From tangykatt at earthlink.net Thu Oct 19 01:46:03 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Fri Oct 20 02:45:26 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - logos as button pushing
In-Reply-To: <6F6F001F-7289-4FB4-9A39-865A590A3A03@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C15C34FB.396C%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Please send my regards to Don Factor, he was in my dreams just last night!
The above from David Cook. Unfortunately, he is too busy now. Would like
to be kept in mind for whenever it gets easier here in NYC. k
On 10/18/06 5:02 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> You might want to try and get hold of David Cook. I think he still lives in
> New York. He was a member of this list and designed a "dialogue center" (as
> yet unbuilt).He is in the process of changing professions at the moment but he
> may know of some places and some people who could be of helpl?
>
> His e-mail is: kdavidcook@yahoo.com
>
> don
>
> On 18 Oct 2006, at 01:11, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
>
>> Pat ? thanks so much for sharing your experiences with me. ?I?m making a
>> list of places to invite to join the group. ?We can meet at Riverside Church,
>> but I don?t yet know what financial arrangements might be required. ?Other
>> places of interest, St. John the Divine, Unitarian Universalist, and I?m
>> going to check out local science organizations, and universities. ?Columbia
>> must have something, but I haven?t been able to find the information on the
>> website.
>>
>> This group?s encouragement, including Don F?s, really inspires me to forge
>> ahead. ??k
>>
>>
>> On 10/17/06 11:35 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am sitting here STUNNED with thrills that
>>> you are going to start a dialogue group in NYC.
>>> ?
>>> The first dialogue group I started was 11 years ago.
>>> It was a weekly group. We finally settled in a church
>>> which allowed us to "pass the hat." A secure meeting PLACE
>>> is the biggest [organizing] challenge. I [personally] posted flyers
>>> [5000 of them in a 3 year period - which was necessary in order to
>>> keep new people coming - in order to have sufficient numbers].
>>> ?
>>> I've been attending a monthly dialogue group for 10 years
>>> which receives sponsorship of a college. (The physicist who
>>> started this group had worked with Bohm on his dream of
>>> 'scientists engaging in dialogue'). This secures a meeting
>>> place.
>>> ?
>>> pat
>>> ?
>>> ?
>>> ?
>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:57:57 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi
>>> <tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely!
>>>>
>>>> I?m starting a dialog group in NYC, ?and I?m new at this. ?There used to
>>>> be one, and the co-coordinator ?crossed over. ?Particularly FIONS and
>>>> Riverside Church want this, but I?m ?the only one who will do the footwork
>>>> to get it going. ?Is there anyone ?here you could refer me to for support?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On ?10/17/06 6:58 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com"
>>>> ?<Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rodger__I think ideas of an ideal state, and ?collective freedom, are
>>>> usually a product of the polluted state; projections ?of greener-grass,
>>>> learned.
>>>> Or sometimes a vision of a future comes as an ?inspiration or revelation
>>>> -- and that of course, takes us into prophesy/ ?intuition.
>>>>
>>>> But increasing ?awareness about our behavior/thought process, re: the
>>>> hot-points behind our ?pain/ pleasure, and why we contribute toward
>>>> painful/ pleasurable ?experiences in others__that growing awareness can be
>>>> increasing our ?-grounding- in the here and now._R
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 ?08:42:10 -0400
>>>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi ?<tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Kirsten - ?logos as button pushing
>>>> To: ?<bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>> .
>>>> So the inference seems to be ?that we must work through all these polluted
>>>> thought forms wherever they ?are, in order to reach the ideal state
>>>> collective freedom.
>>>> Thoughts? ???k
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>>
>>>> post ?to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue ?facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the ?mailing ?list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/5c7b0b2a/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Thu Oct 19 10:11:55 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Fri Oct 20 11:15:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061019.011158.2616.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
What do you think of the questions on this page about how to determine
truth for yourself?
http://www.learningmethods.com/question.htm
I really like the idea that we have a built-in value-meter, and the way
the guy outlines some of the points of how evaluating can be done by
yourself.
Franis
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:39:25 -0400 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> The difference between the "We-ness" & the
> "They-ness" here is critical. Of course if I recognize
> that it is I that is confused, I am already a little bit 'not
> confused'.
> And this recognition happens when it happens. Bohm's stuff had
> seemed to
> be packed with material to facilitate such recognitions, but, alas,
> ...
> beauty in eye of beholder.
>
> But then seeing it is not I at all that is confused, but thought
> that is
> confused,
> well, that comes as really good news!
>
> pat
>
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:39:04 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
> writes:
> If we accept the idea that we are lost in language meanings, that
> homo-sap is in a confused state/mode, then it might seem reasonable
> to
> think it is man's responsibility to keep in mind that which is,
> truth. K
> and B ask, Where did civilization take a wrong turn.
>
> If civilization made a wrong turn, if civilization missed the mark,
> it
> seems reasonable to rectify so the mark can be hit, made. I recon
> that's
> what most religions are about, aren't they? -- dbl
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
>
>
> If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts, then
> where is personal responsibility? I raised that question directly in
> a
> conversation with him. We were walking at night and he stopped cold.
> He
> was silent for while. Then he came up with an answer that satisfied
> me.
> That was maybe fifteen years ago. The trouble is that I can't
> remember
> the answer. Can you? Or anybody?
>
>
> don
>
>
> On 17 Oct 2006, at 20:53, Don Lay wrote:
>
>
> d: separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
>
> don F: Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language
> might
> tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a
> mistake it
> is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run
> over
> and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
>
> dbl: We say we are separated from each other, but as Don F
> indicates,
> we are never separated from the whole that we are part of. We say
> that
> in time, yesterday is separated from tomorrow, and today, etc. Then
> we
> may say that ultimately we are not separated from each other and
> ultimately it has little meaning to say the past is separated from
> the
> future, etc.
> Maybe we say it has little meaning that we are separated from other
> homo-saps, from trees and stones, etc: so what! If I should get
> knocked
> off by a bus, there might be at least a billion Chinese that would
> never
> know; might be far more than that, world wide. How many people die
> daily
> that we know nothing of?
>
> The imaginary scenario of getting knocked off by a bus may make us
> want
> to be careful so that we don't get knocked off, but it is not proof
> of
> actual separation -- is it? Is it possible that separation refers
> only
> to imaginary being but not to that which is? After all, being
> careful is
> reasonable as in that Reason that is said to derive from the logos.
> Maybe it is the actuality of the logos which determines whether or
> not we
> are careful, whether or not we get knocked off by a bus.
>
> Very often while driving, the idea of being careful so as to not
> have an
> accident repeats. Is that me repeating that, causing that
> repetition
> which keeps in mind the importance of being careful? I certainly
> understand the logic of saying it's me, but since it is a use of
> reason
> and that word derives from the Greek logos, is it not more
> meaningful to
> say that ultimately, the logos is the cause?
>
> I've been working on this for a long time. I will appreciate feed
> back.
> Don L
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Oct 2006, at 18:22, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
>
>
> Could the sense of separation be more than language and culture but
> that
> there is a normal (real-real) separation--and that some times we
> need to
> take responsibility for our acts made separately by us/ i.e. i made
> a
> huge mistake today, feeling really bad about it, not anyone else was
> responsible. That is more than a "sense" of separation.
> Believe me, I understand that my acts affect others so in that sense
> we
> are not separate but, here I go again, thanking separateness is a
> part of
> the whole. Make any sense? d.
>
>
>
>
>
> Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might
> tell us
> or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is
> my
> mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over
> and, so
> far as I know, that is the end of me.
>
>
>
> However, there is another perspective from which I can see that I am
> an
> inseparable part of the whole. From this perspective there is no
> such
> thing as a separate individual human being. To be human is to be
> part the
> whole of humanity. Everything I know or think or or feel or believe
> comes
> from this whole which in turn is an inseparable part of its world.
> There
> is no such thing in nature as an isolated system.
>
>
> So how do we accommodate both of these perspectives? That is the
> interesting question for me/
>
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
From franis_franis at juno.com Thu Oct 19 10:34:50 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Fri Oct 20 11:38:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061019.013451.2616.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
foot doctors -
...As if there is so much to know about bodies that one person cannot
learn it all; so specialists make themselves valuable by biting off a
little corner of knowledge and declaring... "I know this...little bit...
really well, better than anyone else who learns whole systems."
The tyranny of parts has us thinking that it's the parts that are the
problem, rather than imagining there could be other causes and looking
for them - the challenge of allowing "I don't know" to hang there until
you actually learn more.
Franis
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:42:11 -0400 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> Trying to think of when the idea of "parts" is useful (aside from
> tech or
> practical purposes). Let's say I'm sitting with my friend and I see
> a
> snake near his foot. So I say "Friend, there is a snake near your
> foot."
> But that's "practical" isn't.
>
> The tyranny of the parts has us going to "foot doctors" and the
> like.
>
> pat
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Karilen Mays
> <tubakari@yahoo.com> writes:
> right - each part is that because of a perspective -- and they are
> not
> merely parts but whole/parts
>
> kari
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:52:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
>
>
> yeah - maybe we have created an artificial separation between them -
> such
> as the concept of time separating one event from another, mind, body
> and
> soul, etc. We are a whole archetypal self. We're also able to
> separately
> regard ourselves as parts, because we can. But that doesn't mean
> that we
> are a congolmerate of parts rather than whole - all that is
> contained in
> "wholeness."
> -Franis
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:46:48 -0400 "Dorothy Stulberg"
> <DStulberg@msw-law.com> writes:
> > maybe they aren't two perspectives but part of each other. D
> >
> >
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 19 11:55:04 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 20 12:55:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <20061019.013451.2616.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
References: <20061019.013451.2616.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <F26DCFFD-E470-49BC-9585-74F6AB9A88FF@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 19 Oct 2006, at 09:34, Franis Engel wrote:
> the challenge of allowing "I don't know" to hang there until
> you actually learn more.
"I don't know" or IDK to keep it polite.
This our culture's last and most dangerous taboo.
Remember what happened back in your school days
when you had to admit IDK?
don
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Thu Oct 19 12:04:12 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Fri Oct 20 13:03:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 20
In-Reply-To: <20061020100004.742832401C@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF75ECBB06.A9712995-ON8525720C.003702CD-8525720C.003750FE@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Hi Dorothy; are you asking this question from a standpoint of
being morally most correct? A standpoint of being most thing?
Re: --is there a "ground" upon which we are able to see from different
perspectives that keeps us "grounded" END
_R
.
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:13:58 -0400
From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
.
Is there a "ground" upon which we are able to see from different
perspectives that keeps us "grounded"? d
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061019/4099e53b/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Thu Oct 19 12:14:39 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Fri Oct 20 13:14:09 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <20061020100004.742832401C@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFE8026830.972487E9-ON8525720C.003802FB-8525720C.00384635@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Hi Pat, your poem seems familiar and timeless._R
.
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:45:24 -0400
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
I wrote a book of poems about 40 years ago the first of which was
The only mistake
I ever make
Is the mistake of thinking
I've made a mistake.
But even before that
I don't think I ever was a "mistake" person
(which seems to go hand in hand with not ever
having been a "regret" person).
My dear friend Tom is both a "mistake"
person and a "regret" person. He also
'suffers' over "decisions."
I've never done this either; I've never
had a sense of being a 'decision maker'.
Being a "decision maker" seems to go hand
in hand with "mistakes" & "regrets."
Yet Tom & I are both very "responsible"
people - whatever that means. And we respect
each other totally, which means that we each
totally respect [and are actually in awe of]
the way the other has lived and interpreted
his/her life.
About 'not following one's better judgment'
this, of course, happens all of the time with me.
Or used to. But up until fairly recently.
There seems to be a voiceless voice that
is always there to inform as to the wise
'way to go' but it is not a "voice" that is
at all demanding or judgmental. It is VERY
quiet and unassuming. It seems to have no
'vested interest' in whether I follow it or not.
It seems to be a different kind of guide than
"my better judgment" which definitely seems
to have a stake of some sort in my 'following
it'. (Then, of course, is the "voice" of my 'not so
good' judgment, which is the loudest of all. It seems
to want to and to be very good at, drowning out any other
"voice").
pat
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061019/262053dd/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Thu Oct 19 12:49:06 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Fri Oct 20 13:48:39 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
In-Reply-To: <20061020100004.742832401C@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFCDAC5906.5493A311-ON8525720C.00386940-8525720C.003B6D96@dialogos.com>
Rodger __I agree with your defining of synthetic and natural. Coherent.
Unfortunately the definition is usually loaded with views of separation and
moral preference.
Distinction, for the purpose of coherence, rather than looking-for-truth;
in this case, recognizing differences between synthetic and natural without
being influenced by emotional bais or investment based on fear of change,
or death -- re: that awesom, unstoppable, evolutionary process!
Did Atlantis ever exist or sink? Did the ending of previous civilizations,
end-the-world? Or simply end the world; as it was known back then?
The difference between natural and synthetic reminds me of Pats poem. In
this case the loudest voice tends to shout about how unnatural -synthetics-
are.
While the quiet voice whispers of the minor and temporary part synthetics
have in the grandeur of Nature.._R
.
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:35 -0400
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
Might there be some valid reasons for distinguishing between "Natural" and
"Synthetic?" (Not looking for "truth" in thought, just coherence).
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061019/5825dda2/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 19 13:21:52 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 20 14:21:36 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
In-Reply-To: <OFCDAC5906.5493A311-ON8525720C.00386940-8525720C.003B6D96@dialogos.com>
References: <OFCDAC5906.5493A311-ON8525720C.00386940-8525720C.003B6D96@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <14E63EFF-4ECD-498A-B3D9-168D5A9B7842@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I am also concerned about the word "synthetic" because just about
everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a synthesis.
You are a synthesis that can be described as one of body-mind-spirit,
or DNA from two different parents, or a myriad of other combinations.
Bohm was a fan of Hegel's logic based on the progression, thesis,
antithesis, synthesis. This last being a higher order than the first
two. The synthesis then becomes a thesis, etc. in an ongoing chain.
It was known as a dialectic. Dialogue is a higher order synthesis of
dialectic and something else - I'm not sure what to call it - logos,
maybe. The idea is that a synthesis of, say, guilty and innocent does
not lie between the thesis and antithesis but beyond them. "Complex"
comes to mind but that's too general .... And then there is
perspective. Jean Gebser wrote about a state of mind that would be
aperspectival. This doesn\t mean just a blending of various
perspectives but something beyond that, a way of perceiving that is
beyond perspective. Of course, he put this in the category of a
mutation in human consciousness that was just beginning to emerge -
something like Bohm's insight that would change all the brains cells
once and for all.
Sorry about the digression here, but its where the word took me.
don
On 19 Oct 2006, at 11:49, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
> Rodger __I agree with your defining of synthetic and natural.
> Coherent. Unfortunately the definition is usually loaded with views
> of separation and moral preference.
>
> Distinction, for the purpose of coherence, rather than looking-for-
> truth; in this case, recognizing differences between synthetic and
> natural without being influenced by emotional bais or investment
> based on fear of change, or death -- re: that awesom, unstoppable,
> evolutionary process!
>
> Did Atlantis ever exist or sink? Did the ending of previous
> civilizations, end-the-world? Or simply end the world; as it was
> known back then?
>
> The difference between natural and synthetic reminds me of Pats
> poem. In this case the loudest voice tends to shout about how
> unnatural -synthetics- are.
> While the quiet voice whispers of the minor and temporary part
> synthetics have in the grandeur of Nature.._R
> .
> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:35 -0400
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> .
> Might there be some valid reasons for distinguishing between
> "Natural" and "Synthetic?" (Not looking for "truth" in thought,
> just coherence).
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Thu Oct 19 01:44:38 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 20 17:29:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
References: <20061017.162520.1744.12.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<02fc01c6f2dc$4782d000$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<7131654E-F677-492B-AD46-23DC382F6A0F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000201c6f38b$0d2dd8f0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Is it worth trying to say "what is" in a non-local sort of frame? -- Don F
It certainly seems worth looking at. My friend Frank says all is possible, that this here and now is infinite possibility; that one reason people disliking talking about it is that infinite possibility means they might die before the sun sets -- or rises.
Questions:
What else would we say about what is, that which is, other than infinite possibility?
What's the difference between infinite possibility and that for which the g-word is used?
I believe at the end of that book you wrote or edited, Bohm says that anything you say about g-d is misleading because whatever that would be, it is infinitely beyond man's knowing processes. Similarly, Tillich says anything said about it is short of what it is, even superlatives are diminuitives. Such statements are like restatements of Korzybski, aren't they?
One more point: One form or another of QM is now being used to sell everything. My friend likes the idea of writing some kind of self-helpy stuff using qm ideas. Isn't that sort of what Chopra does?-- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
Is it worth trying to say "what is" in a non-local sort of frame? Or might it not be better to just do what is actually Necessary?
If this involves using words, so be it.
don
On 18 Oct 2006, at 18:38, Don Lay wrote:
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Pat: "What Is" indicates "that which is not limited by the appearances born of thought." [dbl: Yes! ] It is a meaning that cannot be contained in words. [dbl: Yes! ] "What Is" cannot be defined. [dbl: Right! ] It's "meaning" is never the same twice. [dbl: Probably. ] Never the same from person to person. [dbl: Yes. ] "What is" is 'hidden' in its total obviousness. [dbl: Yes. ] "What Is" is what IS. [dbl: Beautiful! ] What IS is not an abstraction [in and of itself] but is inclusive of abstraction[s]. [dbl: Yep! ] "What Is" [as a term being used] is context dependent. -- pat
Don: Pat, seems like you're saying it pretty good. The way you are saying it is the way we are talking about it locally. It is very difficult talking aboiut what actually is, perhap[s because everyday language is is used for finite, limited, LOCAL thingKs. Maybe the mystics have always used this kind of language, and were always laughed at.
Now, however, what with 'scientific' proof re non locality, etc., the language of tyhe mystics does not seem so strange. -- Don L
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:12:08 +0100 Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
sorry about that empty reply. For me the question remains, what do we mean when we say, "what is"?
don
On 15 Oct 2006, at 02:27, Don Lay wrote:
Knowing has two meanings. Knowing means participating in and it also means saying, language.
It seems reasonable to say, by definition, all that is participates in the whole, doesn't it?
What is said though is quite something different. Korzybski says that no matter how much description is used, the description cannot ever exhaustively describe what actually is, that which is.
Makes sense to me. -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathryn Arizmendi
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
On 10/14/06 3:30 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
t what actually is cannot be known
why not, Don? Maybe not in my lifetime or yours, but never? That is, if the planet survives, or we all don?t mutate into who-knows-what! k
--------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/a95bc185/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 19 02:03:45 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 20 17:29:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
References: <C156E3D7.3841%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
<008101c6eff9$871fa110$a503a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<69076C40-003C-4648-BDD2-E544C5982E4D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001801c6f1fd$14a056b0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<418E40B3-2CE1-4F8C-BE10-53E70BB58C3C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000301c6f38b$0df60af0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
again, I have to ask, what is it that we mean when we say we are aiming at truth or "that which is"?-- don F
[bold added]
I like Tillich's notions on truth, something like: that which does not lead to dissapointed expectations. I also like Bohm's sensitive treatment of the correspondence theory of truth.
Using Korzybski's notion, The map is not the territory, maybe we can agree that what actually is cannot be known because the knowing systems, processes are not sufficient.
Do you agree it is more important to be coherent than to know? --dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
On 17 Oct 2006, at 16:01, Don Lay wrote:
For me the question remains, what do we mean when we say, "what is"? -- don
Maybe it means we don't know what is, that what actually is cannot be subject to the subject verb object structure of language (Tillich, Bohm and others).
Again, that which is, TRUTH or (hat actually is) cannot be known (Bohm, others). You can see the beginning of this formulation in the Judeo-Christian origin of the modern Western world -- not religion. Forget that, says Tillich. However, let us not forget how we got to where are now: fragmented, isolated, alienated, estranged, etc. -- Don L
Yes, the formulation is there. And we agree that it cannot be known, as such. So again, I have to ask, what is it that we mean when we say we are aiming at truth or "that which is"? My point is that so far as I can see, all we can know or experience is through our own subjectivity. Even if we can transcend the limits of TAS as a material system, which I believe we can do from time to time, there is still the limitation of point of view or perspective. At a conscious level the best we can do is have a pretty good idea of what "it" may be from our particular perspective and that's a far cry from "truth".
don
From: Don Factor
sorry about that empty reply. For me the question remains, what do we mean when we say, "what is"?
don
On 15 Oct 2006, at 02:27, Don Lay wrote:
Knowing has two meanings. Knowing means participating in and it also means saying, language.
It seems reasonable to say, by definition, all that is participates in the whole, doesn't it?
What is said though is quite something different. Korzybski says that no matter how much description is used, the description cannot ever exhaustively describe what actually is, that which is.
Makes sense to me. -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathryn Arizmendi
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
On 10/14/06 3:30 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
t what actually is cannot be known
why not, Don? Maybe not in my lifetime or yours, but never? That is, if the planet survives, or we all don?t mutate into who-knows-what! k
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/0af451c1/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 19 02:40:29 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 20 17:29:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
References: <20061018.130718.3688.14.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <000401c6f38b$0e852b90$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
There is the proprioceptive sense where we have the ability to put food in our own mouths rather than in someone else's. Along with this is the proprioceptive ability that we share with other creatures, to not bump into things [all of the time] because we know the difference, without thinking, between ourselves and telephone poles and ourselves and other people.
This is something that does not have to do with "thought."
This sense is always with us. -- Pat
[underline added]
However, other creatures do not speed along the interstate at 80mph while thinking of making paintings, paying the mortgage, being late for a dinner date, and a thousand other things. Seems to me that tas running constantly puts us into a category quite different than other animals. What about the idea of using repetitive language to keep in mind safety first, etc.
It's true that native sense is always present, but once again: we are in danger of being distracted, suffering overload, aren't we? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:53:34 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
d: separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
don F: Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
dbl: We say we are separated from each other, but as Don F indicates, we are never separated from the whole that we are part of. We say that in time, yesterday is separated from tomorrow, and today, etc. Then we may say that ultimately we are not separated from each other and ultimately it has little meaning to say the past is separated from the future, etc.
Maybe we say it has little meaning that we are separated from other homo-saps, from trees and stones, etc: so what! If I should get knocked off by a bus, there might be at least a billion Chinese that would never know; might be far more than that, world wide. How many people die daily that we know nothing of?
The imaginary scenario of getting knocked off by a bus may make us want to be careful so that we don't get knocked off, but it is not proof of actual separation -- is it? Is it possible that separation refers only to imaginary being but not to that which is? After all, being careful is reasonable as in that Reason that is said to derive from the logos. Maybe it is the actuality of the logos which determines whether or not we are careful, whether or not we get knocked off by a bus.
Very often while driving, the idea of being careful so as to not have an accident repeats. Is that me repeating that, causing that repetition which keeps in mind the importance of being careful? I certainly understand the logic of saying it's me, but since it is a use of reason and that word derives from the Greek logos, is it not more meaningful to say that ultimately, the logos is the cause?
I've been working on this for a long time. I will appreciate feed back. Don L
There is the proprioceptive sense where we have
the ability to put food in our own mouths rather than in someone else's.
Along with this is the proprioceptive ability that we share with other creatures,
to not bump into things [all of the time] because we know the difference, without
thinking, between ourselves and telephone poles and ourselves and other people.
This is something that does not have to do with "thought."
This sense is always with us.
But it is not this sense of which we speak when highlighting the suffering and its
source that comes from a false sense (from "thought") of what we have been calling "separateness," or personal identity, or persona idem, or masks, or "that which is defended reflexively" in situations where there is no real danger.
Bohm would kind of walk people through the machinations
of 'thought as a system' for a couple of days before suggesting the implications
regarding the identification with an image that occurs concurrently with
the defensive reflexes that appear as anger, frustration, boredom,
sleepiness, "hunger," the sudden need to smoke or pee, etc.,
in a dialogue group. He did not want to approach self image
issues prematurely; he would take people through an "unfolding"
process that may have facilitated understanding.
It's very hard to "wrap the mind around" as they say, this thing
about the two [self] images in thought [for instance], such as "I"
and "Me," one image trying to change another image (as in the
quote Kathryn sent the other day). It needs to be seen in action,
to see how the images affect the emotions which feed back to the
images (and the text of the concepts adjoined with the images.).
And how the "loop" builds while simultaneously "tunneling" itself
off from feedback from "what actually is."
This kind of situation, which begins with a small anger, for instance,
can build and spread and infect whole cultures over vast pieces of
geography. We're not talking here about a "separation" where
people can distinguish themselves from their keyboards and
computer screens and their dogs, but something else altogether.
pat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061018/36e80be5/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 19 06:39:08 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 20 17:30:00 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
References: <OF611C017D.BEA41828-ON8525720A.003E639E-8525720A.00413BBC@dialogos.com>
<002a01c6f1fd$25d19570$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <000501c6f38b$0f24c6f0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Rodger: What makes man?
dbl: What IS man?
Rodger: Do we really believe that the Nature which causes humankind into Being, somehow stops causing humankind into expression at some point and the -we- take over?
[bold, underline added]
Don L: Do you not recognize that homo-saps are altered by language, by written laws that most people say are unnatural? Do you not see something unnatural about human being? Do you see how human being is different from all other creatures? -- dbl
From: Don Lay
Interesting ideas.
However, there are very few people who have not erred. maybe the idea is that just as we err daily, it is possible that homo-sap has erred in creating laws that determine the future of homo-sap individually and collectively. -?- -- Don L
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Rodger __What makes man? Do we really believe that the Nature which causes humankind into Being, somehow stops causing humankind into expression at some point and the -we- take over?
And therefore humankinds expression is distinct and apart from the very Nature of what causes humanity into existance?
Are we really so self important as all that? Would we know so much about our brains etc., that we claim to be the designer of the brain and all it does, and as such, we are sufficiently aware of the thought process that we might discern the difference between synthetid and what Nature sets in motion?. Or is synthetic and natural merely an intellectual, bias preference?
Nothing wrong with preference.
Maybe relax our judgements a bit, to see how levels of understanding are evolving -Nature enfolding- so we can grasp how our capabilities are not separate from Nature Unfolding.._R
.
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:42:50 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
.
A thingk is something manmade, synthetic.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061019/0e1750f7/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 19 06:54:24 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 20 17:30:01 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimatestatements
References: <OF932973CE.A43EFACD-ON8525720B.004536DD-8525720B.0049C340@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <000601c6f38b$0f75f430$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
There are a lot of -seemings- in this statement; granted the views are as passionately held as any Inquisition. But the accuracy in observations of fragmentation might be questioned to the degree the observing is fragmented. And how could the observing not be fragmented? -- Rodger
Often it seems important to point out that language is deceptive in much the same way that tas is deceiving. Don't you agree?
I'm unclear about observing being fragmented. What is observing, and what is fragmented observing? Are you referencing an observer separated from what is observed? -- Don I
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimatestatements
Rodger __ There are a lot of -seemings- in this statement; granted the views are as passionately held as any Inquisition. But the accuracy in observations of fragmentation might be questioned to the degree the observing is fragmented. And how could the observing not be fragmented?
Experience of what is natural, less fragmented, is NOT simply observing outworkings of evolution EXTERNAL to us -- pointing a finger and saying, thats not natural.
Basing ideas of what is Nature upon how things were in previous stages of evolution is obviously flawed, or bais. And what we refer to as synthetic happens through humans as an outcome of evolution; Nature. The idea/ opinion of straying-from-Natures path, reflects how our implicit experience/ level of consciousness shapes perception of the explicit around us.
My wife and I share a tiny house in the middle of nowhere. We dont have a TV or a furnace to heat the house in winter. We live what some might consider a more natural lifestyle. But not because it is morally BETTER to be natural -- that motive would just perpetuate fragmentation. Choice of lifestyle is a purely selfish, personal preference.
To the degree ENFOLDING meaning is a conscious experience, a person will notice how UNFOLDING circumstances were different from the reality that appeared through fragmented observation. _R
.
.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:02:15 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimatestatements
.
The thingk is -- we seem to live in ideas instead of nature. That is, we seem to live in a made-up world that is obviously different, other than the kind of environment used by all other creatures, etc. Isn't that synthetic? A problem to deal with? -- dbl
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061019/e6e5d414/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 19 17:07:50 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 20 18:07:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
In-Reply-To: <000301c6f38b$0df60af0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <C156E3D7.3841%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
<008101c6eff9$871fa110$a503a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<69076C40-003C-4648-BDD2-E544C5982E4D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001801c6f1fd$14a056b0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<418E40B3-2CE1-4F8C-BE10-53E70BB58C3C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<000301c6f38b$0df60af0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <0B9404C6-BF99-4DDA-B0CF-4CF73B965491@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 19 Oct 2006, at 01:03, Don Lay wrote:
> again, I have to ask, what is it that we mean when we say we are
> aiming at truth or "that which is"?-- don F
> [bold added]
>
> I like Tillich's notions on truth, something like: that which does
> not lead to dissapointed expectations. I also like Bohm's
> sensitive treatment of the correspondence theory of truth.
>
> Using Korzybski's notion, The map is not the territory, maybe we
> can agree that what actually is cannot be known because the knowing
> systems, processes are not sufficient.
>
> Do you agree it is more important to be coherent than to know? --dbl
>
>
Yes. This is a far more interesting idea than seeking Truth which you
say, is best left to religionists.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061019/2b39218a/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Thu Oct 19 17:11:50 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Fri Oct 20 18:09:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 20
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D009F@msw2k.msw.local>
I was really thinking about how to remain in peace while still
acknowledgeing, respecting, enjoying multiple ways of being. D
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:04 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 20
Rodger __Hi Dorothy; are you asking this question from a standpoint of
being morally most correct? A standpoint of being most thing?
Re: --is there a "ground" upon which we are able to see from different
perspectives that keeps us "grounded" END
_R
.
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:13:58 -0400
From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
.
Is there a "ground" upon which we are able to see from different
perspectives that keeps us "grounded"? d
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061019/db9c1243/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 19 17:10:49 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 20 18:11:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <20061018180544.42093.qmail@web52913.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20061018180544.42093.qmail@web52913.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <0EF06525-1997-4FF9-A9D0-575EE4A91B36@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 18 Oct 2006, at 19:05, Karilen Mays wrote:
> what do you mean by personal responsibility? choice? the nice
> illusion of choice? why do we need/want responsibility?
Is it illusory? Or is it a kind of fear avoidance? I can see many
instances where this might be the case. But there is also the
responsibility that comes from a sense of community or communality
which doesn't seem to have much to do with fear or nice illusions.
it might be that we need to distinguish response from reaction.
Respond comes from the Latin, responsum ?something offered in
return, whereas , react comes from re- (expressing intensive force
or reversal) + act , originally suggested by medieval Latin react-
?done again,? from the verb reagere.
To be reactive isn't usually intelligent whereas to be responsible
often is.
How's about, the ability to respond? If we say that we are all parts
of a whole, is it possible not to respond? That is, if you see
someone being mugged or raped on a dark street are you able to just
go on your way saying, "Well, it has nothing to do with me?" Or does
your sense of connection with humanity urge you to respond more
directly?
Of course, you could say that to ignore what you have seen might be a
purely rational response as an Ayne Rand Positivist might argue. But
there are always other choices: you might try to interfere, or dial
911 (999 in the UK) or just scream. The number of possible choices
might be predetermined, but they are choices nonetheless.
Or, if as some neuroscientists, or believers in reductionist,
materialist theories of brain function might tell you we are simply
hardwired zombies with conscious minds that simply provide after-the-
fact, stories designed to make us believe that we are in charge,
moment by moment, that might help us get somebody to mate with us.
But if that view is correct, then I can't think of any other reason
that this quality would have been conserved.
Now it may be the case, that the conscious mind that invents reasons
for what we do or don't do isn't the primary, causative agent. And
maybe it is something at a more mechnical level like TAS as the
active response of memory, that makes our decisions. But doesn't this
view also raise questions?
Particularly, where does the meaning of the situation come from? Is
rape, or property rights, or the meaning of red and green traffic
lights hard wired in? Does all that happens to us as individuals, fit
into a catalogue of potential, hardwired responses or reactions or
reflexes, that can compute the relevance of all the possible sounds
or movements that might occur in our immediate environment? Wouldn't
is seem more likely that somewhere along the line you learned or
heard or saw something that had particular consequences or meaning
for you or to do with somebody else, and that your memory of these
might drive you to want to avoid that happening again, or, on the
other had, maybe want it to happen again? And if these learned
meanings were only operating at a non-conscious level and pushing you
toward a particular reaction, your conscious mind would still be in a
position, to reject or edit the response? We have the ability to
postpone gratification. That alone, it seems to me, gives credence to
the idea of some free will.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061019/1553397d/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 19 17:16:42 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 20 18:16:31 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
In-Reply-To: <000501c6f38b$0f24c6f0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <OF611C017D.BEA41828-ON8525720A.003E639E-8525720A.00413BBC@dialogos.com>
<002a01c6f1fd$25d19570$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<000501c6f38b$0f24c6f0$2b01a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <ACBB3E81-4BBF-48DE-9F1D-D3AECEA32856@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 19 Oct 2006, at 05:39, Don Lay wrote:
> Rodger: What makes man?
> dbl: What IS man?
don: Ask any woman
> Rodger: Do we really believe that the Nature which causes
> humankind into Being, somehow stops causing humankind into
> expression at some point and the -we- take over?
> [bold, underline added]
>
> Don L: Do you not recognize that homo-saps are altered by language,
> by written laws that most people say are unnatural? Do you not see
> something unnatural about human being? Do you see how human being
> is different from all other creatures? -- dbl
don: I would say that "we" comes first. Read Vygostsky for evidence.
>
> From: Don Lay
>
> Interesting ideas.
>
> However, there are very few people who have not erred. maybe the
> idea is that just as we err daily, it is possible that homo-sap has
> erred in creating laws that determine the future of homo-sap
> individually and collectively. -?- -- Don L
>
> From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>
> Rodger __What makes man? Do we really believe that the Nature which
> causes humankind into Being, somehow stops causing humankind into
> expression at some point and the -we- take over?
> And therefore humankinds expression is distinct and apart from the
> very Nature of what causes humanity into existance?
>
> Are we really so self important as all that? Would we know so much
> about our brains etc., that we claim to be the designer of the
> brain and all it does, and as such, we are sufficiently aware of
> the thought process that we might discern the difference between
> synthetid and what Nature sets in motion?. Or is synthetic and
> natural merely an intellectual, bias preference?
>
> Nothing wrong with preference.
>
> Maybe relax our judgements a bit, to see how levels of
> understanding are evolving -Nature enfolding- so we can grasp how
> our capabilities are not separate from Nature Unfolding.._R
> .
> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:42:50 -0400
> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
> .
> A thingk is something manmade, synthetic.
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061019/822b4bf4/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 19 17:19:32 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 20 18:19:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <0EF06525-1997-4FF9-A9D0-575EE4A91B36@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <20061018180544.42093.qmail@web52913.mail.yahoo.com>
<0EF06525-1997-4FF9-A9D0-575EE4A91B36@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <ADA19514-54E1-4ACC-86CC-9678195F9F0E@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I meant to say here: an Ayne Rand Objectivist. Not a positivist.
don
On 19 Oct 2006, at 16:10, Don Factor wrote:
>
> On 18 Oct 2006, at 19:05, Karilen Mays wrote:
>
>> what do you mean by personal responsibility? choice? the nice
>> illusion of choice? why do we need/want responsibility?
>
> Is it illusory? Or is it a kind of fear avoidance? I can see many
> instances where this might be the case. But there is also the
> responsibility that comes from a sense of community or communality
> which doesn't seem to have much to do with fear or nice illusions.
>
> it might be that we need to distinguish response from reaction.
> Respond comes from the Latin, responsum ?something offered in
> return, whereas , react comes from re- (expressing intensive
> force or reversal) + act , originally suggested by medieval Latin
> react- ?done again,? from the verb reagere.
>
> To be reactive isn't usually intelligent whereas to be responsible
> often is.
>
> How's about, the ability to respond? If we say that we are all
> parts of a whole, is it possible not to respond? That is, if you
> see someone being mugged or raped on a dark street are you able to
> just go on your way saying, "Well, it has nothing to do with me?"
> Or does your sense of connection with humanity urge you to respond
> more directly?
>
> Of course, you could say that to ignore what you have seen might be
> a purely rational response as an Ayne Rand Positivist might argue.
> But there are always other choices: you might try to interfere, or
> dial 911 (999 in the UK) or just scream. The number of possible
> choices might be predetermined, but they are choices nonetheless.
>
> Or, if as some neuroscientists, or believers in reductionist,
> materialist theories of brain function might tell you we are simply
> hardwired zombies with conscious minds that simply provide after-
> the-fact, stories designed to make us believe that we are in
> charge, moment by moment, that might help us get somebody to mate
> with us. But if that view is correct, then I can't think of any
> other reason that this quality would have been conserved.
>
> Now it may be the case, that the conscious mind that invents
> reasons for what we do or don't do isn't the primary, causative
> agent. And maybe it is something at a more mechnical level like TAS
> as the active response of memory, that makes our decisions. But
> doesn't this view also raise questions?
>
> Particularly, where does the meaning of the situation come from? Is
> rape, or property rights, or the meaning of red and green traffic
> lights hard wired in? Does all that happens to us as individuals,
> fit into a catalogue of potential, hardwired responses or reactions
> or reflexes, that can compute the relevance of all the possible
> sounds or movements that might occur in our immediate environment?
> Wouldn't is seem more likely that somewhere along the line you
> learned or heard or saw something that had particular consequences
> or meaning for you or to do with somebody else, and that your
> memory of these might drive you to want to avoid that happening
> again, or, on the other had, maybe want it to happen again? And if
> these learned meanings were only operating at a non-conscious level
> and pushing you toward a particular reaction, your conscious mind
> would still be in a position, to reject or edit the response? We
> have the ability to postpone gratification. That alone, it seems to
> me, gives credence to the idea of some free will.
>
>
> don
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061019/11419deb/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 18:25:36 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Fri Oct 20 19:25:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 20
Message-ID: <20061019162536.47340.qmail@web52914.mail.yahoo.com>
once we truly realize that we are peace, i dont think it would be an issue...? (i saw krishna das last night and that just came up as i just woke up and am checking my messages.) good thought dorothy!
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Dorothy Stulberg <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:11:50 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 20
I was really thinking about how to remain in peace while still acknowledgeing, respecting, enjoying multiple ways of being. D
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:04 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 20
Rodger __Hi Dorothy; are you asking this question from a standpoint of being morally most correct? A standpoint of being most thing?
Re: --is there a "ground" upon which we are able to see from different perspectives that keeps us "grounded" END
_R
.
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:13:58 -0400
From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance (resent)
.
Is there a "ground" upon which we are able to see from different
perspectives that keeps us "grounded"? d
.
.
_______________________________________________
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/20061019/4afedff7/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Oct 19 18:41:57 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 20 19:41:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Message-ID: <20061019.124157.2116.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
There are a couple of contexts within which the concept of
"responsibility" has carried meaning. One had to do with discovering the
ideal of "taking 100% "responsibility" for "my life" or "my feelings, my
mood, etc.. A dear friend
tried to talk me into "95%." That wouldn't do. It was an important
'undertaking' for a few years a while back.
The other context has to do with "people become 'responsible' when we
must
deal with the consequences of our actions." When I am the one who has to
"pick up after me" I learn to care about how I do things.
Remembering more now (we used to explore and study "power" a lot).
"Responsibility" somehow came to mean "power" - I even wrote a poem...
wonder where it is.
Here it is. It is a "Though Shape" Poem
(Different Fonts will shape it different ways. Mine's Comic Sans).
Control is power corrupted.
Blame is to responsibility
as control is to power,
and handily enough,
responsibility
i s power.
And total
responsibility
is unlimited power.
And responsibility is
not responsibility, until
it is total. And power isn't
anything unless it is unlimited.
pat
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Karilen Mays
<tubakari@yahoo.com> writes:
what do you mean by personal responsibility? choice? the nice illusion of
choice? why do we need/want responsibility?
fear?
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:13:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts, then
where is personal responsibility? I raised that question directly in a
conversation with him. We were walking at night and he stopped cold. He
was silent for while. Then he came up with an answer that satisfied me.
That was maybe fifteen years ago. The trouble is that I can't remember
the answer. Can you? Or anybody?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061019/56717c47/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 19 19:08:54 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 20 20:08:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <20061019.124157.2116.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061019.124157.2116.7.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <CBE76F2A-E9AA-4C1F-934E-1CD95074088D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 19 Oct 2006, at 17:41, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Control is power corrupted.
> Blame is to responsibility
> as control is to power,
> and handily enough,
> responsibility
> i s power.
> And total
> responsibility
> is unlimited power.
> And responsibility is
> not responsibility, until
> it is total. And power isn't
> anything unless it is unlimited.
I love it. It makes total sense. Of course, what other kind is there?
Now, I wonder if you mean what I mean.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061019/bc49f674/attachment.html