is the observer, not the observed.
Beginning with behavioural psychology and continuing through our
preoccupation with artificial intelligence, parallel distributed
processing, and neural networks, the topic of awareness per se has
received relatively little attention. When the topic does come up,
consciousness in the sense of pure awareness is invariably confused
with one type of content or the other.
A few contemporary psychiatrists such as Gordon Globus (1980)
have been more ready to recognize the special character of the self
of awareness, the observing self, but almost all end up mixing
awareness with contents. For example, Heinz Kohut developed his Self
Psychology based on considering the self to be a superordinate
concept, not just a function of the ego. Yet he does not notice that
awareness is the primary source of self-experience and concludes:
`The self then, quite analogous to the representations of objects, is
a content of the mental apparatus' (Kohut, 1971).
We see the same problem arising in philosophy. After Husserl,
nearly all modern Western philosophical approaches to the nature of
mind and its relation to the body fail to recognize that
introspection reveals 'I' to be identical to awareness. 4
Furthermore, most philosophers do not recognize awareness as existing
in its own right, different from contents. Owen Flanagan, a
philosopher who has written extensively on consciousness, sides with
James and speaks of 'the illusion of the mind's 'I'' (Flanagan,
1992). C.O. Evans starts out recognizing the importance of the
distinction between the observer and the observed, `the subjective
self', but then retreats to the position that awareness is
'unprojected consciousness', the amorphous experience of background
content (Evans, 1970). However, the background is composed of
elements to which we can shift attention. It is what Freud called the
preconscious. `I' awareness has no elements, no features. It is not a
matter of a searchlight illuminating one element while the rest is
dark - it has to do with the nature of light itself.
In contrast, certain Eastern philosophies based on introspective
meditation emphasize the distinction between awareness and contents.
5 Thus, Hindu Samkhya philosophy differentiates purusa, the witness
self, from everything else, from all the experience constituting the
world, whether they be thoughts, images, sensations, emotions or
dreams. A classic expression of this view is given by Pantanjali:
Of the one who has the pure discernment between sattva (the most
subtle aspect of the world of emergence) and purusa (the non-emergent
pure seer) there is sovereignty over all and knowledge of all.
(Chapple, 1990.)
Awareness is considered to exist independent of contents and this
`pure consciousness' is accessible - potentially -to every one. A
more contemporary statement of this position is given by Sri Krishna
Menon, a twentieth century Yogi:
He who says that consciousness is never experienced without its
object speaks from a superficial level. If he is asked the question
`Are you a conscious being?', he will spontaneously give the answer
`Yes'. This answer springs from the deepmost level. Here he doesn't
even silently refer to anything as the object of that consc