From donlay at knology.net Thu Dec 20 01:20:16 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Dec 20 01:26:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
References: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01>
When Matisse was asked in a 1942 radio interview why he painted, he said: "Why, to translate my emotions, my feelings, and the reactions of my sensibility into color and design, which neither the most perfect camera, even in color, nor the cinema can do. ... [Artists are] useful because they can augment color and design through the richness of their imagination intensified by their emotion and their reflection on the beauties of nature, just as poets or musicians do."
Quote source: Matisse on Art, edited by Jack D. Flam, page 92
Anyone understand this? -- dl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/db8c3d59/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Thu Dec 20 03:17:38 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Dec 20 03:24:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with "good stuff"
In-Reply-To: <588642.99633.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <588642.99633.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3CD4887A-B127-4353-97A1-9153C14C29D8@dc.rr.com>
yes I is watching. It will all go into my internal comutational
system where it will...........................
don
On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> Will an answer to this {those} question here tell youus any more
> what is (not)goin on(off) here
>
> Did you all ways try (to get a way with) playing(pretending -- hi
> don l, are you watching... it is happenin right under your nose ...
> act'i'n) over it... your way 'out', frau kathirene
>
> Humanimalian
>
> Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> IK: How about dl commenting on 'seem'?
>
> You still like Bach, pit?
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 1:11 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> seem to be
>
> can i has that for lunch ;--O
>
> abc
>
>
> ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> this is good stuff Don. you ( seem to be) saying IT IS without
> acting or pretending (rob)
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/ce9f8dd9/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Thu Dec 20 03:33:05 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Dec 20 03:39:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Cycling
In-Reply-To: <893351.77350.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <893351.77350.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F61C7C06-0A8E-45EB-AE6C-FFBDC494C61D@dc.rr.com>
On Dec 19, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> there was also a case published of another woman who somehow lost
> pp overnight, and couldnt move her body w/o watching every
> movement. she had to learn to watch very skilfully and somehow to
> get along, apparently that never changed. -- bohm
>
Don't recall this last bit in Bohm. Can you source it for me?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/b981f517/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Thu Dec 20 03:40:24 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Dec 20 03:47:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Cycling (too)*
In-Reply-To: <904815.19619.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <904815.19619.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B3A61CA9-BC7A-4D13-B489-98E4BA7ED1C4@dc.rr.com>
On Dec 19, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
>
> 1 - ON COMUNICATION
>
> during the past few decades, modern tech, with radio, tv, air
> travel, and satellites, has woven a network of comm which puts each
> part of the world in to almost instant con tact with all the other
> parts. yet, in spite of this world-wide system of linkages, there
> is, at this very moment, a general feeling that comm is breaking
> down everywhere, on an unparalleled scale. people living in diff
> nations, with diff economic and political sys, are hardly able to
> talk to each other w/o fighting. and with in any single nation,
> diff social classes and economic and political groups are caught in
> a similar pattern of inability to under stand each other. indeed,
> even with in each limited group, peo are talking of .... (or are
> not). -- bohm, OD
>
>
Doesn't this make you feel a greater sense of urgency to try and find
out why? I get the impression that you say, well, what the hell, lets
just join in the fray and at least have some more fun so we can feel
a bit superior as we slide down that scratchy slope along with
everyone else.
No?
don.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/1aae32a6/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Thu Dec 20 03:43:12 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Dec 20 03:49:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
In-Reply-To: <005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <7E56CA9A-70FA-40B6-AB05-7D28A6724F19@dc.rr.com>
On Dec 19, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Don Lay wrote:
> When Matisse was asked in a 1942 radio interview why he painted, he
> said: "Why, to translate my emotions, my feelings, and the
> reactions of my sensibility into color and design, which neither
> the most perfect camera, even in color, nor the cinema can do. ...
> [Artists are] useful because they can augment color and design
> through the richness of their imagination intensified by their
> emotion and their reflection on the beauties of nature, just as
> poets or musicians do."
>
> Quote source: Matisse on Art, edited by Jack D. Flam, page 92
>
> Anyone understand this? -- dl
>
>
I do.
don
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/faa69cab/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 04:01:01 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:07:36 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
In-Reply-To: <005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <490432.59327.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Don Lay, you has longtimespace apprentice/master of actin & pretendin:
Do you have ani idemage what is going on HERE right NOW? ..
Y'our group
Humanimal
Ps: Anytwo?
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
.hmmessage P { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px } BODY.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma }
.....Anyone understand this? -- dl
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/a15b006f/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 04:03:24 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:09:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with "good stuff"
In-Reply-To: <3CD4887A-B127-4353-97A1-9153C14C29D8@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <150208.13313.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Yes, Don, a while ago it sparked with'in this humanimal:
Thought, thinkg is, "in the end", nothinkg but FUEL (too)
And i means that: liter'ally.
H
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
yes I is watching. It will all go into my internal comutational system where it will...........................
don
On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Will an answer to this {those} question here tell youus any more what is (not)goin on(off) here
Did you all ways try (to get a way with) playing(pretending -- hi don l, are you watching... it is happenin right under your nose ... act'i'n) over it... your way 'out', frau kathirene
Humanimalian
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
IK: How about dl commenting on 'seem'?
You still like Bach, pit?
On Dec 19, 2007 1:11 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
seem to be
can i has that for lunch ;--O
abc
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
this is good stuff Don. you ( seem to be) saying IT IS without acting or pretending (rob)
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/02ebff73/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 04:07:05 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:13:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Cycling
In-Reply-To: <F61C7C06-0A8E-45EB-AE6C-FFBDC494C61D@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <550821.19088.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Well, as you k'now, i am not of the lighthearted sort when it comes up to 'making' thinkgs up --someboinds actually prefer to call/see that as: "imaginative", "creative"... you name it, smile--, BUT, in this case: it is actually straight from the horse's mouth: bohm in tas, p121>122 (at least the print f'lying about here at this side of the pipendtimespacecontintintinuum)
Humanimal
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
there was also a case published of another woman who somehow lost pp overnight, and couldnt move her body w/o watching every movement. she had to learn to watch very skilfully and somehow to get along, apparently that never changed. -- bohm
Don't recall this last bit in Bohm. Can you source it for me?
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/cf379507/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 04:12:46 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:19:21 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Cycling (too)*
In-Reply-To: <B3A61CA9-BC7A-4D13-B489-98E4BA7ED1C4@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <852048.66377.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
a _ find out what xACTlie, sir ?
b _ "urgency" about what, and why
c _ (some) i does deny fun not. correct. but, you see (not??): there is many, much: i(ness)(mess) ... and that with&in this very cop of humanimal alone!
d _ "superior".... goodogod. over whowhat... your 're kidding, 're you not. ("superior" like as in: S over death ::--))
Humanimortalian
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
1 - ON COMUNICATION
during the past few decades, modern tech, with radio, tv, air travel, and satellites, has woven a network of comm which puts each part of the world in to almost instant con tact with all the other parts. yet, in spite of this world-wide system of linkages, there is, at this very moment, a general feeling that comm is breaking down everywhere, on an unparalleled scale. people living in diff nations, with diff economic and political sys, are hardly able to talk to each other w/o fighting. and with in any single nation, diff social classes and economic and political groups are caught in a similar pattern of inability to under stand each other. indeed, even with in each limited group, peo are talking of .... (or are not). -- bohm, OD
Doesn't this make you feel a greater sense of urgency to try and find out why? I get the impression that you say, well, what the hell, lets just join in the fray and at least have some more fun so we can feel a bit superior as we slide down that scratchy slope along with everyone else.
No?
don.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/2db6fa40/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 04:15:01 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:21:35 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
In-Reply-To: <7E56CA9A-70FA-40B6-AB05-7D28A6724F19@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <594308.70929.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
"i does"
ooook, so that make 1.5 of us then ;-)
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
--snip--
Anyone understand this? -- dl
I do.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/8b68d4ba/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 04:19:01 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:25:35 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Cycling
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712191347m6ccd35b9h7e89c7542a2ec62e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <789619.66715.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
http://tinyurl.com/3dj5x5
ps: (re'collecting aniboind here what herr bohm says a'bout that?)
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:...
Am signing off to go do that. catch you later
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/dfc84743/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Thu Dec 20 04:20:07 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:26:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with "good stuff"
In-Reply-To: <150208.13313.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <150208.13313.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2F67ED1D-3A1C-4C01-BF92-9C889A0F86BF@dc.rr.com>
This is something I wrote some months ago and then, for some reason,
i didn't post it. But it seems revevant, if only has added fuel for
the fire.
And it is worth remembering that Bohm described the problem that he
wanted to address as the difficulty human beings have with talking
together about things that are important to them. He mentioned that
most of what humans do together is based in language. Governments
involve groups of people talking together as do all other
organizations, families have to talk together, and even if a man
wants to make love to a woman words must be exchanged. So this
difficulty is well worth our attention. And it seems that, the usual
thought of inventing a new kind of language or seeking out an
alternative one doesn't work because the problem is not so much at
the level of any particular language but resides at a deeper level.
It was this kind of thinking that led him to his work on the thought
process and to group dialogue as an experiment in which the
experimenters and the experimental subjects were the same people. I
like to think of it as a praxis, that is, an activity where the
theory unfolds from the practice and the practice adjusts to the
evolving theory.
don
On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:03 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> Yes, Don, a while ago it sparked with'in this humanimal:
> Thought, thinkg is, "in the end", nothinkg but FUEL (too)
> And i means that: liter'ally.
>
> H
>
> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> yes I is watching. It will all go into my internal comutational
> system where it will...........................
>
> don
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
>> Will an answer to this {those} question here tell youus any more
>> what is (not)goin on(off) here
>>
>> Did you all ways try (to get a way with) playing(pretending -- hi
>> don l, are you watching... it is happenin right under your
>> nose ... act'i'n) over it... your way 'out', frau kathirene
>>
>> Humanimalian
>>
>> Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IK: How about dl commenting on 'seem'?
>>
>> You still like Bach, pit?
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2007 1:11 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> seem to be
>>
>> can i has that for lunch ;--O
>>
>> abc
>>
>>
>> ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>> this is good stuff Don. you ( seem to be) saying IT IS without
>> acting or pretending (rob)
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
>> Search.
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/126c515d/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Thu Dec 20 04:20:35 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:27:15 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
References: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com><005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01>
<7E56CA9A-70FA-40B6-AB05-7D28A6724F19@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <007a01c842b7$4987e3f0$b5c16018@DL01>
What is the meaning ... referencing understand?
Do you mean that you stand under his articulated position?
Which Matisse painting do you suppose might best suggest his augmenting "color and design through the richness of ... [his] imagination intensified by [his] emotion and ... reflection on the beauties of nature"?
I'll send you my supposition in a few minutes ... maybe, since I may be unable to stay awake for a few minutes -- but I'm trying to make it into a jpg that I can send. -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
On Dec 19, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Don Lay wrote:
When Matisse was asked in a 1942 radio interview why he painted, he said: "Why, to translate my emotions, my feelings, and the reactions of my sensibility into color and design, which neither the most perfect camera, even in color, nor the cinema can do. ... [Artists are] useful because they can augment color and design through the richness of their imagination intensified by their emotion and their reflection on the beauties of nature, just as poets or musicians do."
Quote source: Matisse on Art, edited by Jack D. Flam, page 92
Anyone understand this? -- dl
I do.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/a0a0ee69/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 04:24:48 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:31:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with "good stuff"
In-Reply-To: <2F67ED1D-3A1C-4C01-BF92-9C889A0F86BF@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <597873.11870.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
when we say we see the necessity of sharing meaning, the first thinkg we discover is that we cant do it. thats the same thinkg as with the individual - we see the necessity of staying with anger but we cant do it, we are moving away. so then what we have to watch is how we move away. and if we are really serious about it we say: "i really see the nec, and i wont just stop bc i failed at that point. i will stick with it and see if i cant find why its not working".
[...] we could say that hate is a neurophysiological chemical disturbance of a very powerful kind, which is now endemic in the world. wherever you look, you see people hating each other. so suppose you stick with this. you may get an insight, a shared insight, that we are all in the same position - everybody has an assumption, everybody is sticking to this assumption, everybody is disturbed neurochemically. the fundamental level in people is the same; the superficial differences are not so important
-- both bohm, both tas {sorry for sketchy rendering... not munch tice here tonight.... plentii on the burnr ... again: Don & Co.... there is a whole wide whirld out/in there.... not just herr bohm, which, needless to say, ii does like to have on the menu too.... dont want to miss (reading, studyingk, questioning...) him
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: This is something I wrote some months ago and then, for some reason, i didn't post it. But it seems revevant, if only has added fuel for the fire.
And it is worth remembering that Bohm described the problem that he wanted to address as the difficulty human beings have with talking together about things that are important to them. He mentioned that most of what humans do together is based in language. Governments involve groups of people talking together as do all other organizations, families have to talk together, and even if a man wants to make love to a woman words must be exchanged. So this difficulty is well worth our attention. And it seems that, the usual thought of inventing a new kind of language or seeking out an alternative one doesn't work because the problem is not so much at the level of any particular language but resides at a deeper level. It was this kind of thinking that led him to his work on the thought process and to group dialogue as an experiment in which the experimenters and the experimental subjects were the same people. I like to think of it as a praxis, that is, an activity where the
theory unfolds from the practice and the practice adjusts to the evolving theory.
don
On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:03 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Yes, Don, a while ago it sparked with'in this humanimal:
Thought, thinkg is, "in the end", nothinkg but FUEL (too)
And i means that: liter'ally.
H
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
yes I is watching. It will all go into my internal comutational system where it will...........................
don
On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Will an answer to this {those} question here tell youus any more what is (not)goin on(off) here
Did you all ways try (to get a way with) playing(pretending -- hi don l, are you watching... it is happenin right under your nose ... act'i'n) over it... your way 'out', frau kathirene
Humanimalian
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
IK: How about dl commenting on 'seem'?
You still like Bach, pit?
On Dec 19, 2007 1:11 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
seem to be
can i has that for lunch ;--O
abc
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
this is good stuff Don. you ( seem to be) saying IT IS without acting or pretending (rob)
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/495692a7/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Thu Dec 20 04:28:32 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:35:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
References: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com><005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01>
<7E56CA9A-70FA-40B6-AB05-7D28A6724F19@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <008501c842b8$660ccdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 25978 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/b6c08ffd/attachment.jpe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 267 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/b6c08ffd/attachment.png
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 04:29:31 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:36:06 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
In-Reply-To: <007a01c842b7$4987e3f0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <731111.25817.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Ciao Senor Lay.... no appetite to look/cook with/in
Dialogical Group Dynamics
Right here right now
Under you nose, mouth, ears..... brain?
Does any of that what is (not)happenin at BD mmmmean ani thingK to you?
The process not catering to your 'special' needs??
Humanimal
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
What is the meaning ... referencing understand?
Do you mean that you stand under his articulated position?
Which Matisse painting do you suppose might best suggest his augmenting "color and design through the richness of ... [his] imagination intensified by [his] emotion and ... reflection on the beauties of nature"?
I'll send you my supposition in a few minutes ... maybe, since I may be unable to stay awake for a few minutes -- but I'm trying to make it into a jpg that I can send. -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
On Dec 19, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Don Lay wrote:
When Matisse was asked in a 1942 radio interview why he painted, he said: "Why, to translate my emotions, my feelings, and the reactions of my sensibility into color and design, which neither the most perfect camera, even in color, nor the cinema can do. ... [Artists are] useful because they can augment color and design through the richness of their imagination intensified by their emotion and their reflection on the beauties of nature, just as poets or musicians do."
Quote source: Matisse on Art, edited by Jack D. Flam, page 92
Anyone understand this? -- dl
I do.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/f1b2eb44/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Thu Dec 20 04:29:58 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:36:36 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem, More visual poetry
References: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com><005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01><7E56CA9A-70FA-40B6-AB05-7D28A6724F19@dc.rr.com>
<008501c842b8$660ccdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <009b01c842b8$98b93770$b5c16018@DL01>
Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8145 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/d5145f47/attachment-0003.jpe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4538 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/d5145f47/attachment-0004.jpe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4527 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/d5145f47/attachment-0005.jpe
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 04:32:16 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:38:51 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
In-Reply-To: <008501c842b8$660ccdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <11768.19121.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5kblj
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Henri Matisse, La Danse (second version), 1909 Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/64cfdeee/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 04:34:30 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 04:41:04 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem, More visual poetry
In-Reply-To: <009b01c842b8$98b93770$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <398014.21288.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
http://thinkg.net/test.html
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/5d6addca/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Thu Dec 20 05:21:15 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Dec 20 05:27:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with "good stuff"
In-Reply-To: <597873.11870.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <597873.11870.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6696F445-08DA-43FD-8295-FC478C5719EF@dc.rr.com>
Who ever said that B was the whole show? He simply opened a door.
There are some, I guess, who are content to sit aound and spend their
lives on the doorstep. But doors are for going through, or slamming
shut. Some of us have lives outside this deep, dark pond - sorry for
the mixed metaphor. And that is where it plays out. But what we can
do here is to look at it with a few others who give some indication
of being interested, and then maybe see what can happen beyond tthis
miniature,virtual world.
And it is worth remembering that Bohm described the problem that he
wanted to address as the difficulty human beings have with talking
together about things that are important to them. He mentioned that
most of what humans do together is based in language. Governments
involve groups of people talking together as do all other
organizations, families have to talk together, and even if a man
wants to make love to a woman words must be exchanged. So this
difficulty is well worth our attention. And it seems that, the usual
thought of inventing a new kind of language or seeking out an
alternative one doesn't work because the problem is not so much at
the level of any particular language but resides at a deeper level.
It was this kind of thinking that led him to his work on the thought
process and to group dialogue as an experiment in which the
experimenters and the experimental subjects were the same people. I
like to think of it as a praxis, that is, an activity where the
theory unfolds from the practice and the practice adjusts to the
evolving theory. But thinking about talking at the "quantum level"
is, I am afraid, beyond me, although there may be hope for us at the
spiritual and even the cosmic.. None of us, so far as I know, have
nukes or razor wire fences so we can take a few risks just to see
what happens.
don
On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> when we say we see the necessity of sharing meaning, the first
> thinkg we discover is that we cant do it. thats the same thinkg as
> with the individual - we see the necessity of staying with anger
> but we cant do it, we are moving away. so then what we have to
> watch is how we move away. and if we are really serious about it we
> say: "i really see the nec, and i wont just stop bc i failed at
> that point. i will stick with it and see if i cant find why its not
> working".
>
> [...] we could say that hate is a neurophysiological chemical
> disturbance of a very powerful kind, which is now endemic in the
> world. wherever you look, you see people hating each other. so
> suppose you stick with this. you may get an insight, a shared
> insight, that we are all in the same position - everybody has an
> assumption, everybody is sticking to this assumption, everybody is
> disturbed neurochemically. the fundamental level in people is the
> same; the superficial differences are not so important
>
> -- both bohm, both tas {sorry for sketchy rendering... not munch
> tice here tonight.... plentii on the burnr ... again: Don & Co....
> there is a whole wide whirld out/in there.... not just herr bohm,
> which, needless to say, ii does like to have on the menu too....
> dont want to miss (reading, studyingk, questioning...) him
>
>
>
> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> This is something I wrote some months ago and then, for some
> reason, i didn't post it. But it seems revevant, if only has added
> fuel for the fire.
>
> And it is worth remembering that Bohm described the problem that
> he wanted to address as the difficulty human beings have with
> talking together about things that are important to them. He
> mentioned that most of what humans do together is based in
> language. Governments involve groups of people talking together as
> do all other organizations, families have to talk together, and
> even if a man wants to make love to a woman words must be
> exchanged. So this difficulty is well worth our attention. And it
> seems that, the usual thought of inventing a new kind of language
> or seeking out an alternative one doesn't work because the problem
> is not so much at the level of any particular language but resides
> at a deeper level. It was this kind of thinking that led him to his
> work on the thought process and to group dialogue as an experiment
> in which the experimenters and the experimental subjects were the
> same people. I like to think of it as a praxis, that is, an
> activity where the theory unfolds from the practice and the
> practice adjusts to the evolving theory.
>
> don
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:03 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
>> Yes, Don, a while ago it sparked with'in this humanimal:
>> Thought, thinkg is, "in the end", nothinkg but FUEL (too)
>> And i means that: liter'ally.
>>
>> H
>>
>> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>> yes I is watching. It will all go into my internal comutational
>> system where it will...........................
>>
>> don
>> On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>>
>>> Will an answer to this {those} question here tell youus any more
>>> what is (not)goin on(off) here
>>>
>>> Did you all ways try (to get a way with) playing(pretending -- hi
>>> don l, are you watching... it is happenin right under your
>>> nose ... act'i'n) over it... your way 'out', frau kathirene
>>>
>>> Humanimalian
>>>
>>> Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> IK: How about dl commenting on 'seem'?
>>>
>>> You still like Bach, pit?
>>>
>>> On Dec 19, 2007 1:11 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> seem to be
>>>
>>> can i has that for lunch ;--O
>>>
>>> abc
>>>
>>>
>>> ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>>> this is good stuff Don. you ( seem to be) saying IT IS without
>>> acting or pretending (rob)
>>>
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with
>>> Yahoo! Search.
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
>> Try it now.
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071219/ba1c36f2/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 11:14:03 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Thu Dec 20 11:20:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <012801c8427d$146cf7d0$ab76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <942989.91927.qm@web57415.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Susan Joy. Eli Lilly wins FDA approval to put Prozac into chewable, beef-flavored pills to treat separation anxiety in dogs. AL
Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote: Although your questions are very interesting Irene I don't really have answers to them at this point. The question was asked by William if I would be interested in starting a group that has a different style. My answer was yes, it sounds interesting. But the only way I would want to start a new group is if there are enough people interested in starting one to make it worth my while. And by being interested, I mean enough people who actually have some ideas about what they might like to do differently than is now being done. That's why I said for people to email me if they are interested. That was simply suggested so that the dialogue here doesn't have to interrupted by simply tossing an idea around in the beginning stages without know whether anything will become of it.
As to being true to Bohm's philosophy, I'm not sure that's necessary. I think this group does a very good job of that and I'm not sure that another group is needed for that purpose. My thoughts are that I would like to stay true to his proposal for dialogue but I don't think his whole philosophy needs to be looked at to do that.
And as far as I am concerned this is already a group of birds of a feather flocking together. I'm not sure that can be completely avoided by any group. However, it does seem to me that the group ideas could be expanded to include more diversity. And as far as spamming and trolling are concerned, it seems to me that since Peter showed back up the majority of his and Rob's posts have been nothing but trolling and spamming.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: I would like to pose a few questions and submit comments for consideration on this topic.
Susan: Spamming and trolling are neither interesting or respectful.
ME: We don't have that now. And all lists are susceptible to it.
AllanM: We can keep this respectful while remaining challenging, right?
I: Yes, and that shouldn't require a playground supervisor.
Hmmmmmmm........well, it sounds interesting. If anyone is interested in this or has any ideas about it please email me at Susan.Joy@att.net
K: I don't think this should be done 'privately'. I think it should be openly and thoroughly discussed here on the list. Not the least of the issues is how the 'alternative list' proposes to honor Bohm's design and philosophy.
Susan, specifically how would you describe the responsibilities of a moderator, and what actions would you take to fulfill them?
William: The second list would have to be different from the current one otherwise there is no point in doing it. Each should have another emphasis.
The idea is to enrich the dialogue culture and make it more open to people with diverse interests.
K: I agree that diversity is essential, but I think we have to think really clearly about this. As an article Peter Allen posted a couple of days ago pointed out, the internet makes it easy for 'birds of a feather to flock together', isolate themselves, and insulate themselves against new and diverse ideas. I fear this can happen in this proposed 'new' group. How would the group guard against that happening? How can or does the present group guard against that?
The prime focus as I understand it, is to learn to watch thought in process so we can question our assumptions and actions in order to make this world a better place, by using Bohm's map of thinking, and updating it when necessary. Such focus doesn't exclude anyone but those who don't want to spend their time doing that. Unless, perhaps, they get the idea that we are a guru-driven worship group, and it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
W: There are probably many people interested in Bohm dialogue but find it difficult to join a what at first glance appears to be a crazy bunch.
K: What do you specifically see as constituting 'crazy' in our behavior?
People I have mentioned the list to are initially interested, and ask how often and what time the group meets online. They want to 'instant message' so it feels 'real', and they don't want to spend much time doing it. They absolutely don't want to do it every day for hours at a time like we do. Once a week is an absolute max. Some have said that it takes a very mature person to even be attracted to such a dialogue, and that there aren't many of those/mature people around. Others have said it requires an advanced level of thinking that most people just don't do.
I have also noticed that newcomers don't get much of a warm welcome, no orientation, and little encouragement to participate. A little more attention to their needs might help.
W: My suggestion is to make the new list an alternative to the old one, perhaps by being a bit more conventional with regard to use of language and style.
K: 'Conventional' in what way? What specific vocabulary would you omit? How would you prescribe 'style'? Would you give an example of what you see as 'ideal' style?
I notice that today we have some scientific input. I'm not a scientist, and equations are not my strong suite, but I shall read and try to comprehend, and ask questions because it will add to meaning.
W: The current list has developed a special jargon of its own.
K: Would you please describe the characteristics of this jargon, and give an example of how you'd like to see it change?
A: Do we all agree not (:-?) on that Don de'serves another (few) outlet(s).... to get his act of "pretenting&acting" to gether and on stagKe?
K: I'm not religious, but there are some thinkgs that came from the Bible that form part of my value system. One is the story of the prodigal son, another is the moat & beam in your eye one. Yet another is the admonition to 'bear one another's burdens'. Or how about the song "Reach Out and Touch Somebody's Hand, make this world a better place, if you can." Yes, it requires patience, understanding, forgiveness, and committment.
I hope to hear further comments.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/eb4008d0/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 14:34:57 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 14:41:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] System(a tictictic)&Failure?
In-Reply-To: <6696F445-08DA-43FD-8295-FC478C5719EF@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <159206.26581.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Mind-blowing(?):
Let's take a look:
There is a group, called "Bohm_Dialogue".
Online they (pretend to) look at David Bohm's proposals etc regarding dialogue, communication, incoherence, blocks, reflexes...
One Day
One Member
Of the group pop us his head/hand and says: I don't like THIS dialogue. Lets open another (group). (And thus, utterly, missing the point of what Bohm's work 's about).
So what does the group to in response?
More'o'less: Zip. Nada. Nix.
All those dialogue-big-wigs who usually fill the (digital) pages with their musings (for years and years): zip.
Big bunkerin-down is "angesagt".
Bigsilence (oh, ah, does ii hear some xpertzzz here szszszay: suspension )
Whas a bunch of BS, or, as peter would say (and does):
Pullpushit!
FanFunTasTicTicTic
HUmanimalian
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/4dc8e9cb/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 14:39:45 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 14:46:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with "good stuff"
In-Reply-To: <6696F445-08DA-43FD-8295-FC478C5719EF@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <902028.38426.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
a _ ok, not the only game (pony{phony?}show) in town. at least/last some commonground here, don
b _ door to what? what do you see (i might not, might cannot, or others, too, both)
c _ &, sir, are YOU staying with the 'good stuff'. (you did not {ok, yet} engage any of the stuff that came up in response to your asking/writing. dialogue?
hum an i male
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Who ever said that B was the whole show? He simply opened a door. There are some, I guess, who are content to sit aound and spend their lives on the doorstep. But doors are for going through, or slamming shut. Some of us have lives outside this deep, dark pond - sorry for the mixed metaphor. And that is where it plays out. But what we can do here is to look at it with a few others who give some indication of being interested, and then maybe see what can happen beyond tthis miniature,virtual world.
And it is worth remembering that Bohm described the problem that he wanted to address as the difficulty human beings have with talking together about things that are important to them. He mentioned that most of what humans do together is based in language. Governments involve groups of people talking together as do all other organizations, families have to talk together, and even if a man wants to make love to a woman words must be exchanged. So this difficulty is well worth our attention. And it seems that, the usual thought of inventing a new kind of language or seeking out an alternative one doesn't work because the problem is not so much at the level of any particular language but resides at a deeper level. It was this kind of thinking that led him to his work on the thought process and to group dialogue as an experiment in which the experimenters and the experimental subjects were the same people. I like to think of it as a praxis, that is, an activity where the
theory unfolds from the practice and the practice adjusts to the evolving theory. But thinking about talking at the "quantum level" is, I am afraid, beyond me, although there may be hope for us at the spiritual and even the cosmic.. None of us, so far as I know, have nukes or razor wire fences so we can take a few risks just to see what happens.
don
On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
when we say we see the necessity of sharing meaning, the first thinkg we discover is that we cant do it. thats the same thinkg as with the individual - we see the necessity of staying with anger but we cant do it, we are moving away. so then what we have to watch is how we move away. and if we are really serious about it we say: "i really see the nec, and i wont just stop bc i failed at that point. i will stick with it and see if i cant find why its not working".
[...] we could say that hate is a neurophysiological chemical disturbance of a very powerful kind, which is now endemic in the world. wherever you look, you see people hating each other. so suppose you stick with this. you may get an insight, a shared insight, that we are all in the same position - everybody has an assumption, everybody is sticking to this assumption, everybody is disturbed neurochemically. the fundamental level in people is the same; the superficial differences are not so important
-- both bohm, both tas {sorry for sketchy rendering... not munch tice here tonight.... plentii on the burnr ... again: Don & Co.... there is a whole wide whirld out/in there.... not just herr bohm, which, needless to say, ii does like to have on the menu too.... dont want to miss (reading, studyingk, questioning...) him
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: This is something I wrote some months ago and then, for some reason, i didn't post it. But it seems revevant, if only has added fuel for the fire.
And it is worth remembering that Bohm described the problem that he wanted to address as the difficulty human beings have with talking together about things that are important to them. He mentioned that most of what humans do together is based in language. Governments involve groups of people talking together as do all other organizations, families have to talk together, and even if a man wants to make love to a woman words must be exchanged. So this difficulty is well worth our attention. And it seems that, the usual thought of inventing a new kind of language or seeking out an alternative one doesn't work because the problem is not so much at the level of any particular language but resides at a deeper level. It was this kind of thinking that led him to his work on the thought process and to group dialogue as an experiment in which the experimenters and the experimental subjects were the same people. I like to think of it as a praxis, that is, an activity where the
theory unfolds from the practice and the practice adjusts to the evolving theory.
don
On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:03 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Yes, Don, a while ago it sparked with'in this humanimal:
Thought, thinkg is, "in the end", nothinkg but FUEL (too)
And i means that: liter'ally.
H
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
yes I is watching. It will all go into my internal comutational system where it will...........................
don
On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Will an answer to this {those} question here tell youus any more what is (not)goin on(off) here
Did you all ways try (to get a way with) playing(pretending -- hi don l, are you watching... it is happenin right under your nose ... act'i'n) over it... your way 'out', frau kathirene
Humanimalian
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
IK: How about dl commenting on 'seem'?
You still like Bach, pit?
On Dec 19, 2007 1:11 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
seem to be
can i has that for lunch ;--O
abc
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
this is good stuff Don. you ( seem to be) saying IT IS without acting or pretending (rob)
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/6fbc4e1e/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 14:44:42 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 14:51:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with "good stuff"
In-Reply-To: <6696F445-08DA-43FD-8295-FC478C5719EF@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <628596.16259.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
--snip-- to look at it with a few others who give some indication of being interested, and then maybe see what can happen beyond tthis miniature,virtual world. don f
http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/comparative-planetology-interview-with.html
--snip--
BLDGBLOG: Aestheticizing these sorts of disasters can also have the effect of making climate change sound like an adventure. In Fifty_Degrees_Below, for instance, you wrote: ?People are already fond of the flood
It was an adventure. It got people out of their ruts.? The implication is that people might actually be excited about climate change. Is there a risk that all these reports about flooded cities and lost archipelagoes and new coastlines might actually make climate change sound like some sort of survivalist adventure?
Robinson: It?s a failure of imagination to think that climate change is going to be an escape from jail ? and it?s a failure in a couple of ways.
For one thing, modern civilization, with six billion people on the planet, lives on the tip of a gigantic complex of prosthetic devices ? and all those devices have to work. The crash scenario that people think of, in this case, as an escape to freedom would actually be so damaging that it wouldn?t be fun. It wouldn?t be an adventure. It would merely be a struggle for food and security, and a permanent high risk of being robbed, beaten, or killed; your ability to feel confident about your own ? and your family?s and your children?s ? safety would be gone. People who fail to realize that
I?d say their imaginations haven?t fully gotten into this scenario.
It?s easy to imagine people who are bored in the modern techno-surround, as I call it, and they?re bored because they have not fully comprehended that they?re still primates, that their brains grew over a million-year period doing a certain suite of activities, and those activities are still available. Anyone can do them; they?re simple. They have to do with basic life support and basic social activities unboosted by technological means.
And there?s an addictive side to this. People try to do stupid technological replacements for natural primate actions, but it doesn?t quite give them the buzz that they hoped it would. Even though it looks quite magical, the sense of accomplishment is not there. So they do it again, hoping that the activity, like a drug, will somehow satisfy the urge that it?s supposedly meant to satisfy. But it doesn?t. So they do it more and more ? and they fall down a rabbit hole, pursuing a destructive and high carbon-burn activity, when they could just go out for a walk, or plant a garden, or sit down at a table with a friend and drink some coffee and talk for an hour. All of these unboosted, straight-forward primate activities are actually intensely satisfying to the totality of the mind-body that we are.
So a little bit of analysis of what we are as primates ? how we got here evolutionarily, and what can satisfy us in this world ? would help us to imagine activities that are much lower impact on the planet and much more satisfying to the individual at the same time. In general, I?ve been thinking: let?s rate our technologies for how much they help us as primates, rather than how they can put us further into this dream of being powerful gods who stalk around on a planet that doesn?t really matter to us.
Because a lot of these supposed pleasures are really expensive. You pay with your life. You pay with your health. And they don?t satisfy you anyway! You end up taking various kinds of prescription or non-prescription drugs to compensate for your unhappiness and your unhealthiness ? and the whole thing comes out of a kind of spiral: if only you could consume more, you?d be happier. But it isn?t true.
I?m advocating a kind of alteration of our imagined relationship to the planet. I think it?d be more fun ? and also more sustainable. We?re always thinking that we?re much more powerful than we are, because we?re boosted by technological powers that exert a really, really high cost on the environment ? a cost that isn?t calculated and that isn?t put into the price of things. It?s exteriorized from our fake economy. And it?s very profitable for certain elements in our society for us to continue to wander around in this dream-state and be upset about everything.
The hope that, ?Oh, if only civilization were to collapse, then I could be happy? ? it?s ridiculous. You can simply walk out your front door and get what you want out of that particular fantasy.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/8fb8d780/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Dec 20 15:57:38 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Dec 20 16:04:29 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1><030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME><c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com><012801c8427d$146cf7d0$ab76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME>
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
RED & DOWN
On Dec 19, 2007 3:23 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Although your questions are very interesting Irene I don't really have answers to them at this point. The question was asked by William if I would be interested in starting a group that has a different style. My answer was yes, it sounds interesting. But the only way I would want to start a new group is if there are enough people interested in starting one to make it worth my while. And by being interested, I mean enough people who actually have some ideas about what they might like to do differently than is now being done. That's why I said for people to email me if they are interested.
That was simply suggested so that the dialogue here doesn't have to interrupted by simply tossing an idea around in the beginning stages without know whether anything will become of it.
I: If this new group is to be a compliment to or partner to the existing group, it is very necessary for the existing group to be 'interrupted' to consider the reasons for it, and how they will relate, or if they will.
As to being true to Bohm's philosophy, I'm not sure that's necessary. I think this group does a very good job of that and I'm not sure that another group is needed for that purpose. My thoughts are that I would like to stay true to his proposal for dialogue but I don't think his whole philosophy needs to be looked at to do that.
I: You have said you not only haven't read anything of Bohm's except the proposal, but you have said you aren't interested in Bohm. Therefore, I don't see how the evaluations you have above are valid. So in essence, you are interested in starting your own group, and I'd wager a bet it will replace Bohm with Maturana.
And as far as I am concerned this is already a group of birds of a feather flocking together. I'm not sure that can be completely avoided by any group. However, it does seem to me that the group ideas could be expanded to include more diversity.
I: Examples, please?
And as far as spamming and trolling are concerned, it seems to me that since Peter showed back up the majority of his and Rob's posts have been nothing but trolling and spamming.
I: that doesn't answer how you as a moderator could keep that from happening. You see, Peter can subscribe and stay in a group simply by changing his name, and his online personality. I didn't attempt to change my personality, but everybody isn't like me. And if you unsubscribe him, all he has to do is subscribe again under a different name, lay low for a while, then become disruptive once again. You could spend all your time simply unsubscribing Peters. You might even consider whether or not he is using you as a ploy to disperse the existing group. Remember Capt. Ahab?
If you want to form your own dialogue group, I think you need to be very clear and specific up front about what you, as moderator, would like to see happen, and what and how much you are willing to give and take. Not to mention whether, how, and why it would be a compliment to the existing group.
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/bb2b6418/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 16:39:21 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Thu Dec 20 16:46:06 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME>
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1>
<030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com>
<012801c8427d$146cf7d0$ab76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com>
<003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890712200739w6292c0c5s567642cb5a0b35b2@mail.gmail.com>
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send
me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with
you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's
talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque,
aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind
> about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said,
> what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or
> studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not
> interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince
> anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in
> William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I
> have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what
> they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could
> come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could
> come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to
> coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group
> and setting it up and keeping it going.
>
> As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But
> you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one
> that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes
> your buttons so strongly Katherine?
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:47 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
>
> RED & DOWN
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 3:23 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Although your questions are very interesting Irene I don't really have
> > answers to them at this point. The question was asked by William if I would
> > be interested in starting a group that has a different style. My answer was
> > yes, it sounds interesting. But the only way I would want to start a new
> > group is if there are enough people interested in starting one to make it
> > worth my while. And by being interested, I mean enough people who actually
> > have some ideas about what they might like to do differently than is now
> > being done. That's why I said for people to email me if they are
> > interested.
> >
>
>
> > That was simply suggested so that the dialogue here doesn't have to
> > interrupted by simply tossing an idea around in the beginning stages without
> > know whether anything will become of it.
> >
>
> I: If this new group is to be a compliment to or partner to the existing
> group, it is very necessary for the existing group to be 'interrupted' to
> consider the reasons for it, and how they will relate, or if they will.
>
> >
> > As to being true to Bohm's philosophy, I'm not sure that's necessary. I
> > think this group does a very good job of that and I'm not sure that another
> > group is needed for that purpose. My thoughts are that I would like to stay
> > true to his proposal for dialogue but I don't think his whole philosophy
> > needs to be looked at to do that.
> >
>
> I: You have said you not only haven't read anything of Bohm's except the
> proposal, but you have said you aren't interested in Bohm. Therefore, I
> don't see how the evaluations you have above are valid. So in essence, you
> are interested in starting your own group, and I'd wager a bet it will
> replace Bohm with Maturana.
>
>
>
> >
> > And as far as I am concerned this is already a group of birds of a
> > feather flocking together. I'm not sure that can be completely avoided by
> > any group. However, it does seem to me that the group ideas could be
> > expanded to include more diversity.
> >
>
> I: Examples, please?
>
>
>
> > And as far as spamming and trolling are concerned, it seems to me that
> > since Peter showed back up the majority of his and Rob's posts have been
> > nothing but trolling and spamming.
> >
>
> I: that doesn't answer how you as a moderator could keep that from
> happening. You see, Peter can subscribe and stay in a group simply by
> changing his name, and his online personality. I didn't attempt to change
> my personality, but everybody isn't like me. And if you unsubscribe him,
> all he has to do is subscribe again under a different name, lay low for a
> while, then become disruptive once again. You could spend all your time
> simply unsubscribing Peters. You might even consider whether or not he is
> using you as a ploy to disperse the existing group. Remember Capt. Ahab?
>
> If you want to form your own dialogue group, I think you need to be very
> clear and specific up front about what you, as moderator, would like to see
> happen, and what and how much you are willing to give and take. Not to
> mention whether, how, and why it would be a compliment to the existing
> group.
>
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/ff1a83c4/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Dec 20 16:43:13 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Dec 20 16:49:56 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1><030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME><c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com><012801c8427d$146cf7d0$ab76480c@HOME><c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com><003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME>
<c47283890712200739w6292c0c5s567642cb5a0b35b2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005301c8431f$089419f0$4677480c@HOME>
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/5fd47d44/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 16:49:00 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Thu Dec 20 16:55:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <005301c8431f$089419f0$4677480c@HOME>
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1>
<030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com>
<012801c8427d$146cf7d0$ab76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com>
<003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME>
<c47283890712200739w6292c0c5s567642cb5a0b35b2@mail.gmail.com>
<005301c8431f$089419f0$4677480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890712200749v67bf4464v4c5cdd70c6800095@mail.gmail.com>
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a
lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the
> group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual
> BD type of dialogue.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
>
> I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you
> send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk
> with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January.
> Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or
> Albuquerque, aren't you?
>
> Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind
> > about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said,
> > what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or
> > studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not
> > interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince
> > anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in
> > William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I
> > have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what
> > they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could
> > come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could
> > come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to
> > coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group
> > and setting it up and keeping it going.
> >
> > As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far.
> > But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and
> > one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that
> > pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/961f1c60/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Dec 20 16:50:30 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Dec 20 16:57:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1><030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME><c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com><012801c8427d$146cf7d0$ab76480c@HOME><c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com><003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME><c47283890712200739w6292c0c5s567642cb5a0b35b2@mail.gmail.com><005301c8431f$089419f0$4677480c@HOME>
<c47283890712200749v67bf4464v4c5cdd70c6800095@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006701c84320$0cd613f0$4677480c@HOME>
Not sure what you mean. What does writealog alone mean? And what is more real about face to face?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/57b0f7b1/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 16:55:48 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Thu Dec 20 17:02:32 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <006701c84320$0cd613f0$4677480c@HOME>
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1>
<030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com>
<012801c8427d$146cf7d0$ab76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com>
<003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME>
<c47283890712200739w6292c0c5s567642cb5a0b35b2@mail.gmail.com>
<005301c8431f$089419f0$4677480c@HOME>
<c47283890712200749v67bf4464v4c5cdd70c6800095@mail.gmail.com>
<006701c84320$0cd613f0$4677480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890712200755h2fde0935s693199a5147669c6@mail.gmail.com>
I: Susan, I just asked if we could meet when I come to the Southwest, and
also asked if you'd have a phone conversation. I have no problems giving my
information to anyone in a private email, and am really eager to meet group
members face to face. Shall I infer that you prefer not to?
On Dec 20, 2007 10:50 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Not sure what you mean. What does writealog alone mean? And what is
> more real about face to face?
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:49 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
>
> I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a
> lot more real than writealog alone.
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the
> > group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual
> > BD type of dialogue.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
> >
> > I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you
> > send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk
> > with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January.
> > Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or
> > Albuquerque, aren't you?
> >
> > Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your
> > > mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have
> > > said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read
> > > or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not
> > > interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince
> > > anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in
> > > William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I
> > > have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what
> > > they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could
> > > come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could
> > > come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to
> > > coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group
> > > and setting it up and keeping it going.
> > >
> > > As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far.
> > > But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and
> > > one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that
> > > pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
> > >
> > > Susan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/dab54dd8/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Dec 20 17:00:48 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Dec 20 17:07:32 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1><030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME><c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com><012801c8427d$146cf7d0$ab76480c@HOME><c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com><003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME><c47283890712200739w6292c0c5s567642cb5a0b35b2@mail.gmail.com><005301c8431f$089419f0$4677480c@HOME><c47283890712200749v67bf4464v4c5cdd70c6800095@mail.gmail.com><006701c84320$0cd613f0$4677480c@HOME>
<c47283890712200755h2fde0935s693199a5147669c6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007b01c84321$7d5eb680$4677480c@HOME>
I joined this group because I am fascinated by the idea of having an internet dialogue. While one on one face to face relationships are great, they are not what I joined the group for. The whole idea is to talk about what's important to us in a group setting and that's what I'm hoping for. I understand if that's too uncomfortable for you and you don't really want to try a real dialogue. But meeting the members face to face and having private conversations is not what it's about for me.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan, I just asked if we could meet when I come to the Southwest, and also asked if you'd have a phone conversation. I have no problems giving my information to anyone in a private email, and am really eager to meet group members face to face. Shall I infer that you prefer not to?
On Dec 20, 2007 10:50 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Not sure what you mean. What does writealog alone mean? And what is more real about face to face?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/d7b32d53/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 17:02:33 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Thu Dec 20 17:09:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <007b01c84321$7d5eb680$4677480c@HOME>
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1>
<012801c8427d$146cf7d0$ab76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com>
<003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME>
<c47283890712200739w6292c0c5s567642cb5a0b35b2@mail.gmail.com>
<005301c8431f$089419f0$4677480c@HOME>
<c47283890712200749v67bf4464v4c5cdd70c6800095@mail.gmail.com>
<006701c84320$0cd613f0$4677480c@HOME>
<c47283890712200755h2fde0935s693199a5147669c6@mail.gmail.com>
<007b01c84321$7d5eb680$4677480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890712200802h78e93532ieb35e46f938e5d7@mail.gmail.com>
I: I thought as much. Thanks for the confirmation.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:00 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I joined this group because I am fascinated by the idea of having an
> internet dialogue. While one on one face to face relationships are great,
> they are not what I joined the group for. The whole idea is to talk about
> what's important to us in a group setting and that's what I'm hoping for. I
> understand if that's too uncomfortable for you and you don't really want to
> try a real dialogue. But meeting the members face to face and having
> private conversations is not what it's about for me.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:55 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
>
> I: Susan, I just asked if we could meet when I come to the Southwest, and
> also asked if you'd have a phone conversation. I have no problems giving my
> information to anyone in a private email, and am really eager to meet group
> members face to face. Shall I infer that you prefer not to?
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 10:50 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Not sure what you mean. What does writealog alone mean? And what is
> > more real about face to face?
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:49 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
> >
> > I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is
> > a lot more real than writealog alone.
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted
> > > the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an
> > > actual BD type of dialogue.
> > >
> > > Susan
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
> > >
> > > I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you
> > > send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk
> > > with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January.
> > > Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or
> > > Albuquerque, aren't you?
> > >
> > > Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your
> > > > mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have
> > > > said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read
> > > > or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not
> > > > interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince
> > > > anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in
> > > > William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I
> > > > have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what
> > > > they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could
> > > > come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could
> > > > come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to
> > > > coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group
> > > > and setting it up and keeping it going.
> > > >
> > > > As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so
> > > > far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan
> > > > and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that
> > > > pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
> > > >
> > > > Susan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Irene
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/f5fda816/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 17:12:05 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 17:18:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <005301c8431f$089419f0$4677480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <962943.853.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Mmmmmmio Dio(logo)
Dont you folks allov this 'all'
Seriously
This is the 'real' stuff, folks
This is where dialogue goes, resp does not go, to the core, its core.
Ok, that said
Yes, "strange" , is it not
Another of those fanTASstic turn-arounds
Yesterday Kath wanted to do'be all public
Now she wants private-sessions (too)
a _ i am with susan on this one. what can/will 'private' (un)do that the group can/could not
b _ further am i, some how, surprised to hear you, kath, saying you would like to hook up with susan "face-to-face", be'cause: it 's you, who, behind susans face, for a long time now, has been point out how much a bitch you thinkg she is (and, if you did not specifically use this word, and i sure will not go and dig for a quote on the harddrive here -- you certainly call/see/imagine/project her as such in y'our off-list x'changes)
c _ how re'freshing that some of that stuff might start surfacing/servicing now.... dont you agree, don factor, who, but you, is into that freshness-stuff {which, btw, another piece of common ground we stand on}
d _ so, kath, will you do'be once again what you are so in'famousilled at: which is: announce big thinkgs (thinkging, projects, papers....) and then never get around with any (or any subsdance ani how)...... there is that rather descriptive sayin, is there not: to take a dump, or get off the pot
humanaturexplorer
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/d110ea70/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 17:30:06 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Thu Dec 20 17:36:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <962943.853.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <005301c8431f$089419f0$4677480c@HOME>
<962943.853.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712200830j3773e0f8w35ea65f96d95bede@mail.gmail.com>
Pit, no surprise. I expected you to be on Susan's side.
Frankly, I don't see why OD can't partner BDO. I tried to make that work,
and it did for a while. In my humble opinion, you're uniquely qualified to
'moderate' a sister group, and it would be good if you and DF learned to
work together.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:12 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mmmmmmio Dio(logo)
> Dont you folks allov this 'all'
> Seriously
> This is the 'real' stuff, folks
> This is where dialogue goes, resp does not go, to the core, its core.
>
> Ok, that said
> Yes, "strange" , is it not
> Another of those fanTASstic turn-arounds
> Yesterday Kath wanted to do'be all public
> Now she wants private-sessions (too)
>
> a _ i am with susan on this one. what can/will 'private' (un)do that the
> group can/could not
>
> b _ further am i, some how, surprised to hear you, kath, saying you would
> like to hook up with susan "face-to-face", be'cause: it 's you, who, behind
> susans face, for a long time now, has been point out how much a bitch you
> thinkg she is (and, if you did not specifically use this word, and i sure
> will not go and dig for a quote on the harddrive here -- you certainly
> call/see/imagine/project her as such in y'our off-list x'changes)
>
> c _ how re'freshing that some of that stuff might start
> surfacing/servicing now.... dont you agree, don factor, who, but you, is
> into that freshness-stuff {which, btw, another piece of common ground we
> stand on}
>
> d _ so, kath, will you do'be once again what you are so in'famousilled at:
> which is: announce big thinkgs (thinkging, projects, papers....) and then
> never get around with any (or any subsdance ani how)...... there is that
> rather descriptive sayin, is there not: to take a dump, or get off the pot
>
> humanaturexplorer
>
> *Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>* wrote:
>
> Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the
> group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual
> BD type of dialogue.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
>
> I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you
> send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk
> with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January.
> Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or
> Albuquerque, aren't you?
>
> Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind
> > about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said,
> > what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or
> > studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not
> > interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince
> > anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in
> > William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I
> > have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what
> > they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could
> > come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could
> > come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to
> > coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group
> > and setting it up and keeping it going.
> >
> > As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far.
> > But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and
> > one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that
> > pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/512f27ee/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 17:41:00 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 17:47:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <931983.15827.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
susan you did(do) not address the points raised previously --not just-- by kath: how would you (see) to enforce this 'new' style, as mentioned in your post below.... & what style? why dont you speak to that (too)?
h
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
RED & DOWN
On Dec 19, 2007 3:23 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Although your questions are very interesting Irene I don't really have answers to them at this point. The question was asked by William if I would be interested in starting a group that has a different style. My answer was yes, it sounds interesting. But the only way I would want to start a new group is if there are enough people interested in starting one to make it worth my while. And by being interested, I mean enough people who actually have some ideas about what they might like to do differently than is now being done. That's why I said for people to email me if they are interested.
That was simply suggested so that the dialogue here doesn't have to interrupted by simply tossing an idea around in the beginning stages without know whether anything will become of it.
I: If this new group is to be a compliment to or partner to the existing group, it is very necessary for the existing group to be 'interrupted' to consider the reasons for it, and how they will relate, or if they will.
As to being true to Bohm's philosophy, I'm not sure that's necessary. I think this group does a very good job of that and I'm not sure that another group is needed for that purpose. My thoughts are that I would like to stay true to his proposal for dialogue but I don't think his whole philosophy needs to be looked at to do that.
I: You have said you not only haven't read anything of Bohm's except the proposal, but you have said you aren't interested in Bohm. Therefore, I don't see how the evaluations you have above are valid. So in essence, you are interested in starting your own group, and I'd wager a bet it will replace Bohm with Maturana.
And as far as I am concerned this is already a group of birds of a feather flocking together. I'm not sure that can be completely avoided by any group. However, it does seem to me that the group ideas could be expanded to include more diversity.
I: Examples, please?
And as far as spamming and trolling are concerned, it seems to me that since Peter showed back up the majority of his and Rob's posts have been nothing but trolling and spamming.
I: that doesn't answer how you as a moderator could keep that from happening. You see, Peter can subscribe and stay in a group simply by changing his name, and his online personality. I didn't attempt to change my personality, but everybody isn't like me. And if you unsubscribe him, all he has to do is subscribe again under a different name, lay low for a while, then become disruptive once again. You could spend all your time simply unsubscribing Peters. You might even consider whether or not he is using you as a ploy to disperse the existing group. Remember Capt. Ahab?
If you want to form your own dialogue group, I think you need to be very clear and specific up front about what you, as moderator, would like to see happen, and what and how much you are willing to give and take. Not to mention whether, how, and why it would be a compliment to the existing group.
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/7c568fd3/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 17:43:02 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 17:49:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <931983.15827.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <442095.15494.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
forgot to add:
and what would this 'new' [other] "style" (as a rule?) have to do with (the spirit of) bohm&dialogue, if any??
~
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
susan you did(do) not address the points raised previously --not just-- by kath: how would you (see) to enforce this 'new' style, as mentioned in your post below.... & what style? why dont you speak to that (too)?
h
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
RED & DOWN
On Dec 19, 2007 3:23 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Although your questions are very interesting Irene I don't really have answers to them at this point. The question was asked by William if I would be interested in starting a group that has a different style. My answer was yes, it sounds interesting. But the only way I would want to start a new group is if there are enough people interested in starting one to make it worth my while. And by being interested, I mean enough people who actually have some ideas about what they might like to do differently than is now being done. That's why I said for people to email me if they are interested.
That was simply suggested so that the dialogue here doesn't have to interrupted by simply tossing an idea around in the beginning stages without know whether anything will become of it.
I: If this new group is to be a compliment to or partner to the existing group, it is very necessary for the existing group to be 'interrupted' to consider the reasons for it, and how they will relate, or if they will.
As to being true to Bohm's philosophy, I'm not sure that's necessary. I think this group does a very good job of that and I'm not sure that another group is needed for that purpose. My thoughts are that I would like to stay true to his proposal for dialogue but I don't think his whole philosophy needs to be looked at to do that.
I: You have said you not only haven't read anything of Bohm's except the proposal, but you have said you aren't interested in Bohm. Therefore, I don't see how the evaluations you have above are valid. So in essence, you are interested in starting your own group, and I'd wager a bet it will replace Bohm with Maturana.
And as far as I am concerned this is already a group of birds of a feather flocking together. I'm not sure that can be completely avoided by any group. However, it does seem to me that the group ideas could be expanded to include more diversity.
I: Examples, please?
And as far as spamming and trolling are concerned, it seems to me that since Peter showed back up the majority of his and Rob's posts have been nothing but trolling and spamming.
I: that doesn't answer how you as a moderator could keep that from happening. You see, Peter can subscribe and stay in a group simply by changing his name, and his online personality. I didn't attempt to change my personality, but everybody isn't like me. And if you unsubscribe him, all he has to do is subscribe again under a different name, lay low for a while, then become disruptive once again. You could spend all your time simply unsubscribing Peters. You might even consider whether or not he is using you as a ploy to disperse the existing group. Remember Capt. Ahab?
If you want to form your own dialogue group, I think you need to be very clear and specific up front about what you, as moderator, would like to see happen, and what and how much you are willing to give and take. Not to mention whether, how, and why it would be a compliment to the existing group.
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/ba2b76fe/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 17:48:24 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 17:55:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712200749v67bf4464v4c5cdd70c6800095@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <797650.20006.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities... hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/cc2f13d4/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 17:52:09 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Thu Dec 20 17:58:51 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <006701c84320$0cd613f0$4677480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <952781.28708.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote: [...] And what is more real about face to face?
the control(ability)? of the leverage ("one-on-one")?
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/a4378014/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 17:59:30 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Thu Dec 20 18:06:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <797650.20006.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712200749v67bf4464v4c5cdd70c6800095@mail.gmail.com>
<797650.20006.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712200859x671573c0m2056b87193147483@mail.gmail.com>
I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The
in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything
that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than
words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the
printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide.
Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises
questions and flags to me.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's
> shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you
> tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities...
> hey pat, dont you LOV all of