From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Wed Sep 20 00:05:25 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Thu Sep 21 00:58:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <56287EE8-6AC8-45CE-9535-A92754F3BE90@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F208099683B1D9CCF634076A8220@phx.gbl>
Godgood Donl,
[I 'have' to agree with Donf ~ {again!}]
What un'kind of thinkgs are you
Popping
Good man
......'S this what a few decades of (Bohm)Dialog
Didoes to y'our brain ;-?
"Wild".
Love & Cellcalls, Kirsten
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:34:11 +0100
>
>Haven't a clue what you are talking about. Is this the way you actually
>experience yourself in the world?
>
>don
>
>On 19 Sep 2006, at 18:32, Don Lay wrote:
>
>>when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to
>>see where you might want to draw the line. -- don F
>>
>>Personally, I prefer drawing the line respecting TRUTH :-), that which is
>>-- meaning that standing at the mirror with the question, What is that,
>>the appropriate answer is that is a mirror image of this.
>>
>>The mirror-image can be said to be the persona-image as can the
>>photo-image be said to be the personal identity.
>>
>>Where is the line drawn at the slit system? Some speak of Heisenberg cut
>>or the Bohr cut which indicates the Observer and Observed. I prefer that
>>2600 year old line of thought beginning with Parmenides and Heraclitus
>>that addresses the whole (Being) and thinking -- and say that thinking
>>and Being are the same instead of fracturing, splitting the whole into
>>separated O/O.
>>
>>It seems to me the early Greeks were or could have been aware of the use
>>of the O/O split that is re-presented by the subject and object, the SOS,
>>since they individuated homo-saps as egos. [What's the meaning?] The
>>strict rules for identity appear with the hoplite, the Hellenistic
>>phalanx, but not for the citizen. [What's the meaning?] That occurs later
>>with Rome. [What's the meaning?]
>>
>>Is it all meaningless? -- Don L
>>
>>
>>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Don Factor
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:46 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>>
>>Remember that in Bohm's world, and in mine, all distinctions are
>>relative. They are necessary in order to talk about whatever, and when it
>>comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to see where
>>you might want to draw the line.
>>don
>>
>>
>>On 19 Sep 2006, at 14:51, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>>DF:
>>>There is a self, but what it is, is not what we think it is.
>>>David Bohm, personal conversation 1992
>>>
>>>"One must say that there is a self - an individual self - but it's not
>>>the whole thing, and it has to be seen properly within its limits,
>>>although it may be far greater than we know. But still, it must be
>>>limited. Our real self is nothing but 'I am'. It could always unfold,
>>>and it has limited potential, but in some way this is still not the
>>>total, perhaps enfolded in the whole."
>>>
>>>dbl: Bohm differentiates self and personal identity. Bohm clearly
>>>distinguishes between the personal identity (TAS) and self. It really
>>>seems confusion, destructive when there's no awareness of the
>>>distinction. -- dbl
>>>
>>>
>>>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: Don Factor
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:04 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>>>
>>>
>>>On 18 Sep 2006, at 04:20, Don Lay wrote:
>>>
>>>>What is the truth for me? -- don F
>>>>
>>>>What is this "me" that you speak of? Is it only imaginary? Does
>>>>anyone other than you know what it is? If this "me" you speak of is
>>>>only imaginary, as suggested by Bohm, what could be the possible
>>>>meaning of truth for this image? -- dbl
>>>>
>>>
>>>By asking this are you suggesting that there is no "me"? That whoever or
>>>whatever dbl is can only be thought of as imaginary? And if something
>>>like this is the case, then who or what is it who is doing the
>>>imagining?
>>>
>>>Some aides:
>>>
>>>There is a self, but what it is, is not what we think it is.
>>>David Bohm, personal conversation 1992
>>>
>>>"One must say that there is a self - an individual self - but it's not
>>>the whole thing, and it has to be seen properly within its limits,
>>>although it may be far greater than we know. But still, it must be
>>>limited. Our real self is nothing but 'I am'. It could always unfold,
>>>and it has limited potential, but in some way this is still not the
>>>total, perhaps enfolded in the whole."
>>>
>>>"The individual self may enfold the whole. But it's like a hologram,
>>>which enfolds the whole but in an incomplete way. So still, the danger
>>>is to identify this with the total 'I am' - the total meaning of the
>>>word 'I am'."
>>>
>>>Both: David Bohm. From a collection of quotes that I saved but,
>>>unfortunately without the sources
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Search—say hello!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Wed Sep 20 00:15:38 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Thu Sep 21 01:08:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Welt*Bild
In-Reply-To: <0MKwpI-1GPjqE1Khm-0004SF@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F73845A426E37DEE8F7E54A8220@phx.gbl>
Oh William, I like your
Attitude/s
Love & Dress, Kirsten
PS:
There is a pervasive sense of rootlessness and disorientation that causes
many people to avoid contemplating their place in the universe and to focus
instead on the trivial concerns of consumerism.
The lack of social consensus on cosmology in the modern world has caused
many people to close off their thinking to large issues and long time
scales, so that small matters dominate their consciousness.
In most traditional cultures, people's sense of identity and codes of
behavior are grounded in a cosmology that provides a picture of who they
are, where they come from, and what their personal relationship to the
larger world should be. For more than 300 years, however, scientific
advances have tended to undermine traditional cosmologies while offering an
image of the cosmos bereft of spiritual or mythic dimensions.
Are you looking for an image of the cosmos consistent with what scientists
understand about the universe today. That symbol, known to the ancient
Greeks as a "uroboros," is the snake swallowing its tail. This: symbol :
represents the universe as a continuity of vastly different size scales,
with the swallowing of the tail representing the hoped-for unification of
theories governing the largest and smallest scales.
The size scales in the known universe encompass about 60 orders of
magnitude, from the vastness of the cosmic horizon to the subatomic Planck
scale, the smallest size allowed by relativity and quantum physics. Yet
people asked to visualize "the universe" tend to think of endless space and
uncountable stars and galaxies, while the human scale shrinks into
insignificance.
Gute Nacht!
> >I would love to know what anyone here thinks
> >about the Deikmans' piece.
>
>Not much; as much nonsense as ever
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live
Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features
From donlay at gte.net Wed Sep 20 00:37:49 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Sep 21 01:31:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060916.115611.2248.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<DEC66EC8-E3C2-434C-BBC3-784A47FAACBB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<004f01c6dad1$5e511530$fb0a153f@DL01>
<BCCB891E-4427-4840-9DED-4CE9D8A16A90@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<00a301c6dbf2$d1489000$dd43153f@DL01>
<132989C9-FC8A-45BF-8899-997D8EBE1B99@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<003301c6dc11$991c47c0$0102153f@DL01>
<56287EE8-6AC8-45CE-9535-A92754F3BE90@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <003901c6dc3c$42ef8620$e069153f@DL01>
Sometimes it seems "the world" experiences me ... accompanied by the thought, maybe that's proprioception re the subtle. Anyone else ever had this thought?-- dlb
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Haven't a clue what you are talking about. Is this the way you actually experience yourself in the world?
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 18:32, Don Lay wrote:
when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to see where you might want to draw the line. -- don F
Personally, I prefer drawing the line respecting TRUTH :-), that which is -- meaning that standing at the mirror with the question, What is that, the appropriate answer is that is a mirror image of this.
The mirror-image can be said to be the persona-image as can the photo-image be said to be the personal identity.
Where is the line drawn at the slit system? Some speak of Heisenberg cut or the Bohr cut which indicates the Observer and Observed. I prefer that 2600 year old line of thought beginning with Parmenides and Heraclitus that addresses the whole (Being) and thinking -- and say that thinking and Being are the same instead of fracturing, splitting the whole into separated O/O.
It seems to me the early Greeks were or could have been aware of the use of the O/O split that is re-presented by the subject and object, the SOS, since they individuated homo-saps as egos. [What's the meaning?] The strict rules for identity appear with the hoplite, the Hellenistic phalanx, but not for the citizen. [What's the meaning?] That occurs later with Rome. [What's the meaning?]
Is it all meaningless? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Remember that in Bohm's world, and in mine, all distinctions are relative. They are necessary in order to talk about whatever, and when it comes to self and personal identity it might be interesting to see where you might want to draw the line.
don
On 19 Sep 2006, at 14:51, Don Lay wrote:
DF:
There is a self, but what it is, is not what we think it is.
David Bohm, personal conversation 1992
"One must say that there is a self - an individual self - but it's not the whole thing, and it has to be seen properly within its limits, although it may be far greater than we know. But still, it must be limited. Our real self is nothing but 'I am'. It could always unfold, and it has limited potential, but in some way this is still not the total, perhaps enfolded in the whole."
dbl: Bohm differentiates self and personal identity. Bohm clearly distinguishes between the personal identity (TAS) and self. It really seems confusion, destructive when there's no awareness of the distinction. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
On 18 Sep 2006, at 04:20, Don Lay wrote:
What is the truth for me? -- don F
What is this "me" that you speak of? Is it only imaginary? Does anyone other than you know what it is? If this "me" you speak of is only imaginary, as suggested by Bohm, what could be the possible meaning of truth for this image? -- dbl
By asking this are you suggesting that there is no "me"? That whoever or whatever dbl is can only be thought of as imaginary? And if something like this is the case, then who or what is it who is doing the imagining?
Some aides:
There is a self, but what it is, is not what we think it is.
David Bohm, personal conversation 1992
"One must say that there is a self - an individual self - but it's not the whole thing, and it has to be seen properly within its limits, although it may be far greater than we know. But still, it must be limited. Our real self is nothing but 'I am'. It could always unfold, and it has limited potential, but in some way this is still not the total, perhaps enfolded in the whole."
"The individual self may enfold the whole. But it's like a hologram, which enfolds the whole but in an incomplete way. So still, the danger is to identify this with the total 'I am' - the total meaning of the word 'I am'."
Both: David Bohm. From a collection of quotes that I saved but, unfortunately without the sources
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/4de71374/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Wed Sep 20 00:50:12 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Sep 21 01:43:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060919181732.69530.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
<002201c6dc27$d6d11620$1d0a153f@DL01>
<C97D1F63-901B-4069-8AE3-3467F28CF438@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <007501c6dc3d$fa25b9d0$e069153f@DL01>
Written words used with meaning (intention) have definition. Definition is defined as limitation. dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
On 19 Sep 2006, at 21:11, Don Lay wrote:
and words are limits, by definition a word limits.
Really? In my book words are pointers, they are not things in themselves. Whatever power they have is given to them by us. Their meanings are the result of of a larger dimension than the personal self, and these meanings - or what the words point toward - is subject to the particular context. Nothing more.
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/1562c2e2/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Wed Sep 20 00:55:59 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Sep 21 01:49:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060919181732.69530.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
<002201c6dc27$d6d11620$1d0a153f@DL01>
<C97D1F63-901B-4069-8AE3-3467F28CF438@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <009501c6dc3e$c8a88c10$e069153f@DL01>
Really? In my book words are pointers, they are not things in themselves. Whatever power they have is given to them by us. Their meanings are the result of of a larger dimension than the personal self, and these meanings - or what the words point toward - is subject to the particular context. Nothing more. -- don
Seems limited. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
On 19 Sep 2006, at 21:11, Don Lay wrote:
and words are limits, by definition a word limits.
Really? In my book words are pointers, they are not things in themselves. Whatever power they have is given to them by us. Their meanings are the result of of a larger dimension than the personal self, and these meanings - or what the words point toward - is subject to the particular context. Nothing more.
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/7b96b835/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 04:52:50 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Thu Sep 21 05:46:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D16955198C@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <20060920025250.16213.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com>
well thanks for asking dorothy!
i will try to elaborate a bit. goddess or divine feminine can mean a lot of things to people today. what i (and others) believe is emerging today is shakti. shakti is the energy in every living thing. there is a whole lot we could say about shakti. one way this is illustrated is by feelings. by embodying our human form we can access this energy that is less accessible through only thinking, which is more of a masculine activity. eckhart tolle may be a good example of a teaching with a feminine nature. please dont get too hung up on the words; if you know i what i mean, then wonderful, and if you dont then wonderful. im not so much in the mood to debate...unless it is in a friendly curious way. :) the feminine essence is what evokes communion and blurs the boundaries set by the masculine, which helps provide order.
the goddess energy is love. i have felt an increased amount and quality of energy in the body over the last couple of months. the more i relax into the body, the better i feel, and it exponentially affects those with whom i come in contact and how i live my life.
often times i hear myself talking as if objectively hearing the words just flow out. i watch myself drive or go places, and what i see during sleep blurs with what happens during the daylight. i feel extreme peace and bliss at times and an urgency to relax like this in the presence of other individuals. i have been writing a lot in my journals just whatever comes up. it keeps coming. i am beginning to feel like i have a message to share with the world and that i am on the verge of something really magnificent, though i have really always had the feeling of greatness in the background...we all are experiencing something miraculous, as humans alive in this particular point in space/time, which also exists to be experienced in a different way. therefore, i hold the possibility of insanity too. :)
i have been doing self hypnosis, which has definitely relaxed my body to the point that i can truly embody my feminine self. today i had a migraine in the morning and it is now almost totally gone. i did healing visualizations, meditation, and breathing this morning. i have had migraines for 8 years now, having to take medicine every single time or they do not go away. now twice in the last month i have healed myself without medication. i even went to work for a couple hours today.
so as i uncover and relax into these subtle parts of myself, normally hidden and shut down in today's rational linear rigid world, the personal transformation helps act as a midwife to a new level of consciousness emerging on the planet.
this is something i have believed every since around the time i encountered bohm's work, and now i have read some very interesting possibilities in daniel pinchbeck's book, 2012 the return of quetzalcoatl. he mentions f david peat's work a couple times. of course there have been many synchronisities.
oh, i just remembered: part of this feminine essence seems to be uncertainty and a willingness to rest in and hold the uncertainty. this may help balance out the knowing/limited experience. so don, maybe the way i was meaning know is a felt sense, more intuitive with room for uncertainty...
i hope that gives you at least a slight idea of this trip ive been on lately. wow, it is so fun.does anyone here resonate with anything i am saying?
peace,
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Dorothy Stulberg <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:07:31 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
karilen what is a goddess energy trip? It sounds so good I want to go too. d.
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:11 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
maybe if we truly know this then words aren't so limiting...? -- Kari
Part of the problem, perhaps, is that know implicates limitation in that, in the West know means language, saying ... with words -- and words are limits, by definition a word limits.
As you suggest, when there is awareness, "then the words aren't so limiting." Bohm indicates there's a problem with knowing when the identity is used. It seems people dislike the idea of their self identity being limited, for example, having meaning only in society, culture. -- Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/29afabd1/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Wed Sep 20 05:57:17 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Thu Sep 21 06:50:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]The Eternal
In-Reply-To: <00a701c6dc17$1c9f7a90$0102153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <C136183D.7259%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
I like the image of words constellating the mind. They tend not only to
limit what I can express, but also what I think.
But there is more than one way to use language. The normal use defines and
limits (and that?s fine for lots of purposes). But there is a creative use,
through poetry and paradox, where definitions are deliberately blurred or
denied. Words have, in addition to defined meanings, associations
(different for different people), sounds, rhythms, appearance on a page. A
writer can manipulate all these to evoke a response in a reader, so that
different meanings may come to be, collaboratively. Not at all precise, but
creative. I think Bohm said that creativity comes from outside tas, and
changes it, however small the change.
Lynne
On 9/19/06 12:11 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
> SOS = Subject Object Structure, or subject, verb, object -- the structure of
> language.
>
> The SOS split is the separation between S and O. The S and O are separated by
> the verb, etc.
>
> I'm saying and I believe Bohm infers that the structure of language is the
> structure of thought -- is the structure of consciousness.
>
> Further, I'm (my persona is) trying to find a way to find adequate language
> that points to, directs awareness to this such that people can then see the
> source of their confusion. More, I, my personal self is working on ways to
> explicate awareness without the SOS.
>
> However, a problem occurs with the use of language, SOS, because any language
> structures the mind, the awareness. I was sailing South, 2 miles off Florida's
> East coast when this realization occurred. We were beating into the Gulf
> Stream with just enough beam wind to bounce the 41 foot Pierce up and down
> with every wave.
>
> The captain said to take a bearing on a shore light and a star and the
> awareness of the constellation of star, shore lights somehow representing
> where we were brought to mind that words constellate the brain/mind in a
> similar way. I've never forgotten that trip on account of that and also
> something rather shameful occurred a bit later when we headed South East
> leaving the shoreline, cutting diagonally across the gulf stream. I've never
> written about that because it's difficult to address but I may some day. --
> dbl
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Factor <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue]The Eternal
>>
>> remind me again what the SOS split is. I can recall subject, object but what
>> it the second S? Also when did this split come about?
>>
>> It seems to me that if the problem you attribute to SOS is what I think it
>> is, then it must have emerged very early. That is, the language of ancient
>> Greece, along with what little I know about the indo-European language
>> families along with Hebrew and the Germanic languages, all had subject, verb,
>> object structures although not necessarily in that order. At least these turn
>> up in all the translations I have seen.
>>
>> But maybe i have misunderstood your point.
>>
>> I hate acronyms, especially when I don't understand them.
>>
>> don
>>
>> On 19 Sep 2006, at 15:54, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>> definitions of eternal:
>>>
>>> that which is prior to the SOS split.
>>> that which is not subject to the SOS split.
>>> that which is what actually is, meaning that the synthetic language we use,
>>> SOS is not a mirror reflection of that which is ... think Korzybski.
>>>
>>> I like the idea of the eternal as that which is the activity of the basic
>>> forces ... revealed via the logos of Being.
>>>
>>> Don L
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/028861c0/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Wed Sep 20 06:14:50 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Thu Sep 21 07:08:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <409E4726-C046-41EF-BCFD-2A03F8CFC397@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C1361C5A.725B%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
The Deikman piece certainly describes what I have come to feel as truth.
Recently I have been intrigued by non-dual philosophy, not in the sense
Deikman describes, of reducing the observer into the observed, but of the
distinction between them just falling away. One of the reasons I was so
interested in Bohm was the idea that the enfolding could resolve the
dual/non-dual dilemma by containing all the duality and multiplicities in
the implicate order. (Buddhism does the same thing by saying there are two
dimensions of reality - the ultimate and the historical - and they are not
different.)
Lynne
On 9/18/06 3:59 PM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I would love to know what anyone here thinks about the Deikmans'
> piece. For me it validates what a lot people here consider an
> illusion and what I think of as something actual, if indescribable. I
> suppose this comes from work that I did earlier which involved
> thinking of myself as not my mind, not my body, but rather a point of
> consciousness. In Deikman's terms it is awareness, which happens to
> be another of those Krishnamurti/Bohm words that is difficult to
> understand - not the word itself but the meaning they attribute to it.
>
> For me, Deikman's work slots right into Bohm's with what might
> appear to be the exception of "the observer is the observed" idea.
> But this notion has always left me with some nagging questions,
> questions that were difficult to articulatebecause of a strong
> feeling that something was being missed, either by me or by others.
>
> Deikman's approach to the self, appears to "dissolve" this
> difficulty since I can now see how both ideas can be correct although
> in different domains of description. So I can no long blithely go
> about saying, "Well, the observer is the observed," meaning that if I
> observe something like, for instance, the insanity of a suicide
> bomber, I am what I have observed. The observer, "I", am not one with
> suicide bomber, but we are both part of the same larger system that
> allows us to re-cognise some part of who or what the other is. And
> this should be thought of,not as a two particle system, but rather a
> many particle system. What it appearshas been missing is the
> awareness of this larger system of which "I" am but a particular part
> as is everyone else. So at one level the two are distinct and at
> another they are "enfolded" in a good old Bohmian holographic universe.
>
> What this does for me, is to confirm the validity of "I" the point
> of awareness, or the observer who is, at least, in some way separate
> from the observed, and to see that this separation can only be
> judged imaginary if and when I use it to attribute to myself, some
> special significance beyond what it actually means or what it does -
> or what I actually do, or who we all actually are at the level of
> what Bohm called the quintessence.
>
> So to go back to this exchange
>> :
>>> What is the truth for me? -- don F
>>>
>>> What is this "me" that you speak of? Is it only imaginary? Does
>>> anyone other than you know what it is? If this "me" you speak of
>>> is only imaginary, as suggested by Bohm, what could be the
>>> possible meaning of truth for this image? -- dbl
>>>
>>
>> By asking this are you suggesting that there is no "me"? That
>> whoever or whatever dbl is can only be thought of as imaginary? And
>> if something like this is the case, then who or what is it who is
>> doing the imagining? (don)
>
> This "me" or "I" as awareness am not imaginary, nor am I a thing or
> a product of thought. If I can be described as anything at this level
> of discourse, I am the observer, which is an active principle - that
> is awareness and each of us can say that of our self. As a matter of
> fact, I am, is the one thing that everyone can say of him or herself,
> and only of him or herself. It was also the name of God, in the
> Hebrew Bible.
>
> DonL asks how can anyone know what it is? And I say, only through
> dialogue, through communication, or what Bohm rather late in his
> life, called love. That is where intelligence is, Intelligence is a
> part of awareness, at least of the sort of intelligence that we
> humans can participate in.
>
> And so, "I" and all the rest of us "I"s exist.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- 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 lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Wed Sep 20 06:25:56 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Thu Sep 21 07:19:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060920025250.16213.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C1361EF4.725F%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Kari,
Yes, I resonate! I was very into goddess energy several years ago, then
sort of shifted into Buddhism, via Thich Nhat Hanh. I like his simple, but
deep common sense. And I only recently discovered Bohm. But I still have
my Motherpeace tarot deck. The whole idea of round cards appeals to me.
Lynne
On 9/19/06 8:52 PM, "Karilen Mays" <tubakari@yahoo.com> wrote:
> well thanks for asking dorothy!
> i will try to elaborate a bit. goddess or divine feminine can mean a lot of
> things to people today. what i (and others) believe is emerging today is
> shakti. shakti is the energy in every living thing. there is a whole lot we
> could say about shakti. one way this is illustrated is by feelings. by
> embodying our human form we can access this energy that is less accessible
> through only thinking, which is more of a masculine activity. eckhart tolle
> may be a good example of a teaching with a feminine nature. please dont get
> too hung up on the words; if you know i what i mean, then wonderful, and if
> you dont then wonderful. im not so much in the mood to debate...unless it is
> in a friendly curious way. :) the feminine essence is what evokes communion
> and blurs the boundaries set by the masculine, which helps provide order.
> the goddess energy is love. i have felt an increased amount and quality of
> energy in the body over the last couple of months. the more i relax into the
> body, the better i feel, and it exponentially affects those with whom i come
> in contact and how i live my life.
> often times i hear myself talking as if objectively hearing the words just
> flow out. i watch myself drive or go places, and what i see during sleep blurs
> with what happens during the daylight. i feel extreme peace and bliss at times
> and an urgency to relax like this in the presence of other individuals. i have
> been writing a lot in my journals just whatever comes up. it keeps coming. i
> am beginning to feel like i have a message to share with the world and that i
> am on the verge of something really magnificent, though i have really always
> had the feeling of greatness in the background...we all are experiencing
> something miraculous, as humans alive in this particular point in space/time,
> which also exists to be experienced in a different way. therefore, i hold the
> possibility of insanity too. :)
> i have been doing self hypnosis, which has definitely relaxed my body to the
> point that i can truly embody my feminine self. today i had a migraine in the
> morning and it is now almost totally gone. i did healing visualizations,
> meditation, and breathing this morning. i have had migraines for 8 years now,
> having to take medicine every single time or they do not go away. now twice in
> the last month i have healed myself without medication. i even went to work
> for a couple hours today.
> so as i uncover and relax into these subtle parts of myself, normally hidden
> and shut down in today's rational linear rigid world, the personal
> transformation helps act as a midwife to a new level of consciousness emerging
> on the planet.
> this is something i have believed every since around the time i encountered
> bohm's work, and now i have read some very interesting possibilities in daniel
> pinchbeck's book, 2012 the return of quetzalcoatl. he mentions f david peat's
> work a couple times. of course there have been many synchronisities.
> oh, i just remembered: part of this feminine essence seems to be uncertainty
> and a willingness to rest in and hold the uncertainty. this may help balance
> out the knowing/limited experience. so don, maybe the way i was meaning know
> is a felt sense, more intuitive with room for uncertainty...
>
> i hope that gives you at least a slight idea of this trip ive been on lately.
> wow, it is so fun.does anyone here resonate with anything i am saying?
>
> peace,
> kari
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dorothy Stulberg <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:07:31 PM
> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
> karilen what is a goddess energy trip? It sounds so good I want to go too. d.
>
>
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:11 PM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
> maybe if we truly know this then words aren't so limiting...? -- Kari
>
> Part of the problem, perhaps, is that know implicates limitation in that, in
> the West know means language, saying ... with words -- and words are limits,
> by definition a word limits.
>
> As you suggest, when there is awareness, "then the words aren't so limiting."
> Bohm indicates there's a problem with knowing when the identity is used. It
> seems people dislike the idea of their self identity being limited, for
> example, having meaning only in society, culture. -- Don L
>
>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060919/d5f972d6/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 20 11:31:55 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 21 12:25:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <009501c6dc3e$c8a88c10$e069153f@DL01>
References: <20060919181732.69530.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
<002201c6dc27$d6d11620$1d0a153f@DL01>
<C97D1F63-901B-4069-8AE3-3467F28CF438@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<009501c6dc3e$c8a88c10$e069153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <0D7D42B6-C135-4ACF-99FA-10474383CCCB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 19 Sep 2006, at 23:55, Don Lay wrote:
> Really? In my book words are pointers, they are not things in
> themselves. Whatever power they have is given to them by us. Their
> meanings are the result of of a larger dimension than the personal
> self, and these meanings - or what the words point toward - is
> subject to the particular context. Nothing more. -- don
>
> Seems limited. -- dbl
>
Not really. It's just that most of us were mistaught that
dictionaries give the authoritative definition of a word. And if we
used the "wrong" word we were marked down. But in fact, dictionaries
give current usage along with pronunciation and spelling. But
dictionaries, as you may have noticed have to bring out regular new
editions in order to include new words, eliminate a few old ones and
adjust definitions. I believe that the OED website regularly provides
lists of new recommended words for possible inclusion along with new
definitions. The point is that English is a living language that,
like everything else is in a process of change. Popular metaphors,
poetic language, often, these days, from music lyrics and slang are
usually the guilty parties. But I was taught that one of the wonders
of the English language was in its plasticity. Being made up of bits
and pieces (fragments?) of many older languages, it is far more, able
to integrate new and foreign ideas than, French, for instance. The
French, of course. have dealt with this by having an Academy that
protects the sacred French langue. And banns the entry of any alien
words or phrases, such as "le weekend". Oh, and by the way, "nucular
is now, thanks to GWB, an accepted pronunciation for "nuclear", at
least in American dictionaries.
Thus endeth today's lesson;-)
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060920/7fba19a4/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Sep 20 12:11:32 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Sep 21 13:05:06 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060921100003.4C62B22F6F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFC639656F.85111984-ON852571EF.003681EA-852571EF.0037FD1F@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Hi Don, this may seem semantic but did you mean our preconceived
set of meanings or values were not valid; as a representation of core -I-?
But are valid as instruments for bringing thoughts into physical-form, re:
creation and/or communication.
.
.
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:39:11 +0100
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
Again, what does this mean? Deikman's suggestion that the self is
pure awareness, makes sense. Bohm's suggestion that that personal
identity system is the point of awareness in fancy dress - with
attributes that narrow that awareness and give it a preconceived set
of meanings or values that cannot be vallid or useful because its
fabric is made of memory.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060920/50b53542/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Sep 20 12:37:35 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Sep 21 13:30:58 2006
Subject: Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060921100003.4C62B22F6F@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFF6385860.E8EACAE8-ON852571EF.003964AE-852571EF.003A5F97@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Your words -Not much- remind me of a psychiatrist I knew in the
seventies. He was given the task of designing a method to help school
children -first grade- be more in touch with reality.
He designed a series of tests and the results influenced the childrens
grades, so there were definitely right & wrong answers. For example, there
were a series of cards with abstract patterns -- the children were each
handed cards and asked what they saw on the cards.
The correct answer was; An abstract pattern on a card._R
.
.
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:56:57 +0200
From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
.
>I would love to know what anyone here thinks about the Deikmans' piece.
Not much; as much nonsense as ever
William
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060920/b7919b91/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 20 12:55:16 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 21 13:48:38 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <OFC639656F.85111984-ON852571EF.003681EA-852571EF.0037FD1F@dialogos.com>
References: <OFC639656F.85111984-ON852571EF.003681EA-852571EF.0037FD1F@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <B5C77A84-2807-44FB-AFAA-ACB30F83BD26@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Yes, I was unclear. The value of that part of awareness in fancy
dress that we think of as ourselves depends to a large extent on
memory which actually cannot be trusted entirely, if only because it
is never quite up to date. But as you suggest, it is very useful as
one one tool in our bag of tools. But this is an important point. A
lot of people feel like they are entirely limited by memory, and
perhaps many of us are. But, I tend to think of this part of my
personal identity system rather like I think of Google, it gives me
background and context within which I can check out what I make of my
own moment to momentf awareness. Beyond that, I must tread carefully.
don
don
On 20 Sep 2006, at 11:11, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
> Rodger __Hi Don, this may seem semantic but did you mean our
> preconceived set of meanings or values were not valid; as a
> representation of core -I-?
> But are valid as instruments for bringing thoughts into physical-
> form, re: creation and/or communication.
> .
> .
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:39:11 +0100
> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> .
> Again, what does this mean? Deikman's suggestion that the self is
> pure awareness, makes sense. Bohm's suggestion that that personal
> identity system is the point of awareness in fancy dress - with
> attributes that narrow that awareness and give it a preconceived set
> of meanings or values that cannot be vallid or useful because its
> fabric is made of memory.
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 20 13:12:26 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Sep 21 14:05:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quotation
Message-ID: <51B478EE-FEF0-4FC7-9CAD-4E5FBB756EA0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I just ran across this quotation and I felt compelled to share it around
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his
accomplices. --Edward R. Murrow
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060920/32c7b093/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 20 13:46:37 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Thu Sep 21 14:42:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quotation
In-Reply-To: <51B478EE-FEF0-4FC7-9CAD-4E5FBB756EA0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C136E8AD.9565%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Do you know where its from Don? Pretty challenging for most people. I'm
running a workshop at the weekend re Transcending the victim/oppressor
dynamic so I'm just loving the synchronicity of you sending this out today!
Gill
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:12:26 +0100
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quotation
I just ran across this quotation and I felt compelled to share it around
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
don
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060920/349691a3/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Sep 20 17:00:53 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Sep 21 17:57:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quotation
Message-ID: <20060920.080054.1424.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
or, as a my friend quipped the other day,
The War on Terror is really
only Terrorists In Competition.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:12:26 +0100 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I just ran across this quotation and I felt compelled to share it
> around
>
> No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his
> accomplices. --Edward R. Murrow
>
> don
From w at david-bohm.net Wed Sep 20 21:33:47 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Thu Sep 21 22:27:21 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quotation
In-Reply-To: <51B478EE-FEF0-4FC7-9CAD-4E5FBB756EA0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <0ML25U-1GQ7pX00Ip-0007iC@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
> No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are
>all his accomplices. --Edward R. Murrow
Our contribution to terrorism is being terrified. Because then we want
somebody to do something about it. And thus the cycle of violence gets
started and fuels itself. It's catalytic, like a fire that burns until there
is nothing left.
William
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Wed Sep 20 22:53:28 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Thu Sep 21 23:46:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F73845A426E37DEE8F7E54A8220@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F333E332E6C43FE43D28700A8230@phx.gbl>
Dear habituated Susbcribers
The study of group polarization began with an unpublished 1961 Master’s
thesis by MIT student James Stoner, who observed the so-called "risky
shift", meaning that a group’s decisions are riskier than the average of
the individual decisions of members before the group met. The discovery of
the risky shift was considered surprising and counterintuitive, especially
since earlier work in the 1920s and 1930s by Allport and other researchers
suggested that individuals made more extreme decisions than did groups,
leading to the expectation that groups would make decisions that would
conform to the average risk level of its members. The seemingly
counterintuitive findings of Stoner led to a flurry of research around the
risky shift, which was originally thought to be a special case exception to
the standard decision-making practice. By the late 1960s, however, it had
become clear that the risky shift was just one type of many attitudes that
became more extreme in groups, leading Moscovici and Zavalloni to term the
overall phenomenon "group polarization".
Love & Shiftstick, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Welt*Bild
>Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:15:38 -0400
>
>
>
>
>Oh William, I like your
>
>Attitude/s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Love & Dress, Kirsten
>
>PS:
>
>There is a pervasive sense of rootlessness and disorientation that causes
>many people to avoid contemplating their place in the universe and to focus
>instead on the trivial concerns of consumerism.
>
>The lack of social consensus on cosmology in the modern world has caused
>many people to close off their thinking to large issues and long time
>scales, so that small matters dominate their consciousness.
>
>In most traditional cultures, people's sense of identity and codes of
>behavior are grounded in a cosmology that provides a picture of who they
>are, where they come from, and what their personal relationship to the
>larger world should be. For more than 300 years, however, scientific
>advances have tended to undermine traditional cosmologies while offering an
>image of the cosmos bereft of spiritual or mythic dimensions.
>
>Are you looking for an image of the cosmos consistent with what scientists
>understand about the universe today. That symbol, known to the ancient
>Greeks as a "uroboros," is the snake swallowing its tail. This: symbol :
>represents the universe as a continuity of vastly different size scales,
>with the swallowing of the tail representing the hoped-for unification of
>theories governing the largest and smallest scales.
>
>The size scales in the known universe encompass about 60 orders of
>magnitude, from the vastness of the cosmic horizon to the subatomic Planck
>scale, the smallest size allowed by relativity and quantum physics. Yet
>people asked to visualize "the universe" tend to think of endless space and
>uncountable stars and galaxies, while the human scale shrinks into
>insignificance.
>
>Gute Nacht!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> >I would love to know what anyone here thinks
>> >about the Deikmans' piece.
>>
>>Not much; as much nonsense as ever
>>
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live
>Spaces
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself - download free Windows Live Messenger themes!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/themes/vibe/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 20 23:24:43 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Sep 22 00:18:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fwd: Ed Murrow quote
References: <20060920183420.D283091FD3@xprdmxin.myway.com>
Message-ID: <E47C5998-BD3A-4D86-9FF1-50E7DF6B027B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Gill, I found the Murrow quote in a response to a post in DailyKos, a
political blog. I wrote the guy asking the source and this is what he
sent
Hope it is of value.
don
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Craig" <cbetteridge@excite.com>
> Date: 20 September 2006 19:34:20 BDT
> To: donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk
> Subject: RE: Ed Murrow quote
> Reply-To: cbetteridge@excite.com
>
>
> Sure, there are several sites but try:
>
>
>
> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edwardrmu116304.html
>
>
>
> Also if you take the first few unique words of a quote (e.g. 'no
> one can terrorize' and put it in to Google it will return a lot of
> suggested sites.
>
>
>
> I orginally found it at: http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_dissent.html
>
>
>
> Looking for quotes on dissent.
>
>
>
> Good luck.
>
>
>
> cb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed 09/20, Don Factor < donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk >
> wrote:
>
> From: Don Factor [mailto: donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk]
>
> To: cbetteridge@excite.com
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:40:54 +0100
>
> Subject: Ed Murrow quote
>
>
>
> Hi, I wonder if you could let me have the source for that very
> good Edward R, Murrow quotation you used in your comment on Daily
> Kos this morning? If you have it. Someone I know is giving a
> lecture tomorrow and would like to use it.ThanksDon Factor
>
> _______________________________________________
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060920/d8325248/attachment.html
From zoechuzero at yahoo.com Wed Sep 20 23:38:32 2006
From: zoechuzero at yahoo.com (Zoe Chu)
Date: Fri Sep 22 00:31:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F333E332E6C43FE43D28700A8230@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20060920213832.39277.qmail@web55009.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Hi Kristen -
Funny. I currently read some of that stuff for class. What do you make of that? Do you see co-relations? Anyone?
Warwick's claims that robots that can program themselves to avoid each other while operating in a group raises the issue of self-organization, and as such might be the major impetus in following developments in this area. In particular, the works of Fransisco Varela and Humberto Maturana, once in the province of pure speculation now have become immediately relevant with respect to synthetic intelligence. Cyborg-type systems not only are homeostatic (meaning that they are abe to preserve stable internal conditions in various environments) but adaptive, if they are to survive. Testing the claims of Varela and Maturana via synthetic devices is the larger and more serious concern in the discussion about Warwick and those involved in similar research. "Pulling the plug" on independent devices cannot be as simple as it appears, for if the device displays sufficient intelligence and assumes a diagnostic and prognostic stature, we may ultimately one day be forced to decide
between what it could be telling us as counterintuitive (but correct) and our impulse to disconnect because of our limited and "intuitive" perceptions. Warwick's robots seemed to have exhibited behavior not anticipated by the research, one such robot "committing suicide" because it could not cope with its environment. In a more complex setting, it may be asked whether a "natural selection" may be possible, neural networks being the major operative.
Thinking about the implications of Warwick's research is not confined to device implantation or automatons. Researching websites on the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD) development of a simulated international battlespace. It is no secret that the DoD foresees the day when not only all military systems are interoperable, but can be coordinated globally in a real-time war. Ultimately, simulations not only are to be used for assessing alternative outcomes in wargaming settings but also are to be used as diagnostic "tools" interactive with a real time battlefield situation. If this happens, we must consider self-organization in these synthetic systems operating in critical environments. That is, if allowed to operate with minimal or no human intervention, what of the character of the system, itself and its evolution? Hence, Warwick should be a starting point for a more serious discussion than the popular media seems to be capable of maintaining. In the worst case scenario,
Warwick is deemed a proponent of science fiction, but it may be said that it is great science fiction, as it is based upon the plausible, rather than the impossible. In the best case scenario, Warwick, indeed has given us ample notice to humanity to concern itself with the choice of thinking about ourselves and our place in the universe or abnegate in favor of another consciousness. A return to Aristotle and Plato is in order.
-- Zoe
kirsten schneide <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear habituated Susbcribers
The study of group polarization began with an unpublished 1961 Master?s
thesis by MIT student James Stoner, who observed the so-called "risky
shift", meaning that a group?s decisions are riskier than the average of
the individual decisions of members before the group met. The discovery of
the risky shift was considered surprising and counterintuitive, especially
since earlier work in the 1920s and 1930s by Allport and other researchers
suggested that individuals made more extreme decisions than did groups,
leading to the expectation that groups would make decisions that would
conform to the average risk level of its members. The seemingly
counterintuitive findings of Stoner led to a flurry of research around the
risky shift, which was originally thought to be a special case exception to
the standard decision-making practice. By the late 1960s, however, it had
become clear that the risky shift was just one type of many attitudes that
became more extreme in groups, leading Moscovici and Zavalloni to term the
overall phenomenon "group polarization".
Love & Shiftstick, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>From: "kirsten schneide"
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Welt*Bild
>Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:15:38 -0400
>
>
>
>
>Oh William, I like your
>
>Attitude/s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Love & Dress, Kirsten
>
>PS:
>
>There is a pervasive sense of rootlessness and disorientation that causes
>many people to avoid contemplating their place in the universe and to focus
>instead on the trivial concerns of consumerism.
>
>The lack of social consensus on cosmology in the modern world has caused
>many people to close off their thinking to large issues and long time
>scales, so that small matters dominate their consciousness.
>
>In most traditional cultures, people's sense of identity and codes of
>behavior are grounded in a cosmology that provides a picture of who they
>are, where they come from, and what their personal relationship to the
>larger world should be. For more than 300 years, however, scientific
>advances have tended to undermine traditional cosmologies while offering an
>image of the cosmos bereft of spiritual or mythic dimensions.
>
>Are you looking for an image of the cosmos consistent with what scientists
>understand about the universe today. That symbol, known to the ancient
>Greeks as a "uroboros," is the snake swallowing its tail. This: symbol :
>represents the universe as a continuity of vastly different size scales,
>with the swallowing of the tail representing the hoped-for unification of
>theories governing the largest and smallest scales.
>
>The size scales in the known universe encompass about 60 orders of
>magnitude, from the vastness of the cosmic horizon to the subatomic Planck
>scale, the smallest size allowed by relativity and quantum physics. Yet
>people asked to visualize "the universe" tend to think of endless space and
>uncountable stars and galaxies, while the human scale shrinks into
>insignificance.
>
>Gute Nacht!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> >I would love to know what anyone here thinks
>> >about the Deikmans' piece.
>>
>>Not much; as much nonsense as ever
>>
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live
>Spaces
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself - download free Windows Live Messenger themes!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/themes/vibe/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060920/77bd1d93/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 20 23:44:03 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Sep 22 00:37:27 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F333E332E6C43FE43D28700A8230@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F333E332E6C43FE43D28700A8230@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <2DB314FE-E97A-4C29-BDC2-823DCF40F128@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I've heard about this. The upside might be that in a dialogue group
the collective consciousness, or group awareness, or what Bohm
described as a "common content of consciousness" might create
something laser-like, much more intense or creative than what
normally occurs in ordinary group processes. The downside, is
obvious. But I don't yet see a lot of risk in what we are doing.
What do you think?
don
On 20 Sep 2006, at 21:53, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
>
> Dear habituated Susbcribers
>
> The study of group polarization began with an unpublished 1961
> Master?s thesis by MIT student James Stoner, who observed the so-
> called "risky shift", meaning that a group?s decisions are riskier
> than the average of the individual decisions of members before the
> group met. The discovery of the risky shift was considered
> surprising and counterintuitive, especially since earlier work in
> the 1920s and 1930s by Allport and other researchers suggested
> that individuals made more extreme decisions than did groups,
> leading to the expectation that groups would make decisions that
> would conform to the average risk level of its members. The
> seemingly counterintuitive findings of Stoner led to a flurry of
> research around the risky shift, which was originally thought to
> be a special case exception to the standard decision-making
> practice. By the late 1960s, however, it had become clear that the
> risky shift was just one type of many attitudes that became more
> extreme in groups, leading Moscovici and Zavalloni to term the
> overall phenomenon "group polarization".
>
>
>
> Love & Shiftstick, Kirsten
> --------------------------