From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 19 01:54:31 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 20 02:48:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060918.195437.3300.33.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Some clips.
"But identifying `I' with awareness solves the problem of the infinite
regress: we know the internal observer not by observing it but by being
it. At the core, we are awareness and therefore do not need to imagine,
observe, or perceive it."
"Once we grant the identity of `I' and awareness we are compelled to
extend to the core subjective self whatever ontological propositions seem
appropriate for awareness. If awareness is non-local, so is the essential
self. If awareness transcends material reality so does the 'I'."
This is an excellent piece. We looked at it here a couple of years ago.
I made a hard copy of it because I liked it.
I = Awareness.
pat
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 consciousness. (Menon, 1952).
In the classical Buddhist literature we find:
When all lesser things and ideas are transcended and forgotten, and
there remains only a perfect state of imagelessness where Tathagata and
Tathata are merged into perfect Oneness . . . (Goddard, 1966). 6
Western mystics also speak of experiencing consciousness without
objects. Meister Eckhart declares:
There is the silent `middle', for no creature ever entered there and
no image, nor has the soul there either activity or understanding,
therefore she is not aware there of any image, whether of herself or of
any other creature' (Forman, 1990).
Similarly, Saint John of the Cross:
That inward wisdom is so simple, so general and so spiritual that it
has not entered into the understanding enwrapped or clad in any form or
image subject to sense' (1953).
The failure of Western psychology to discriminate awareness from
contents, and the resulting confusion of 'I' with mental contents, may be
due to a cultural limitation: the lack of experience of most Western
scientists with Eastern meditation disciplines. 7
Eastern mystical traditions use meditation practice to experience the
difference between mental activities and the self that observes. For
example, the celebrated Yogi, Ramana Maharshi, prescribed the exercise of
`Who am I?' to demonstrate that the self that observes is not an object;
it does not belong to the domains of thinking, feeling, or action
(Osborne, 1954). `If I lost my arm, I would still exist. Therefore, I am
not my arm. If I could not hear, I would still exist. Therefore, I am not
my hearing.' And so on, discarding all other aspects of the person until
finally, `I am not this thought,' which could lead to a radically
different experience of the `I'. Similarly, in Buddhist vipassana
meditation the meditator is instructed to simply note whatever arises,
letting it come and go. This heightens the distinction between the flow
of thoughts and feelings and that which observes 8
Attempts to integrate Eastern and Western psychologies can fall prey
to the same confusion of `I' and contents, even by those who have
practised Eastern meditation disciplines. Consider the following passage
from The Embodied Mind, a text based on experience with mindfulness
meditation and correlating Western psychological science with Buddhist
psychology .
. . . in our search for a self... we found all the various forms in which
we can be aware - awareness of seeing and hearing, smelling, tasting,
touching, even awareness of our own thought processes. So the only thing
we didn't find was a truly existing self or ego. But notice that we did
find experience. Indeed, we entered the very eye of the storm of
experience, we just simply could discern there no self, no 'I' (Varela et
al., 1991).
But when they say, `. . . we just simply could discern there no self,
no "I" ', to what does `we' refer? Who is looking? Who is discerning? Is
it not the `I' of the authors? A classic story adapted from the Vedantic
tradition is relevant here:
A group of travellers forded a river. Afterwards, to make sure
everyone had crossed safely, the leader counted the group but omitted
himself from the count. Each member did the same and they arrived at the
conclusion that one of them was missing. The group then spent many
unhappy hours searching the river until, finally, a passerby suggested
that each person count their own self, as well. The travellers were
overjoyed to find that no one was missing and all proceeded on their way.
Like the travellers, Western psychology often neglects to notice the
one that counts. Until it does, its progress will be delayed.
Similarly, discussions of consciousness (awareness) as `point of view'
(Nagel, 1986) or `perspective' do not go far enough in exploring what the
`first person perspective' really is. In my own case, it is not myself as
Arthur Deikman, psychiatrist, six feet tall, brown hair. That particular
person has specific opinions, beliefs, and skills all of which are part
of his nominal identity, but all of which are observed by his 'I', which
stands apart from them. If awareness is a fundamental in the universe -
as proposed most recently by Herbert (1994), Goswami (1993) and Chalmers
(1995) - then it is 'I' that is fundamental, as well, with all its
ontological implications. Arthur Deikman is localized and mortal. But
what about his `I', that light illuminating his world, that essence of
his existence? Those studying consciousness, who can see the necessity
for according consciousness a different ontological status than the
physical, tend not to extend their conclusions to 'I'. Yet, it is the
identity 'I' = awareness that makes the study of consciousness so
difficult. G?ven G?zeldere (1995) asks:
Why are there such glaring polarities? Why is consciousness
characterized as a phenomenon too familiar to require further
explanation, as well as one that remains typically recalcitrant to
systematic investigation, by investigators who work largely within the
same paradigm? G?zeldere, 1995.)
The difficulty to which G?zeldere refers is epitomized by the problem:
Who observes the observer? Every time we step back to observe who or what
is there doing the observing, we find that the 'I' has jumped back with
us. This is the infinite regress of the observer, noted by Gilbert Ryle,
often presented as an argument against the observing self being real, an
existent. But identifying `I' with awareness solves the problem of the
infinite regress: we know the internal observer not by observing it but
by being it. At the core, we are awareness and therefore do not need to
imagine, observe, or perceive it.
Knowing by being that which is known is ontologically different from
perceptual knowledge. That is why someone might introspect and not see
awareness or the `I', concluding -like the travellers -that it doesn't
exist. But thought experiments and introspective meditation techniques
are able to extract the one who is looking from what is seen, restoring
the missing centre.
Once we grant the identity of `I' and awareness we are compelled to
extend to the core subjective self whatever ontological propositions seem
appropriate for awareness. If awareness is non-local, so is the essential
self. If awareness transcends material reality so does the 'I'. If
awareness is declared to be non_existent then that same conclusion must
apply to the 'I'. No matter what one's ontological bias, recognition that
'I' = awareness has profound implications for our theoretical and
personal perspective.
References
[Home] [Consciousness] [Cult Psychology] [Spiritual/Mysticism] [Service]
[Psychotherapy]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060918/bcf038f4/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 19 10:57:23 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 20 11:50:40 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060918.195437.3300.33.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060918.195437.3300.33.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <E58BCCDC-FEDD-475E-BF2E-EA46D38E7510@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Don't know how I missed it or forgot it When I was searching my hard
disc for material on the subject, though, up it came. Maybe I wasn't
ready for it a couple of years ago. But this time it said exactly
what I was trying to find my way toward. Anyway, I hope it will allow
us to look again at the first person, or particular point of view, as
being valuable material for the dialogue if only for the reason that
it can bring us a step closer to the "aperspectival" viewpoint that
is similar, I think, to Bohm's "common content of consciousness".
And this final paragraph I think is well worth exploring further.
Even I can't find anything to argue with in it.
> Once we grant the identity of `I' and awareness we are compelled to
> extend to the core subjective self whatever ontological
> propositions seem appropriate for awareness. If awareness is non-
> local, so is the essential self. If awareness transcends material
> reality so does the 'I'. If awareness is declared to be
> non_existent then that same conclusion must apply to the 'I'. No
> matter what one's ontological bias, recognition that 'I' =
> awareness has profound implications for our theoretical and
> personal perspective.
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 00:54, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Some clips.
>
> "But identifying `I' with awareness solves the problem of the
> infinite regress: we know the internal observer not by observing it
> but by being it. At the core, we are awareness and therefore do not
> need to imagine, observe, or perceive it."
>
> "Once we grant the identity of `I' and awareness we are compelled
> to extend to the core subjective self whatever ontological
> propositions seem appropriate for awareness. If awareness is non-
> local, so is the essential self. If awareness transcends material
> reality so does the 'I'."
>
> This is an excellent piece. We looked at it here a couple of years
> ago.
> I made a hard copy of it because I liked it.
>
> I = Awareness.
>
> pat
>
>
> 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
> consciousness. (Menon, 1952).
>
> In the classical Buddhist literature we find:
>
> When all lesser things and ideas are transcended and forgotten,
> and there remains only a perfect state of imagelessness where
> Tathagata and Tathata are merged into perfect Oneness . . .
> (Goddard, 1966). 6
>
> Western mystics also speak of experiencing consciousness without
> objects. Meister Eckhart declares:
>
> There is the silent `middle', for no creature ever entered there
> and no image, nor has the soul there either activity or
> understanding, therefore she is not aware there of any image,
> whether of herself or of any other creature' (Forman, 1990).
>
> Similarly, Saint John of the Cross:
>
> That inward wisdom is so simple, so general and so spiritual
> that it has not entered into the understanding enwrapped or clad in
> any form or image subject to sense' (1953).
>
> The failure of Western psychology to discriminate awareness from
> contents, and the resulting confusion of 'I' with mental contents,
> may be due to a cultural limitation: the lack of experience of most
> Western scientists with Eastern meditation disciplines. 7
>
> Eastern mystical traditions use meditation practice to
> experience the difference between mental activities and the self
> that observes. For example, the celebrated Yogi, Ramana Maharshi,
> prescribed the exercise of `Who am I?' to demonstrate that the self
> that observes is not an object; it does not belong to the domains
> of thinking, feeling, or action (Osborne, 1954). `If I lost my arm,
> I would still exist. Therefore, I am not my arm. If I could not
> hear, I would still exist. Therefore, I am not my hearing.' And so
> on, discarding all other aspects of the person until finally, `I am
> not this thought,' which could lead to a radically different
> experience of the `I'. Similarly, in Buddhist vipassana meditation
> the meditator is instructed to simply note whatever arises, letting
> it come and go. This heightens the distinction between the flow of
> thoughts and feelings and that which observes 8
>
> Attempts to integrate Eastern and Western psychologies can fall
> prey to the same confusion of `I' and contents, even by those who
> have practised Eastern meditation disciplines. Consider the
> following passage from The Embodied Mind, a text based on
> experience with mindfulness meditation and correlating Western
> psychological science with Buddhist psychology .
>
> . . . in our search for a self... we found all the various forms in
> which we can be aware - awareness of seeing and hearing, smelling,
> tasting, touching, even awareness of our own thought processes. So
> the only thing we didn't find was a truly existing self or ego. But
> notice that we did find experience. Indeed, we entered the very eye
> of the storm of experience, we just simply could discern there no
> self, no 'I' (Varela et al., 1991).
>
> But when they say, `. . . we just simply could discern there no
> self, no "I" ', to what does `we' refer? Who is looking? Who is
> discerning? Is it not the `I' of the authors? A classic story
> adapted from the Vedantic tradition is relevant here:
>
> A group of travellers forded a river. Afterwards, to make sure
> everyone had crossed safely, the leader counted the group but
> omitted himself from the count. Each member did the same and they
> arrived at the conclusion that one of them was missing. The group
> then spent many unhappy hours searching the river until, finally, a
> passerby suggested that each person count their own self, as well.
> The travellers were overjoyed to find that no one was missing and
> all proceeded on their way.
>
> Like the travellers, Western psychology often neglects to notice
> the one that counts. Until it does, its progress will be delayed.
>
> Similarly, discussions of consciousness (awareness) as `point of
> view' (Nagel, 1986) or `perspective' do not go far enough in
> exploring what the `first person perspective' really is. In my own
> case, it is not myself as Arthur Deikman, psychiatrist, six feet
> tall, brown hair. That particular person has specific opinions,
> beliefs, and skills all of which are part of his nominal identity,
> but all of which are observed by his 'I', which stands apart from
> them. If awareness is a fundamental in the universe - as proposed
> most recently by Herbert (1994), Goswami (1993) and Chalmers
> (1995) - then it is 'I' that is fundamental, as well, with all its
> ontological implications. Arthur Deikman is localized and mortal.
> But what about his `I', that light illuminating his world, that
> essence of his existence? Those studying consciousness, who can see
> the necessity for according consciousness a different ontological
> status than the physical, tend not to extend their conclusions to
> 'I'. Yet, it is the identity 'I' = awareness that makes the study
> of consciousness so difficult. G?ven G?zeldere (1995) asks:
>
> Why are there such glaring polarities? Why is consciousness
> characterized as a phenomenon too familiar to require further
> explanation, as well as one that remains typically recalcitrant to
> systematic investigation, by investigators who work largely within
> the same paradigm? G?zeldere, 1995.)
>
> The difficulty to which G?zeldere refers is epitomized by the
> problem: Who observes the observer? Every time we step back to
> observe who or what is there doing the observing, we find that the
> 'I' has jumped back with us. This is the infinite regress of the
> observer, noted by Gilbert Ryle, often presented as an argument
> against the observing self being real, an existent. But identifying
> `I' with awareness solves the problem of the infinite regress: we
> know the internal observer not by observing it but by being it. At
> the core, we are awareness and therefore do not need to imagine,
> observe, or perceive it.
>
> Knowing by being that which is known is ontologically different
> from perceptual knowledge. That is why someone might introspect and
> not see awareness or the `I', concluding -like the travellers -that
> it doesn't exist. But thought experiments and introspective
> meditation techniques are able to extract the one who is looking
> from what is seen, restoring the missing centre.
>
> Once we grant the identity of `I' and awareness we are compelled
> to extend to the core subjective self whatever ontological
> propositions seem appropriate for awareness. If awareness is non-
> local, so is the essential self. If awareness transcends material
> reality so does the 'I'. If awareness is declared to be
> non_existent then that same conclusion must apply to the 'I'. No
> matter what one's ontological bias, recognition that 'I' =
> awareness has profound implications for our theoretical and
> personal perspective.
> References
> [Home] [Consciousness] [Cult Psychology] [Spiritual/Mysticism]
> [Service] [Psychotherapy]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060919/70d54b4c/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Sep 19 14:27:36 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Sep 20 15:20:49 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060920100003.3CF2222EAF@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF29446A94.AA4CE304-ON852571EE.003F5BD6-852571EE.00447223@dialogos.com>
Rodger__During puberty self-image adjusts. We change through natural
chemical and anatomic influences as our brain is flooding in new synapse so
that new understandings and disciplines are possible.
For me, one difference between my youthful and pubescent-self was that
females took on an impact of entirely -new meaning-. And as for most,
puberty was often a confusing transition, when my ideas of being-a-man
conflicted somewhere between being-like the beatles and/or James Bond.
My dad had a way of cutting through an architypical-wanna-be dialogue. He
said; Anytime you feel confused, go stand in front of a mirror and take a
long, hard look at yourself. Then ask yourself if you like what you see. By
like he meant resonate.
I knew he was speaking of integrity. Not integrity as a social or family
code, but as a thing unique to each individual and as such, a thing known
only by the individual for him/ herself.
No-one can know what is right or wrong for another. But others can feel how
I resonate within myself about things I am being and things I am doing.
In this way we are not alone in an experience of knowing what my -me- is.
.
.
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:52:54 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
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? dbl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/9a417b61/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Sep 19 15:11:22 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Sep 20 16:04:41 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060920100003.3CF2222EAF@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF6C5410DC.296864D6-ON852571EE.0045B38F-852571EE.004873F5@dialogos.com>
Rodger __I loved the Deikman piece, but will need to give specific feedback
on it later.
But for now; I wrote about the possibility of experiencing an awareness of
unknowable aspects in our daily life. -having an acute sense of knowing
that I am right here, right now. and at the same time, having a sense of
knowing/living -not theory about- in a universe of infinite possibilities.
Exactly here and now, along with a sense of what remains unknowable.
Metaphorically, there is a line that can be crossed from the world of
knowledge and memories to an awareness of the unknowable. But tas cannot
cross that line, tas is an organic mechanism by which our past events are
given meaning and processed into a present reality image. Another word for
unknowable in this sense might be, dare I say it; eternal.
I think it is this -I- that Deikman refers to, which not only maintains a
level of awareness of a tas produced world of self-images, but is also the
-I- within us that is capable of crossing that line to where tas cannot go.
_R
.
.
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:59:39 +0100
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Message-ID:
.
I would love to know what anyone here thinks about the Deikmans'
piece.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/8d289e7c/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 19 15:51:37 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 20 16:45:31 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>
<BCCB891E-4427-4840-9DED-4CE9D8A16A90@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01>
DF:
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."
dbl: Bohm differentiates self and personal identity. Bohm clearly distinguishes between the personal identity (TAS) and self. It really seems confusion, destructive when there's no awareness of the distinction. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
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/20060919/96d788dd/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 19 16:46:39 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 20 17:40:36 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <OF29446A94.AA4CE304-ON852571EE.003F5BD6-852571EE.00447223@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <00d501c6dbfa$6f76c740$dd43153f@DL01>
My dad had a way of cutting through an architypical-wanna-be dialogue. He said; Anytime you feel confused, go stand in front of a mirror and take a long, hard look at yourself. Then ask yourself if you like what you see. By like he meant resonate. -- Rodger
Seems to me a very important experience, looking at the mirror image .... What resonates? What comes to awareness?
Seems to me the whole of experience resonates. It is interesting to ask, What did the first human say/think upon this experience? Did he use the English and say, "THAT'S ME, MY SELF"? Of course not because there was no English any more than there was Italian or Japanese.
Perhaps only with millions of years of whatever is/was occurred before the rational character of the whole evolved homo-sap language such that the mirror experience could be point to, tas-ed or thought about. Seems to me this notion of logos/ratio/reason ... evolving to language use is a very significant part of the mirror experience.
That is, it is possible to see or be aware of the whole that produces the image experience instead of just the image. Maybe this kind of experience justifies a serious look in the direction of the many definitions, meanings of the eternal -- rather than just the pigeon holing as different religions, etc.
Resonance? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:27 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Rodger__During puberty self-image adjusts. We change through natural chemical and anatomic influences as our brain is flooding in new synapse so that new understandings and disciplines are possible.
For me, one difference between my youthful and pubescent-self was that females took on an impact of entirely -new meaning-. And as for most, puberty was often a confusing transition, when my ideas of being-a-man conflicted somewhere between being-like the beatles and/or James Bond.
My dad had a way of cutting through an architypical-wanna-be dialogue. He said; Anytime you feel confused, go stand in front of a mirror and take a long, hard look at yourself. Then ask yourself if you like what you see. By like he meant resonate.
I knew he was speaking of integrity. Not integrity as a social or family code, but as a thing unique to each individual and as such, a thing known only by the individual for him/ herself.
No-one can know what is right or wrong for another. But others can feel how I resonate within myself about things I am being and things I am doing.
In this way we are not alone in an experience of knowing what my -me- is.
.
.
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:52:54 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
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? dbl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/bf96aaac/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 19 16:54:05 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 20 17:48:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]The Eternal
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>
<00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <00e901c6dbfb$7958e120$dd43153f@DL01>
definitions of eternal:
that which is prior to the SOS split.
that which is not subject to the SOS split.
that which is what actually is, meaning that the synthetic language we use, SOS is not a mirror reflection of that which is ... think Korzybski.
I like the idea of the eternal as that which is the activity of the basic forces ... revealed via the logos of Being.
Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/3c5f53a6/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 19 16:56:58 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 20 17:51:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060919.105712.3300.35.ae.dropper@juno.com>
dbl: Bohm differentiates self and personal identity. Bohm clearly
distinguishes between the personal identity (TAS) and self. It really
seems confusion, destructive when there's no awareness of the
distinction. -- dbl
This is the whole point. And one of the confusions regarding dialogue
about such
is that verbalizing about this subject matter stirs up the defenses of
personal identity
which blur the distinction. It's a real Catch 22 kind of thing. HOWEVER,
in this kind of
a dialogue setting, where the participants are potentially informed about
the theoretical
basis of the inquiry (Bohm's Thought as a System theory), we can
[potentially] see
confusion arising as certain thoughts are verbalized, and can use the
event of this
seeing and feeling, to suspend and allow the system to settle down enough
to see
what is happening and to open to awareness of the sources of the
confusion -
such as the objects of such defense, the thoughts, i.e., the concepts,
the images,
the assumptions, and ask if such symbols represent something actual or
not.
Are they based on something or are they just thoughts [based on thoughts,
based on thoughts]?
First of all though, perhaps the distinction between confusion and
clarity needs to be recognized.
And a similar Catch 22 can as easily apply here.
Confusion might be able to "stand in" for clarity at a
certain level of "heat."
But just as we all know without saying what "meaning"
means, we also know what "clarity" means.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/078bc181/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Sep 19 17:15:10 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Sep 20 18:08:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: about depression
In-Reply-To: <20060920100003.3CF2222EAF@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF2F7C31BE.4935B470-ON852571EE.00503A17-852571EE.0053C93A@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Saral Bohm gave me a copy of the -Sunday Interview, San Francisco
Chronicle, Aug 17, 1997. Stephen Schartz interviews Jack Sarfatti about
recent change in science and philosophy. Sarfatti specifically mentions
David Bohm in the interview. Quote;
Sarfatti: The figure with the most importance for this debate right now is
the person Einstein himself considered his heir, David Bohm, who died in
1992.
Bohm is a remarkable personality. He started out at Berkeley with J. Robert
Oppenheimer, in the 1940s. Bohm was one of those who was accused of being
involved with the Soviets -- he was not allowed to work at Los Alamos,
where the atomic bomb was created.
Bohm took the fall for Oppenheimer, to protect Oppenheimer, and left the
country -USA- in order not to have to testify. He went to Brazil and then
Israel. I believe Oppenheimer betrayed Bohm. Oppenheimer sacrificed Bohm to
protect himself.
Bohm was hired after the war, as a young assistant professor at Princeton.
And he was assigned to teach the course in quantum theory, very much under
the influence of Bohr. In his lectures, Bohm was a very thorough person. He
really was questing, trying to understand the universe and quantum theory
philosophically.
He always proceeded in a clear intuitive way. He was trying to cut through
the abstract mathematics and to make contact with reality. His lecture
notes became his book -Quantum Theory-.
Having finished writing his book, Bohm was walking around campus, and he
ran into Einstein. Einstein had read the book, and they spent a weekend of
intense discussions.
Bohm had developed, whats called the pilot wave theory, based on Einsteins
ideas. The idea was that Bohrs quantum theory was very accurate, and you
can do all kinds of practical and important technological things with it.
But it is leaving something essential out.
Bohm showed that a quantum pattern of active information is fundamental to
the universe. He deals with the parts of the universe and the whole of the
universe.
END QUOTE
This article describes a brilliant and intuitive person, who, like many,
went through some seriously depressing politics -- and then dared to
continue to pursue his curiosities about such things as, dialogue._R
.
.
William writes:
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/6815001d/attachment.html
From descf at aol.com Tue Sep 19 17:40:32 2006
From: descf at aol.com (DesCF)
Date: Wed Sep 20 18:33:52 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <00d501c6dbfa$6f76c740$dd43153f@DL01>
References: <OF29446A94.AA4CE304-ON852571EE.003F5BD6-852571EE.00447223@dialogos.com>
<00d501c6dbfa$6f76c740$dd43153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <op.tf4tt3y2upgxg0@descstar>
is it just my mail reader or is Don now using a micro-font ?
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:46:39 +0100, Don Lay <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
> My dad had a way of cutting through an architypical-wanna-be dialogue.
> He said; Anytime you feel confused, go stand in front of a mirror and
> take a long, hard look at yourself. Then ask yourself if you like what
> you see. By like he meant resonate. -- Rodger
>
> Seems to me a very important experience, looking at the mirror image
> .... What resonates? What comes to awareness?
>
> Seems to me the whole of experience resonates. It is interesting to ask,
> What did the first human say/think upon this experience? Did he use the
> English and say, "THAT'S ME, MY SELF"? Of course not because there was
> no English any more than there was Italian or Japanese.
>
> Perhaps only with millions of years of whatever is/was occurred before
> the rational character of the whole evolved homo-sap language such that
> the mirror experience could be point to, tas-ed or thought about. Seems
> to me this notion of logos/ratio/reason ... evolving to language use is
> a very significant part of the mirror experience.
>
> That is, it is possible to see or be aware of the whole that produces
> the image experience instead of just the image. Maybe this kind of
> experience justifies a serious look in the direction of the many
> definitions, meanings of the eternal -- rather than just the pigeon
> holing as different religions, etc.
>
> Resonance? -- Don L
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:27 AM
> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
>
> Rodger__During puberty self-image adjusts. We change through natural
> chemical and anatomic influences as our brain is flooding in new synapse
> so that new understandings and disciplines are possible.
>
> For me, one difference between my youthful and pubescent-self was that
> females took on an impact of entirely -new meaning-. And as for most,
> puberty was often a confusing transition, when my ideas of being-a-man
> conflicted somewhere between being-like the beatles and/or James Bond.
>
> My dad had a way of cutting through an architypical-wanna-be dialogue.
> He said; Anytime you feel confused, go stand in front of a mirror and
> take a long, hard look at yourself. Then ask yourself if you like what
> you see. By like he meant resonate.
>
> I knew he was speaking of integrity. Not integrity as a social or
> family code, but as a thing unique to each individual and as such, a
> thing known only by the individual for him/ herself.
>
> No-one can know what is right or wrong for another. But others can
> feel how I resonate within myself about things I am being and things I
> am doing.
> In this way we are not alone in an experience of knowing what my -me-
> is.
> .
> .
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:52:54 -0400
> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> 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? dbl
>
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 19 18:02:53 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 20 18:55:30 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060919.120256.3300.36.ae.dropper@juno.com>
is it just my mail reader or is Don now using a micro-font ?
He uses this micro font on occasion. I have considered it to be
a "tone of voice" or "mood" type thing.
pat
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 19 18:46:11 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 20 19:39:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01>
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>
<00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <132989C9-FC8A-45BF-8899-997D8EBE1B99@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Remember that in Bohm's world, and in mine, all distinctions are
relative. They are necessary in order to talk about whatever, and
when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting
to see where you might want to draw the line.
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 14:51, Don Lay wrote:
> DF:
> 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."
>
> dbl: Bohm differentiates self and personal identity. Bohm clearly
> distinguishes between the personal identity (TAS) and self. It
> really seems confusion, destructive when there's no awareness of
> the distinction. -- dbl
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060919/bc7a2b34/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 19 18:53:32 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 20 19:46:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]The Eternal
In-Reply-To: <00e901c6dbfb$7958e120$dd43153f@DL01>
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>
<00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01>
<00e901c6dbfb$7958e120$dd43153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <F11F0E95-28E1-4502-8AC7-C388AEA23CF8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
remind me again what the SOS split is. I can recall subject, object
but what it the second S? Also when did this split come about?
It seems to me that if the problem you attribute to SOS is what I
think it is, then it must have emerged very early. That is, the
language of ancient Greece, along with what little I know about the
indo-European language families along with Hebrew and the Germanic
languages, all had subject, verb, object structures although not
necessarily in that order. At least these turn up in all the
translations I have seen.
But maybe i have misunderstood your point.
I hate acronyms, especially when I don't understand them.
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 15:54, Don Lay wrote:
> definitions of eternal:
>
> that which is prior to the SOS split.
> that which is not subject to the SOS split.
> that which is what actually is, meaning that the synthetic language
> we use, SOS is not a mirror reflection of that which is ... think
> Korzybski.
>
> I like the idea of the eternal as that which is the activity of the
> basic forces ... revealed via the logos of Being.
>
> Don L
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/18f7e688/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 19 19:15:04 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 20 20:08:26 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060919.120256.3300.36.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <002401c6dc0f$2d19e610$0102153f@DL01>
I'm unclear .... Is the smaller font troubling? I do it at times to
conserve space, etc. Please say if it is bothersome. -- Don L
From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:02 PM
> is it just my mail reader or is Don now using a micro-font ?
>
> He uses this micro font on occasion. I have considered it to be
> a "tone of voice" or "mood" type thing.
>
> pat
>>
>
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 19 19:32:31 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 20 20:25:50 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>
<BCCB891E-4427-4840-9DED-4CE9D8A16A90@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01>
<132989C9-FC8A-45BF-8899-997D8EBE1B99@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <003301c6dc11$991c47c0$0102153f@DL01>
when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to see where you might want to draw the line. -- don F
Personally, I prefer drawing the line respecting TRUTH :-), that which is -- meaning that standing at the mirror with the question, What is that, the appropriate answer is that is a mirror image of this.
The mirror-image can be said to be the persona-image as can the photo-image be said to be the personal identity.
Where is the line drawn at the slit system? Some speak of Heisenberg cut or the Bohr cut which indicates the Observer and Observed. I prefer that 2600 year old line of thought beginning with Parmenides and Heraclitus that addresses the whole (Being) and thinking -- and say that thinking and Being are the same instead of fracturing, splitting the whole into separated O/O.
It seems to me the early Greeks were or could have been aware of the use of the O/O split that is re-presented by the subject and object, the SOS, since they individuated homo-saps as egos. [What's the meaning?] The strict rules for identity appear with the hoplite, the Hellenistic phalanx, but not for the citizen. [What's the meaning?] That occurs later with Rome. [What's the meaning?]
Is it all meaningless? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Remember that in Bohm's world, and in mine, all distinctions are relative. They are necessary in order to talk about whatever, and when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to see where you might want to draw the line.
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 14:51, Don Lay wrote:
DF:
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."
dbl: Bohm differentiates self and personal identity. Bohm clearly distinguishes between the personal identity (TAS) and self. It really seems confusion, destructive when there's no awareness of the distinction. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
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
_______________________________________________
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/20060919/901ab98c/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 19:37:00 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Wed Sep 20 20:30:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <003301c6dc11$991c47c0$0102153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <20060919173700.90238.qmail@web52901.mail.yahoo.com>
what i want to say is why draw any lines at all?! but i guess to have balance, we have to be aware of these lightly dotted lines...
i mean my body isnt melting into goo on the street, mixing with others'...(is it?) so wont the intelligence or self organization of reality just take care of these mental, emotional, spiritual bodies too?
:)
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:32:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to see where you might want to draw the line. -- don F
Personally, I prefer drawing the line respecting TRUTH :-), that which is -- meaning that standing at the mirror with the question, What is that, the appropriate answer is that is a mirror image of this.
The mirror-image can be said to be the persona-image as can the photo-image be said to be the personal identity.
Where is the line drawn at the slit system? Some speak of Heisenberg cut or the Bohr cut which indicates the Observer and Observed. I prefer that 2600 year old line of thought beginning with Parmenides and Heraclitus that addresses the whole (Being) and thinking -- and say that thinking and Being are the same instead of fracturing, splitting the whole into separated O/O.
It seems to me the early Greeks were or could have been aware of the use of the O/O split that is re-presented by the subject and object, the SOS, since they individuated homo-saps as egos. [What's the meaning?] The strict rules for identity appear with the hoplite, the Hellenistic phalanx, but not for the citizen. [What's the meaning?] That occurs later with Rome. [What's the meaning?]
Is it all meaningless? -- Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/3ad28562/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 19 19:39:24 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 20 20:32:41 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>
<BCCB891E-4427-4840-9DED-4CE9D8A16A90@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01>
<132989C9-FC8A-45BF-8899-997D8EBE1B99@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<003301c6dc11$991c47c0$0102153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <006601c6dc12$912ff880$0102153f@DL01>
when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to see where you might want to draw the line. -- don F
Bohm draws the line between self and personal identity, doesn't he? He refers to self as a region of the universe (I forget where) and also the personal identity self in tas.
Denying self does not mean denying this body here presenting, presence-ing as typing. It means denying the persona idem has much meaning. It means denying the PIS is ultimate. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to see where you might want to draw the line. -- don F
Personally, I prefer drawing the line respecting TRUTH :-), that which is -- meaning that standing at the mirror with the question, What is that, the appropriate answer is that is a mirror image of this.
The mirror-image can be said to be the persona-image as can the photo-image be said to be the personal identity.
Where is the line drawn at the slit system? Some speak of Heisenberg cut or the Bohr cut which indicates the Observer and Observed. I prefer that 2600 year old line of thought beginning with Parmenides and Heraclitus that addresses the whole (Being) and thinking -- and say that thinking and Being are the same instead of fracturing, splitting the whole into separated O/O.
It seems to me the early Greeks were or could have been aware of the use of the O/O split that is re-presented by the subject and object, the SOS, since they individuated homo-saps as egos. [What's the meaning?] The strict rules for identity appear with the hoplite, the Hellenistic phalanx, but not for the citizen. [What's the meaning?] That occurs later with Rome. [What's the meaning?]
Is it all meaningless? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Remember that in Bohm's world, and in mine, all distinctions are relative. They are necessary in order to talk about whatever, and when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to see where you might want to draw the line.
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 14:51, Don Lay wrote:
DF:
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."
dbl: Bohm differentiates self and personal identity. Bohm clearly distinguishes between the personal identity (TAS) and self. It really seems confusion, destructive when there's no awareness of the distinction. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
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
_______________________________________________
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/20060919/15a4c792/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Tue Sep 19 19:56:57 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Wed Sep 20 20:50:12 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <409E4726-C046-41EF-BCFD-2A03F8CFC397@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <0MKwpI-1GPjqE1Khm-0004SF@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
>I would love to know what anyone here thinks
>about the Deikmans' piece.
Not much; as much nonsense as ever
William
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 19 20:04:16 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 20 21:05:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060919173700.90238.qmail@web52901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00a501c6dc17$1b83d160$0102153f@DL01>
what i want to say is why draw any lines at all?! -- Kari
Maybe language draws lines because words have definition (limits, limitations). I believe words limit awareness, and in that sense draw lines, set boundaries to thought, to awareness, don't they? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Karilen Mays
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
what i want to say is why draw any lines at all?! but i guess to have balance, we have to be aware of these lightly dotted lines...
i mean my body isnt melting into goo on the street, mixing with others'...(is it?) so wont the intelligence or self organization of reality just take care of these mental, emotional, spiritual bodies too?
:)
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:32:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to see where you might want to draw the line. -- don F
Personally, I prefer drawing the line respecting TRUTH :-), that which is -- meaning that standing at the mirror with the question, What is that, the appropriate answer is that is a mirror image of this.
The mirror-image can be said to be the persona-image as can the photo-image be said to be the personal identity.
Where is the line drawn at the slit system? Some speak of Heisenberg cut or the Bohr cut which indicates the Observer and Observed. I prefer that 2600 year old line of thought beginning with Parmenides and Heraclitus that addresses the whole (Being) and thinking -- and say that thinking and Being are the same instead of fracturing, splitting the whole into separated O/O.
It seems to me the early Greeks were or could have been aware of the use of the O/O split that is re-presented by the subject and object, the SOS, since they individuated homo-saps as egos. [What's the meaning?] The strict rules for identity appear with the hoplite, the Hellenistic phalanx, but not for the citizen. [What's the meaning?] That occurs later with Rome. [What's the meaning?]
Is it all meaningless? -- Don L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/0cbea6da/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 19 20:11:53 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 20 21:05:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]The Eternal
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>
<00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01> <00e901c6dbfb$7958e120$dd43153f@DL01>
<F11F0E95-28E1-4502-8AC7-C388AEA23CF8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <00a701c6dc17$1c9f7a90$0102153f@DL01>
SOS = Subject Object Structure, or subject, verb, object -- the structure of language.
The SOS split is the separation between S and O. The S and O are separated by the verb, etc.
I'm saying and I believe Bohm infers that the structure of language is the structure of thought -- is the structure of consciousness.
Further, I'm (my persona is) trying to find a way to find adequate language that points to, directs awareness to this such that people can then see the source of their confusion. More, I, my personal self is working on ways to explicate awareness without the SOS.
However, a problem occurs with the use of language, SOS, because any language structures the mind, the awareness. I was sailing South, 2 miles off Florida's East coast when this realization occurred. We were beating into the Gulf Stream with just enough beam wind to bounce the 41 foot Pierce up and down with every wave.
The captain said to take a bearing on a shore light and a star and the awareness of the constellation of star, shore lights somehow representing where we were brought to mind that words constellate the brain/mind in a similar way. I've never forgotten that trip on account of that and also something rather shameful occurred a bit later when we headed South East leaving the shoreline, cutting diagonally across the gulf stream. I've never written about that because it's difficult to address but I may some day. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue]The Eternal
remind me again what the SOS split is. I can recall subject, object but what it the second S? Also when did this split come about?
It seems to me that if the problem you attribute to SOS is what I think it is, then it must have emerged very early. That is, the language of ancient Greece, along with what little I know about the indo-European language families along with Hebrew and the Germanic languages, all had subject, verb, object structures although not necessarily in that order. At least these turn up in all the translations I have seen.
But maybe i have misunderstood your point.
I hate acronyms, especially when I don't understand them.
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 15:54, Don Lay wrote:
definitions of eternal:
that which is prior to the SOS split.
that which is not subject to the SOS split.
that which is what actually is, meaning that the synthetic language we use, SOS is not a mirror reflection of that which is ... think Korzybski.
I like the idea of the eternal as that which is the activity of the basic forces ... revealed via the logos of Being.
Don L
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/2fd12abf/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Tue Sep 19 20:17:32 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Wed Sep 20 21:10:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <00a501c6dc17$1b83d160$0102153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <20060919181732.69530.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
yes i suppose you are right...but those boundaries are only so deep. they are not infinite and static, but blurry, dissolving, and dynamic.
im on kind of a goddess energy trip so im sure that's why i want to emphasize this. maybe if we truly know this then words aren't so limiting...?
thanks,
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:04:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
what i want to say is why draw any lines at all?! -- Kari
Maybe language draws lines because words have definition (limits, limitations). I believe words limit awareness, and in that sense draw lines, set boundaries to thought, to awareness, don't they? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/49fc4e2d/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Tue Sep 19 20:48:55 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Wed Sep 20 21:41:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]The Eternal
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D169551975@msw2k.msw.local>
Your metaphor meant something to me. where we are from words bringing
together the brain/mind. Maybe that is not what you meant. Words help
know where we are.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:12 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue]The Eternal
SOS = Subject Object Structure, or subject, verb, object -- the
structure of language.
The SOS split is the separation between S and O. The S and O are
separated by the verb, etc.
I'm saying and I believe Bohm infers that the structure of language is
the structure of thought -- is the structure of consciousness.
Further, I'm (my persona is) trying to find a way to find adequate
language that points to, directs awareness to this such that people can
then see the source of their confusion. More, I, my personal self is
working on ways to explicate awareness without the SOS.
However, a problem occurs with the use of language, SOS, because any
language structures the mind, the awareness. I was sailing South, 2
miles off Florida's East coast when this realization occurred. We were
beating into the Gulf Stream with just enough beam wind to bounce the 41
foot Pierce up and down with every wave.
The captain said to take a bearing on a shore light and a star and the
awareness of the constellation of star, shore lights somehow
representing where we were brought to mind that words constellate the
brain/mind in a similar way. I've never forgotten that trip on account
of that and also something rather shameful occurred a bit later when we
headed South East leaving the shoreline, cutting diagonally across the
gulf stream. I've never written about that because it's difficult to
address but I may some day. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue]The Eternal
remind me again what the SOS split is. I can recall subject,
object but what it the second S? Also when did this split come about?
It seems to me that if the problem you attribute to SOS is what
I think it is, then it must have emerged very early. That is, the
language of ancient Greece, along with what little I know about the
indo-European language families along with Hebrew and the Germanic
languages, all had subject, verb, object structures although not
necessarily in that order. At least these turn up in all the
translations I have seen.
But maybe i have misunderstood your point.
I hate acronyms, especially when I don't understand them.
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 15:54, Don Lay wrote:
definitions of eternal:
that which is prior to the SOS split.
that which is not subject to the SOS split.
that which is what actually is, meaning that the
synthetic language we use, SOS is not a mirror reflection of that which
is ... think Korzybski.
I like the idea of the eternal as that which is the
activity of the basic forces ... revealed via the logos of Being.
Don L
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/6d26dbc3/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 19 22:11:23 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 20 23:05:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060919181732.69530.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002201c6dc27$d6d11620$1d0a153f@DL01>
maybe if we truly know this then words aren't so limiting...? -- Kari
Part of the problem, perhaps, is that know implicates limitation in that, in the West know means language, saying ... with words -- and words are limits, by definition a word limits.
As you suggest, when there is awareness, "then the words aren't so limiting." Bohm indicates there's a problem with knowing when the identity is used. It seems people dislike the idea of their self identity being limited, for example, having meaning only in society, culture. -- Don L
From: Karilen Mays
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
yes i suppose you are right...but those boundaries are only so deep. they are not infinite and static, but blurry, dissolving, and dynamic.
im on kind of a goddess energy trip so im sure that's why i want to emphasize this. maybe if we truly know this then words aren't so limiting...?
thanks,
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:04:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
what i want to say is why draw any lines at all?! -- Kari
Maybe language draws lines because words have definition (limits, limitations). I believe words limit awareness, and in that sense draw lines, set boundaries to thought, to awareness, don't they? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20060919/cb39fe92/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Tue Sep 19 23:07:31 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Thu Sep 21 00:00:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955198C@msw2k.msw.local>
karilen what is a goddess energy trip? It sounds so good I want to go
too. d.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:11 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
maybe if we truly know this then words aren't so limiting...? -- Kari
Part of the problem, perhaps, is that know implicates limitation in
that, in the West know means language, saying ... with words -- and
words are limits, by definition a word limits.
As you suggest, when there is awareness, "then the words aren't so
limiting." Bohm indicates there's a problem with knowing when the
identity is used. It seems people dislike the idea of their self
identity being limited, for example, having meaning only in society,
culture. -- Don L
From: Karilen Mays <mailto:tubakari@yahoo.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
yes i suppose you are right...but those boundaries are only so
deep. they are not infinite and static, but blurry, dissolving, and
dynamic.
im on kind of a goddess energy trip so im sure that's why i want
to emphasize this. maybe if we truly know this then words aren't so
limiting...?
thanks,
kari
<http://kari.zaadz.com/>
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:04:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
what i want to say is why draw any lines at all?! -- Kari
Maybe language draws lines because words have definition
(limits, limitations). I believe words limit awareness, and in that
sense draw lines, set boundaries to thought, to awareness, don't they?
-- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
________________________________
_______________________________________________
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/20060919/7e4c30c2/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 19 23:31:49 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 21 00:24:58 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <002401c6dc0f$2d19e610$0102153f@DL01>
References: <20060919.120256.3300.36.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<002401c6dc0f$2d19e610$0102153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <56FA6E07-5180-45DA-B1D3-2A6DC221DBBD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
i have to enlarge those posts, so I would prefer something bigger
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 18:15, Don Lay wrote:
> I'm unclear .... Is the smaller font troubling? I do it at times
> to conserve space, etc. Please say if it is bothersome. -- Don L
>
> From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:02 PM
>
>> is it just my mail reader or is Don now using a micro-font ?
>>
>> He uses this micro font on occasion. I have considered it to be
>> a "tone of voice" or "mood" type thing.
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 19 23:34:11 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 21 00:27:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <003301c6dc11$991c47c0$0102153f@DL01>
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>
<00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01>
<132989C9-FC8A-45BF-8899-997D8EBE1B99@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<003301c6dc11$991c47c0$0102153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <56287EE8-6AC8-45CE-9535-A92754F3BE90@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Haven't a clue what you are talking about. Is this the way you
actually experience yourself in the world?
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 18:32, Don Lay wrote:
> when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting
> to see where you might want to draw the line. -- don F
>
> Personally, I prefer drawing the line respecting TRUTH :-), that
> which is -- meaning that standing at the mirror with the question,
> What is that, the appropriate answer is that is a mirror image of
> this.
>
> The mirror-image can be said to be the persona-image as can the
> photo-image be said to be the personal identity.
>
> Where is the line drawn at the slit system? Some speak of
> Heisenberg cut or the Bohr cut which indicates the Observer and
> Observed. I prefer that 2600 year old line of thought beginning
> with Parmenides and Heraclitus that addresses the whole (Being) and
> thinking -- and say that thinking and Being are the same instead of
> fracturing, splitting the whole into separated O/O.
>
> It seems to me the early Greeks were or could have been aware of
> the use of the O/O split that is re-presented by the subject and
> object, the SOS, since they individuated homo-saps as egos. [What's
> the meaning?] The strict rules for identity appear with the
> hoplite, the Hellenistic phalanx, but not for the citizen. [What's
> the meaning?] That occurs later with Rome. [What's the meaning?]
>
> Is it all meaningless? -- Don L
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
> Remember that in Bohm's world, and in mine, all distinctions are
> relative. They are necessary in order to talk about whatever, and
> when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting
> to see where you might want to draw the line.
> don
>
>
> On 19 Sep 2006, at 14:51, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> DF:
>> 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."
>>
>> dbl: Bohm differentiates self and personal identity. Bohm clearly
>> distinguishes between the personal identity (TAS) and self. It
>> really seems confusion, destructive when there's no awareness of
>> the distinction. -- dbl
>>
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Factor
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:04 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20060919/038fc83a/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 19 23:39:11 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 21 00:32:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <006601c6dc12$912ff880$0102153f@DL01>
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>
<00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01>
<132989C9-FC8A-45BF-8899-997D8EBE1B99@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<003301c6dc11$991c47c0$0102153f@DL01>
<006601c6dc12$912ff880$0102153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <51C8A077-D927-4CEC-A86D-546ACCDF35D8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Again, what does this mean? Deikman's suggestion that the self is
pure awareness, makes sense. Bohm's suggestion that that personal
identity system is the point of awareness in fancy dress - with
attributes that narrow that awareness and give it a preconceived set
of meanings or values that cannot be vallid or useful because its
fabric is made of memory.
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 18:39, Don Lay wrote:
> when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting
> to see where you might want to draw the line. -- don F
>
> Bohm draws the line between self and personal identity, doesn't
> he? He refers to self as a region of the universe (I forget where)
> and also the personal identity self in tas.
>
> Denying self does not mean denying this body here presenting,
> presence-ing as typing. It means denying the persona idem has much
> meaning. It means denying the PIS is ultimate. -- dbl
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
> when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting
> to see where you might want to draw the line. -- don F
>
> Personally, I prefer drawing the line respecting TRUTH :-), that
> which is -- meaning that standing at the mirror with the question,
> What is that, the appropriate answer is that is a mirror image of
> this.
>
> The mirror-image can be said to be the persona-image as can the
> photo-image be said to be the personal identity.
>
> Where is the line drawn at the slit system? Some speak of
> Heisenberg cut or the Bohr cut which indicates the Observer and
> Observed. I prefer that 2600 year old line of thought beginning
> with Parmenides and Heraclitus that addresses the whole (Being) and
> thinking -- and say that thinking and Being are the same instead of
> fracturing, splitting the whole into separated O/O.
>
> It seems to me the early Greeks were or could have been aware of
> the use of the O/O split that is re-presented by the subject and
> object, the SOS, since they individuated homo-saps as egos. [What's
> the meaning?] The strict rules for identity appear with the
> hoplite, the Hellenistic phalanx, but not for the citizen. [What's
> the meaning?] That occurs later with Rome. [What's the meaning?]
>
> Is it all meaningless? -- Don L
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
> Remember that in Bohm's world, and in mine, all distinctions are
> relative. They are necessary in order to talk about whatever, and
> when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting
> to see where you might want to draw the line.
> don
>
>
> On 19 Sep 2006, at 14:51, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> DF:
>> 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."
>>
>> dbl: Bohm differentiates self and personal identity. Bohm clearly
>> distinguishes between the personal identity (TAS) and self. It
>> really seems confusion, destructive when there's no awareness of
>> the distinction. -- dbl
>>
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Factor
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:04 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20060919/2e3b97dc/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 19 23:44:16 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 21 00:37:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]The Eternal
In-Reply-To: <00a701c6dc17$1c9f7a90$0102153f@DL01>
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>
<00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01> <00e901c6dbfb$7958e120$dd43153f@DL01>
<F11F0E95-28E1-4502-8AC7-C388AEA23CF8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00a701c6dc17$1c9f7a90$0102153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <5CA81F65-FB63-4F05-8B26-C5986608ED41@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
it seems to me that the system - the whole system - needs them both.
Awareness and its relatively stable structures. The whole has
organized itself into parts, according to Bohm\s mode. One of the
parts is your persona idem. The troubles start when this persona
begins to confuse itself with the whole.
It seems simple enough.
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 19:11, Don Lay wrote:
> SOS = Subject Object Structure, or subject, verb, object -- the
> structure of language.
>
> The SOS split is the separation between S and O. The S and O are
> separated by the verb, etc.
>
> I'm saying and I believe Bohm infers that the structure of language
> is the structure of thought -- is the structure of consciousness.
>
> Further, I'm (my persona is) trying to find a way to find adequate
> language that points to, directs awareness to this such that people
>