From benschcoe at hotmail.com Mon Nov 20 02:09:42 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Tue Nov 21 03:15:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Defining and Introduction to Dialogue
In-Reply-To: <4560B93A.00000A.05624@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F2D079598DF3AF9272A9A8B7ED0@phx.gbl>
>Sometimes I wonder...
>Do we notice the order, or do we create the order?
>Does the order emerge from the chaos, or does it emerge from the listening?
>Who is the artist, the player or the listener?
>
>william
Or, do we notice the order AND create order?
(Is “to notice” (from noscere “come to know”) the same as “to create’ (from
crescere “arise, grow”)?
Or, does order emerge from chaos AND from listening?
chaos (“gaping void”) listen (from Goth. hilup “attention”)
Is the artist the player and the listener?
Regina
_________________________________________________________________
Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends
list.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk
From franis_franis at juno.com Mon Nov 20 03:06:53 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Nov 21 04:18:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Defining and Introduction to Dialogue
Message-ID: <20061119.180654.1728.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
How do we notice the order and create order?
How does order arise from listening to chaos?
Franis
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:09:42 -0500 "Regina Bensch-Coe"
<benschcoe@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >Sometimes I wonder...
> >Do we notice the order, or do we create the order?
> >Does the order emerge from the chaos, or does it emerge from the
> listening?
> >Who is the artist, the player or the listener?
> >
> >william
>
>
>
> Or, do we notice the order AND create order?
> (Is “to notice” (from noscere “come to know”) the same as “to
> create’ (from
> crescere “arise, grow”)?
>
> Or, does order emerge from chaos AND from listening?
> chaos (“gaping void”) listen (from Goth. hilup “attention”)
>
> Is the artist the player and the listener?
>
> Regina
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces
> friends
> list.
>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://
spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Mon Nov 20 03:52:51 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Tue Nov 21 04:59:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Defining and Introduction to Dialogue
In-Reply-To: <20061119.180654.1728.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F8C7EB6AFB2AF87F556A08B7ED0@phx.gbl>
>How do we notice the order and create order?
>How does order arise from listening to chaos?
>
>Franis
We notice order by giving attention to chaos, without leaving it — by
staying with it, playing with it, as long as it takes, until a new order
emerges.
Regina
_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now.
http://ideas.live.com
From davidmillions at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 07:02:33 2006
From: davidmillions at gmail.com (David da Costa)
Date: Tue Nov 21 08:08:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Psychotropic
Message-ID: <ed6f2a2c0611192202r56b1d0a8r8e27a41119a1dc2c@mail.gmail.com>
When I read that Carl Sagan supported the idea that the need for
Cannabis/Hemp/Marijuana might have led to the invention of agriculture, art
and civilization - I found myself curious, if any of the most respectable
members in this list, subdue by some particular instance or substance in
order to be?
All the best,
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061120/9142283c/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Mon Nov 20 08:46:29 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Nov 21 10:47:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Uncovering order in chaos
Message-ID: <20061120.003732.1300.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
> >How do we notice the order and create order?
> >How does order arise from listening to chaos?
> >Franis
We notice order by giving attention to chaos, without leaving it — by
> staying with it, playing with it, as long as it takes, until a new
order
> emerges.
> Regina
Yes, seems that creativity is involved, and also patience. As an example
of this, I'm reminded of the my childhood fascination with listening to a
repeating skip in an old recording of my mother's voice on a phonograph
record as it had run out at the end. She had been saying a partial phrase
that was repeated by the loop. As I listened, my ear transferred the
emphasis to another syllable in the phrase, and suddenly, I could hear
her saying a completely different meaning. The most amazing thing was,
that as I transferred my attention to a different sound in the sequence,
it changed again - and even a third time! Later I read something about
this phenomena, (which I'm sure has a term but I do not remember what it
had been named. Anybody here know what that's called?) Evidently, the
younger a person is, the more variations of meaning they can hear in the
tape loop of a human voice.
Once had some roommates who encouraged many of their musical cohorts to
come over every day and play at our house. This led me one day to stop as
I came out of the bathroom. There, and only there, I could hear the sound
of one person practicing in the bedroom equally with the other two people
who were playing in the front room. I stood there for quite a long time
listening for the commonalities between the two entirely different things
going on, fascinated by my knowledge that they couldn't hear each other
and yet I could hear their "accidental" correlations. So, in my case the
"how" was to notice that something interesting could be going on.
I'm also reminded how a movie scene will pick and choose what scenes are
relevant to the storyline. There are many running "storylines" in my long
term curiousity about what may happen far apart time time, but are
related as I regard their inter-relatedness over very long periods of
time. So, I would also say that in making order out of chaos, sometimes
you must compensate for time of arrival for making these seemingly
unrelated correlations of order from what appears to be chaotic
happenstances.
There must be other factors too... any takers?
Franis
From bolinas_forever at yahoo.com Mon Nov 20 09:44:20 2006
From: bolinas_forever at yahoo.com (bolinas_forever@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 21 10:50:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Psychotropic
In-Reply-To: <ed6f2a2c0611192202r56b1d0a8r8e27a41119a1dc2c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ed6f2a2c0611192202r56b1d0a8r8e27a41119a1dc2c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f6040a0a0611200044q77b875fah57132dae754c3766@mail.gmail.com>
Well, of course if any one of us answered that question, we'd be
monitored by the Patriot Act. I can say this because I'm squeeky clean
in these matters...
On 11/19/06, David da Costa <davidmillions@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I read that Carl Sagan supported the idea that the need for
> Cannabis/Hemp/Marijuana might have led to the invention of agriculture, art
> and civilization - I found myself curious, if any of the most respectable
> members in this list, subdue by some particular instance or substance in
> order to be?
>
> All the best,
> David
>
>
From joachimfaust at earthlink.net Mon Nov 20 11:32:38 2006
From: joachimfaust at earthlink.net (Joachim Faust)
Date: Tue Nov 21 12:38:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: psychotropic
In-Reply-To: <20061121110001.CE5C925012@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
References: <20061121110001.CE5C925012@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <69EE9247-12F4-459A-B258-802615D2F636@earthlink.net>
How about beer? I am not sure if it qualifies as psychotropic, but
there are definitely
no problems with Homeland Security :)
By the way, David, who do you think are "the most respectable members"
on this list, and what are their characteristic features? Just to
echo the recent core/periphery-
theme.
On a related note, I am wondering, whether some of the more
"vocal" regular contributors have coordinated to be quiet for a few
days? Whatever the case may be,
I think, moments of relative silence are helpful to allow order to
emerge from chaos.
Joachim
On 21.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
> Well, of course if any one of us answered that question, we'd be
> monitored by the Patriot Act. I can say this because I'm squeeky clean
> in these matters...
>
>
> On 11/19/06, David da Costa <davidmillions@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When I read that Carl Sagan supported the idea that the need for
>> Cannabis/Hemp/Marijuana might have led to the invention of
>> agriculture, art
>> and civilization - I found myself curious, if any of the most
>> respectable
>> members in this list, subdue by some particular instance or
>> substance in
>> order to be?
>>
>> All the best,
>> David
>>
>>
>
Joachim Faust
joachimfaust@earthlink.net
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 20 16:44:25 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 21 17:52:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20061120.104439.2956.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Don L., Can you glean a basic question (or its assumption) from this? I
am interested in
the question but can't work with it yet without simpler terms. (The
'backwards button
interpretation" doesn't help matters).
I think the question though, has something to do with the effect of
other's words
on my brain? Is this workable?
pat
Pat: In a larger context, should any content be allowed, even the
meaningless
nonsense of someone "stuck in a groove" like a broken record, repeating
meaninglessness nonsense ..., refusing meaning -- can that kill you? Can
it
actually destroy brain cells as per db? -- Pat
Don L: Pat, I have been unable to address this until your recent post
using the language regarding "the button" and the idea of "leaving out
the middle man".
Pat: What is "destroyed" dbl, when the symbols below (symbolizing what,
I don't know),
are "tolerated?"
Don L: Is it meaningful to say that when we are forced to ignore "the
button", when we are forced to ATTEND to "the middle man" (imaginary
personal identity) for the sole reason of someone's pleasure (in this
case, a TROLL), does it not destroy those brain cells representing the
potential for good, for bliss, happiness, pleasure, etc?
What does a word do .. in the brain/mind ... at the subtle level of
quantum systems? Do they "push buttons" that cause pleasure or pain?
Does word use, at the level of quantum systems, create or destroy brain
cells?
Demasio says that reason/ratio/experience creates neuro pathways, which
when reinforced, grow and become healthy. When they are ignored, they
wither and die. This is at the Planck level, quantum level.
Do brain cells die when, at the quantum level, they are denied the
nourishing experience of that which is and are instead given a diet of
word use directing attentive awareness to nonsense?
Do not brain cells die when the organism gets stuck in a destructive
groove or feedback loop consisting of imaginary pleasure for the
imagined persona? Consider rats pushing a "pleasure button" instead of a
"food button" and die of starvation. Can words or word-use do something
very similar -- be used in a feedback loop such that the organism withers
and dies because of imaginary pleasure instead of actual pleasure of
being?
Is an arbitrary systems a form violence at the quantum level? --------
Don Lay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061120/67b15586/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 20 18:42:00 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (earthsky@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 21 21:16:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Some Insanity
In-Reply-To: <010c01c70c1d$4618be00$da0c153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <453D8425000430C9@mail-3-uk.mail.tiscali.sys>
Definitely!! One of the thing I appreciate is their sensitivity. Its a gift
particularly when you learn to discern!! I guess you've realised I have my
share of paranoia!!
Gill
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:57:02 -0500
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Some Insanity
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
>
>I like people who are paranoid!! -- Gill
>
>Then I'd say you can fit in well here. Many people are afraid of paranoids,
>
>perhaps fearing their hidden paranoia. I'd say it takes courage to face
>it.
>What say you? -- Don L
>
>>-- Original Message --
>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:58:17 -0500
>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Some Insanity
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>
>>
>>Sometimes I become very involved in trying to work something out, write
>it
>>out so that it seems reasonable, rational. It helps to write it out, so
>>I use the dialogue list to kind of work things out, or try to. Then when
>>it gets slow, tas provides some crazy thoughts:
>>
>>They don't like me. They have discovered how crazy I am and are going
to
>>ban me, not only from the dialogue list but from the whole internet.
>>They'll
>>come and get my internet machines and then I'll be all alone. Oh, oh!
>What
>>can I do!
>>
>>I will post and tell them I will never again write anything controversial;
>>I will only post some mushy shit praising some of the outright fools
>>prancing,
>>surfing through cyber space. Oh, oh, oh! What shall I do. -- dbl
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________
>
>Tiscali Unlimited Broadband with FREE weekend calls only 12.99!
>http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
___________________________________________________________
Tiscali Unlimited Broadband with FREE weekend calls only 12.99!
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/
From donlay at gte.net Mon Nov 20 22:55:40 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 22 00:02:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Some Insanity
References: <453D8425000430C9@mail-3-uk.mail.tiscali.sys>
Message-ID: <000e01c70cee$a5f22c90$c236153f@DL01>
Definitely!! One of the thing I appreciate is their sensitivity. Its a gift
particularly when you learn to discern!! I guess you've realised I have my
share of paranoia!! -- Gill
Gill, maybe we all do, but it takes a measure of courage to be true and real
about it instead of just acting and pretending the expected identity. I very
much like what Thomas Saaz says about mental illness, namely that it may be
manufactured.
Of course, mental illness is something very serious deserving very serious
considertion.
Still, if you look carefully at our every day beharior, lots of it seems
sheer insanity. -- Don L
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:57:02 -0500
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Some Insanity
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
>
>I like people who are paranoid!! -- Gill
>
>Then I'd say you can fit in well here. Many people are afraid of paranoids,
>
>perhaps fearing their hidden paranoia. I'd say it takes courage to face
>it.
>What say you? -- Don L
>
>>-- Original Message --
>>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:58:17 -0500
>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Some Insanity
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>
>>
>>Sometimes I become very involved in trying to work something out, write
>it
>>out so that it seems reasonable, rational. It helps to write it out, so
>>I use the dialogue list to kind of work things out, or try to. Then when
>>it gets slow, tas provides some crazy thoughts:
>>
>>They don't like me. They have discovered how crazy I am and are going
to
>>ban me, not only from the dialogue list but from the whole internet.
>>They'll
>>come and get my internet machines and then I'll be all alone. Oh, oh!
>What
>>can I do!
>>
>>I will post and tell them I will never again write anything controversial;
>>I will only post some mushy shit praising some of the outright fools
>>prancing,
>>surfing through cyber space. Oh, oh, oh! What shall I do. -- dbl
From donlay at gte.net Mon Nov 20 23:00:07 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 22 00:06:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20061120.104439.2956.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c70cef$407fc1a0$c236153f@DL01>
I think the question though, has something to do with the effect of other's words
on my brain? Is this workable? -- pat
I believe so! All this is difficult to talk about, but maybe that's a beginning.
Could we ask, What do meaningless words do in the brain/mind at the quantum level? What does meaninglessness do to the brain at the quantum level?
My friend Frank says it is violence. Makes sense to me. -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Don L., Can you glean a basic question (or its assumption) from this? I am interested in
the question but can't work with it yet without simpler terms. (The 'backwards button
interpretation" doesn't help matters).
I think the question though, has something to do with the effect of other's words
on my brain? Is this workable?
pat
Pat: In a larger context, should any content be allowed, even the meaningless
nonsense of someone "stuck in a groove" like a broken record, repeating
meaninglessness nonsense ..., refusing meaning -- can that kill you? Can it
actually destroy brain cells as per db? -- Pat
Don L: Pat, I have been unable to address this until your recent post using the language regarding "the button" and the idea of "leaving out the middle man".
Pat: What is "destroyed" dbl, when the symbols below (symbolizing what, I don't know),
are "tolerated?"
Don L: Is it meaningful to say that when we are forced to ignore "the button", when we are forced to ATTEND to "the middle man" (imaginary personal identity) for the sole reason of someone's pleasure (in this case, a TROLL), does it not destroy those brain cells representing the potential for good, for bliss, happiness, pleasure, etc?
What does a word do .. in the brain/mind ... at the subtle level of quantum systems? Do they "push buttons" that cause pleasure or pain? Does word use, at the level of quantum systems, create or destroy brain cells?
Demasio says that reason/ratio/experience creates neuro pathways, which when reinforced, grow and become healthy. When they are ignored, they wither and die. This is at the Planck level, quantum level.
Do brain cells die when, at the quantum level, they are denied the nourishing experience of that which is and are instead given a diet of word use directing attentive awareness to nonsense?
Do not brain cells die when the organism gets stuck in a destructive groove or feedback loop consisting of imaginary pleasure for the imagined persona? Consider rats pushing a "pleasure button" instead of a "food button" and die of starvation. Can words or word-use do something very similar -- be used in a feedback loop such that the organism withers and dies because of imaginary pleasure instead of actual pleasure of being?
Is an arbitrary systems a form violence at the quantum level? -------- Don Lay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061120/6c58c749/attachment.html
From davidmillions at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 23:02:38 2006
From: davidmillions at gmail.com (David da Costa)
Date: Wed Nov 22 00:08:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] RE: Psychotropic
Message-ID: <ed6f2a2c0611201402r4b7d2a80nad129551f45ef23b@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Joaquim,
You should accept the title of "most respectable", because it was meant to
engulf every subscriber to this list, rather than creating a subgroup of the
respectables...but this is somewhat irrelevant, and merely a
misinterpretation.
Alcool is a famous and probably the most used tool to alter consciousness,
but I do believe in most cases it will numb the body and though, more than
it will stimulate it, and that is probably why it is legal.
In some recent investigations I have found that there is consistent evidence
that some of the most respected intellects in human history have made use of
mind altering substances, and such relationship was probably the donator of
the knowledge they got to be known and respected for. Including Jesus
Christ.
>From my humble perspective, I believe this is a powerful theme to understand
some of the most intricate subjects that are of constant resurrection in
this list. Making science out of emotions, and trying to settle them under
the right theory.
All the best,
David
The patriot act and homeland security can kiss my dog - Truth and honesty
are mindless about inquisition.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061120/9744620a/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Mon Nov 20 22:20:34 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Nov 22 00:27:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Defining and Introduction to Dialogue
In-Reply-To: <20061119142754.ocff1qcrjds08c44@imp1.uta.fi>
Message-ID: <C1877842.813B%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Matti,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. (And sorry to pull you away from
hibernation. I appreciate the time/energy crunch.)
Lynne
On 11/19/06 6:27 AM, "Matti Vaittinen" <Matti.Vaittinen@uta.fi> wrote:
> Crap - (sorry) - I was not supposed to write here again this year,
> (but continue my hibernation) ... You see, there's not enough time,
> and more importantly: not enough energy. To Whatever it is we are
> supposed to be doing here. I don't know... (But I'll say a few
> things.) - Lynne, we are now talking partly because of me, because of
> what I said about a year ago: i said there are only a few of us
> talking ( - in a group which had become more a like a 'family') and
> this did not fulfill the criteria of a real B Dialogue. Then someone
> found out that the list could not be found by the Google, and they
> tried to figure out why this was so. Finally those capable of
> managing the list technicalities did something that changed things,
> and now William says there are about a hundred subscribers on the
> list! The list became "visible" to a larger audience. But about
> Dialogue in here. It's tricky. Personally I don't think we can have
> a "real" dialogue here, partly, for the reasons Owen has given
> ("scattered dialogue") and more importantly because we can't hear each
> other. I think Don mentioned, quoting Lee Nichol, maybe, that the
> Dialogue needs to develop, or have a (what was the term?) ...
> container? Something that "holds" the dialogue. But you see, to have
> this i n h e r e requires awful lot of work, or energy, because
> talking to this forum is like, again, I don't know what would be a
> good metaphor, talking here would be like going to a far away desert
> and "shouting" in the wind. This is like going to space, floating in
> space in a space suit, and talking to oneself, hoping that someone is
> listening to you. All this writing and reading here, assimilation of
> what everyone says or has said takes too much time and energy. (Also,
> I don't write in my native language.) I mean suspension (because no
> doubt I could chatter here as easily as anyone else.) Add to this
> someone like "Kirsten" with all his crap and you have a mixture of a
> salad and salad dressing which is hard to chew and digest. It's
> crazy. However, strange enough, I don't deny that in all of this
> there might be an underlying "order" in this mixture of polyphony of
> dialogue - no, on the contraty, we might indeed have just the right
> incredients (including at least some parts of what Peter has managed
> to produce here, too). Common pool of meaning emerging? Maybe that
> is not possible to achieve here - I say maybe, I am not denying it.
> Understanding thought? Yes, that is much more likely, to understand
> "thought" through the dialogue, which has no set agenda - and, that
> has been my true interest in here.
>
>
> Matti
>
>
> Lainaus Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>:
>
>> Matti,
>>
>> Thank you for another vivid scene/experience. I am not versed in jazz, but
>> I "heard" something of this epiphany, I think. What I don't understand is
>> the relationship of this to last summer's postings here. I only joined last
>> summer, so I have nothing to compare it to. I'm excited about the
>> possibilities of dialogue as Bohm envisioned it. I'm not sure it has or can
>> happen via email. I was struck by the freedom of the music you describe,
>> yet with order emerging out of that seeming chaos. I can see that as having
>> something to do with Bohm's vision. And I sense what went on here last
>> summer as not having either that freedom or that order. Can you elaborate
>> at all on what you meant?
>>
>> I've gotten hooked by this list. I really want to understand and to learn.
>>
>> Lynne
>>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 20 23:27:59 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 22 00:34:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <20061116.135918.2144.88.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061116.135918.2144.88.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <01E455AB-354C-438D-94A0-ECC6378A9652@dc.rr.com>
How's about Janis' Feelin' good is good enough for me.
don
On Nov 16, 2006, at 10:24 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
>> other than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness,
>> wisdom, wittiness as insight ... as the attributes of the ground
>> of Being?
>>
>> If thoughts are not words, is it possible to see also that
>> thoughts are not ours? Is it not extremely limiting to say a
>> thought is mine -- and ignore that everyone may have the same
>> thought?
>>
>> What would happen if I did not personify and interpret cleverness,
>> wittiness or wisdom as mine? What would happen if you experienced
>> wisdom without personifying? What would happen if, as per K, you
>> watched the personification movement, or were, as Bohm suggests,
>> aware of the personification movement as it forms ... such that
>> experience occurs (sic) of wisdom instead of personal wisdom?
>>
>> Do endorphins flow without excessive personification movement?
>> -- dbl
>
> What would happen? I suspect we would find ourselves engaged in a
> real dialogue without fragmentation or incoherence. And I also
> suspect that the endorphins would confirm this.
> don
>
> This "personification" (if there can be a suspension
> of thoughts of impossibility) can be seen to "kick in"
> just slightly "after the fact" of a [so named] "wisdom occurrence"
> (for instance). It seems also that such characterization
> ["wisdom occurrence"] is a part of personification itself.
>
> But maybe not necessarily. Attribution of the "wisdom"
> to the "whole" or to "what is," can also occur. And then,
> seeing "I" AS the "whole" or "what is" may also occur.
> But in such a case, there seems to be none of the implied
> "self consciousness" happening - consciousness is already
> on to the next thing. It doesn't seem to need to "bask" in
> any of it - "what is" seems to be enough for it.
>
> The talk ABOUT this kind of stuff is inherently
> misleading [if it is mind that is "lead" by it].
> The occurrence is nothing like the conceptualizations,
> with all of their starts and stops, and "over the shoulder"
> looking.
>
> pat
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061120/b75e2378/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 20 23:35:19 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 22 00:41:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm dialogue@david-bohm.org
In-Reply-To: <001501c709b8$83600910$3374153f@DL01>
References: <001501c709b8$83600910$3374153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <B6C6CD55-C40D-4B9C-B6EF-8E10C68EEFD5@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 16, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Don Lay wrote:
> The question is, what was/is MEANING. What does it all mean for
> us here today. -- Don L ]
\
That is always The question. HIstory can add depth or dimensions to
our understanding but its the hear and now that counts
don
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061120/6a505972/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 20 23:41:09 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 22 00:47:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Third post
In-Reply-To: <20061116.151556.2144.94.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061116.151556.2144.94.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <53928214-338D-46A8-8D2D-5919A6048360@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 16, 2006, at 11:42 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> "When you trace a particular absolute notion to what appears to be
> its logical conclusion, you find it to be identical with its
> opposite, and therefore the whole dualism collapses. Reason first
> shows you that opposites pass into each other, then you discover
> that one opposite reflects the other. And finally you find that
> they are identical to each other, not really different at all, that
> each is the principle of movement of the other."
>
> - David Bohm
Pat, this quotation needs a lot of careful reading. If you read it
from a Bohmian POV, it means one thing, but if you read it cold, and
from a more conventional POV, its meaning might be totally confusing.
In other words, if you think in terms of process, it makes sense, but
if you think in terms of "things" or nouns it sounds pretty ridiculous
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061120/5441f5dc/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 20 23:46:39 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 22 00:52:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <20061116.154614.2144.99.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061116.154614.2144.99.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <AB0079E5-A106-49D2-A96B-7661F06E3EC8@dc.rr.com>
This little experiment was actually done but with a cat. The cat had
an electrical connection attached to its pleasure center.
(unfortunately, if humans have such a center it has either never been
found or someone is keeping it a closely guarded secret.) The cat
could initiate the pleasure center, and did it over and over again.
Then, it was left on permanently. It was fine for a while, but then
the cat started getting really wild, and was trying violently to
escape the sensation. Can you imagine an orgasm that would last for
days at a time?
don
On Nov 16, 2006, at 12:46 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Imagine what could happen if we were to find an internal button
> that could be pushed fairly easily for a little hit of pleasure.
> You know, an ability to "skip the middle man" kind of thing. Then
> imagine, that this "little hit" would subside quite rapidly. But
> there is STILL the fact of this "button" discovery. No brainer,
> right. Push it again.
> Then, what if this became habitual. Habitual to the point that the
> general pleasantry and surprise of just being alive [the "middle
> man"] was all but forgotten.
>
> pat
>
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:22:06 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
> Which endorphin flow? The ones created by pretentious acts,
> language, little lies -- or the endorphin flow created by inate
> wisdom in all creatures, perhaps even in a tree that grows extra
> bark prior to an approaching harsh winter?
>
> I'm saying it is dangerous to be unaware of the endorphnin flow
> created by that imagination occurring without awareness .. which
> Bohm calls fancy, fantasy.
>
> I'm interpreting JCs notion of seeking, knocking, etc., as relating
> to natural (not personal) endorphin flow -- that endorphin flow
> having little or no down side; similarlily the Budhist sayings,
> Jewish, Hindu sayings. -- Don L
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Susan Clemons
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>
> Just to check and see if I am understanding you...are you saying
> you feel this endorphin flow is somehow undesirable?
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>
> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
> other than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness,
> wisdom, wittiness as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of
> Being? --dbl
>
> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
> being rather than something you possess or I possess. -- Susan
>
> If I may say, it seems wisdom says so. Personally, I would say
> doing so creates something like endorphin flow better than the
> trite little pretentious lies I act and pretend. -- dbl
>
> From: Susan Clemons
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>
> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
> being rather than something you possess or I possess.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
>> other than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness,
>> wisdom, wittiness as insight ... as the attributes of the ground
>> of Being?
>>
>> If thoughts are not words, is it possible to see also that
>> thoughts are not ours? Is it not extremely limiting to say a
>> thought is mine -- and ignore that everyone may have the same
>> thought?
>>
>> What would happen if I did not personify and interpret cleverness,
>> wittiness or wisdom as mine? What would happen if you experienced
>> wisdom without personifying? What would happen if, as per K, you
>> watched the personification movement, or were, as Bohm suggests,
>> aware of the personification movement as it forms ... such that
>> experience occurs (sic) of wisdom instead of personal wisdom?
>>
>> Do endorphins flow without excessive personification movement?
>> -- dbl
>
> What would happen? I suspect we would find ourselves engaged in a
> real dialogue without fragmentation or incoherence. And I also
> suspect that the endorphins would confirm this.
> don
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061120/775d4fb0/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 20 23:50:26 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 22 00:56:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] William's post for Gill
In-Reply-To: <01fe01c709e8$20cb8560$3374153f@DL01>
References: <01fe01c709e8$20cb8560$3374153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <5715C1EA-64DB-4769-B984-8033954264BA@dc.rr.com>
Escape from Paradise. When I think of it, now, I can't help thinking
of that poor cat. We need such an escape. Permanent paradise would
not be paradise at all.
don
On Nov 16, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Don Lay wrote:
>
> Gill .. and others, here's the post earlier referenced. I
> retrieved it from something I'd saved to work on later, so it is
> slightly gooped-up but the ideas are the same. Also, be aware that
> this presentation is somewhat out of context. HIGHLIGHTS ADDED. --
> Don L
>
> I think, the most significant advance so far is the development of
> the sense of self, individualism, or persona. This, to some extend,
> is a separation from the whole. In mythical or religious terms it
> amounts to an escape from paradise, freedom from God. Also we have
> developed language that emphasizes distinctions, enabling us to
> conceptualize ourselves in terms of you and me, them and us, etc.
> This is a real breakthrough and a pre-requisite for everything else
> that follows. -- william
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061120/ae083395/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 20 23:56:38 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 22 01:02:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <000f01c70a4a$866d0da0$934a153f@DL01>
References: <20061116.214229.1832.4.franis_franis@juno.com>
<000f01c70a4a$866d0da0$934a153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <3B6EFBA1-C516-4E91-9E70-9DEB83DBAC68@dc.rr.com>
These days, the young like to go out dancing in clubs. But these
clubs have doormen who screen those who want to go in. These doorman
select the appropriate personae, for entry. Those who don't look,
dress. or sound right, are excluded. Isn't that the way it works for
jobs or even mates? What do we do with that? Just consider ourselves
lucky to out of that rat race?
don
On Nov 17, 2006, at 5:15 AM, Don Lay wrote:
> Yes. I also like the idea of "skipping the middle man".
>
> Why bother with the persona when it is not needed or useful? It
> seems that not only detracts from the pleasure, happiness -- BLISS,
> it also causes pain and suffering in others.
>
> Perhaps one of the ugliest consequences of unuseful, unneeded
> "middle manning" occurs as the young mimic us; they seem to learn
> to act and pretend the 'imaginary persona' at all cost, even at the
> cost of ultimate bliss.
>
> Don L
>
>
>
> From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 12:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>
>
>> that's it! - we do already have this button we can push for
>> pleasure and
>> happiness, but we've become habituated to it...so happiness has
>> become
>> banal and drama is interesting.
>> A new science study on frequency of colds finds that happiness is the
>> factor whether you get them or not.
>> - Franis
>>
>> DonL: Pat, this is very interesting. I experience something like a
>> reflex for a "mental mantra" which is like the "button" you describe.
>> The mantra, a mental movement, occurring "on its own" directs
>> attentive
>> awareness to a deeper experience that, seems to me, is quite prior
>> to the
>> personal identity experience -- in Tillich's language, prior to the
>> subject object split.
>>
>> It is so difficult finding language that adequately directs
>> awareness in
>> the direction of meaning. I really like your idea of the
>> "button". --
>> Don L
>> ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
>>> Imagine what could happen if we were to find an internal button that
>>> could be pushed fairly easily for a little hit of pleasure. You
>>> know, an
>>> ability to "skip the middle man" kind of thing. Then imagine, that
>>> this
>>> "little hit" would subside quite rapidly. But there is STILL the
>>> fact of
>>> this "button" discovery. No brainer, right. Push it again.
>>> Then, what if this became habitual. Habitual to the point that the
>>> general pleasantry and surprise of just being alive [the "middle
>>> man"]
>>> was all but forgotten.
>>>
>>> pat
>>>
>> "Don Lay" writes:
>>> Which endorphin flow? The ones created by pretentious acts,
>>> language,
>>> little lies -- or the endorphin flow created by inate wisdom in all
>>> creatures, perhaps even in a tree that grows extra bark prior to an
>>> approaching harsh winter?
>>>
>>> I'm saying it is dangerous to be unaware of the endorphnin flow
>>> created
>>> by that imagination occurring without awareness .. which Bohm calls
>>> fancy, fantasy.
>>>
>>> I'm interpreting JCs notion of seeking, knocking, etc., as relating
>>> to
>>> natural (not personal) endorphin flow -- that endorphin flow having
>>> little or no down side; similarlily the Budhist sayings, Jewish,
>>> Hindu
>>> sayings. -- Don L
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> Just to check and see if I am understanding you...are you saying you
>>> feel
>>> this endorphin flow is somehow undesirable?
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>
>>> From: Don Lay
>>
>>> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
>>> other
>>> than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom,
>>> wittiness
>>> as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being? --dbl
>>>
>>> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
>>> being
>>> rather than something you possess or I possess. -- Susan
>>>
>>> If I may say, it seems wisdom says so. Personally, I would say
>>> doing so
>>> creates something like endorphin flow better than the trite little
>>> pretentious lies I act and pretend. -- dbl
>>>
>>> From: Susan Clemons
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:00 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I would call this wisdom, cleverness, insight as a state of
>>> being
>>> rather than something you possess or I possess.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>> Don Lay wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it possible to interpret the clever, witty, wise occurrence as
>>> other
>>> than personal? Is it possible to interpret cleverness, wisdom,
>>> wittiness
>>> as insight ... as the attributes of the ground of Being?
>>>
>>>
>>> If thoughts are not words, is it possible to see also that thoughts
>>> are
>>> not ours? Is it not extremely limiting to say a thought is mine
>>> -- and
>>> ignore that everyone may have the same thought?
>>>
>>>
>>> What would happen if I did not personify and interpret cleverness,
>>> wittiness or wisdom as mine? What would happen if you experienced
>>> wisdom
>>> without personifying? What would happen if, as per K, you watched
>>> the
>>> personification movement, or were, as Bohm suggests, aware of the
>>> personification movement as it forms ... such that experience occurs
>>> (sic) of wisdom instead of personal wisdom?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do endorphins flow without excessive personification movement?
>>> -- dbl
>>>
>>>
>>> What would happen? I suspect we would find ourselves engaged in a
>>> real
>>> dialogue without fragmentation or incoherence. And I also suspect
>>> that
>>> the endorphins would confirm this.
>>> don
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>