From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 00:14:16 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 00:21:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less, take 2
In-Reply-To: <706241.5384.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <E28B40AE-2E94-4384-8F9B-5D6B2FD25308@dc.rr.com>
<706241.5384.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712201514x1ebc345dja1fff83030e709b6@mail.gmail.com>
Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere.
I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone else
from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying we
need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat,
either. Nothing from dl.
Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on why
BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my
fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's
called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your
convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my
grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone
of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am
happy to hear your voice, btw.
Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain neuroplasticity.
Would love to get some scientists in that field interested in TAS, and on
this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein from the latest
research findings. Among other important assumptions, the findings
definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you listening?
I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the first few
pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice.
Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
>
> a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the
> typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'....
> 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core
> d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
>
> b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not ('at
> least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it from
> there
>
> c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding y'ourselves....
> please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then, also, we could
> ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the (b'locked)
> flow-o-meaning that is going on here
>
> d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will tell you
> differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number cruncher of
> this enter prise here?
>
> e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
>
> cheers, ~
>
>
>
> *donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
> ok, lets take a(nother) look:
>
>
> a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on. who
> has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and
> why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
>
>
> Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this
> before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it
> our own way, at least not for very long.
>
>
> b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about all
> this, don
>
>
> Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick
> of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
>
>
> c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
>
>
> I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either.
> And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
>
>
> d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens of
> people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways the
> same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and, look at
> don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same overnovernover
>
>
> There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your
> return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there
> does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to
> time. But not recently.
>
>
> e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look
> at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do
> (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
>
>
> This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more
> accessible kind of prose.
>
>
> f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot
> 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody
> HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
>
>
> I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads quickly
> to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be looked at,
> not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst all the
> traffic, isn't easy.
>
>
> don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
>
> All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has
> already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made
> by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the
> fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope
> this is only for the moment.
> don
>
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or
> the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least
> I know the two of you know your Bohm.
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The
> > in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything
> > that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than
> > words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the
> > printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide.
> > Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises
> > questions and flags to me.
> >
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's
> > > shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you
> > > tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities...
> > > hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
> > >
> > > )(
> > >
> > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> > >
> > > I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face
> > > is a lot more real than writealog alone.
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted
> > > > the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an
> > > > actual BD type of dialogue.
> > > >
> > > > Susan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
> > > > *Subject: *Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
> > > >
> > > > I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If
> > > > you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to
> > > > talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in
> > > > January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or
> > > > Albuquerque, aren't you?
> > > >
> > > > Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your
> > > > > mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have
> > > > > said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read
> > > > > or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not
> > > > > interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince
> > > > > anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in
> > > > > William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I
> > > > > have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what
> > > > > they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could
> > > > > come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could
> > > > > come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to
> > > > > coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group
> > > > > and setting it up and keeping it going.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so
> > > > > far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan
> > > > > and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that
> > > > > pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
> > > > >
> > > > > Susan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > >
>
>
> --
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/2fd502fa/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 06:03:04 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Fri Dec 21 06:09:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <E28B40AE-2E94-4384-8F9B-5D6B2FD25308@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <371301.80706.qm@web57405.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Donald Factor. Because I don't yet know how to respond or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. And what was the board of directors at Merrill Lynch thinking when it
allowed disgraced CEO Stan O'Neal to back a truck up to the company loading dock and fill it up with $160 million in bonus and termination payments after O'Neal presided over at least $8 billion in losses? It has been silent as of late. Some say there is a bubble. But I am not in a panic, not even a rush, to get my life savings out of this bank. Rest assured. There is a bird flying by my window; I have to go now. All a pleasant day! AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
ok, lets take a(nother) look:
a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on. who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it our own way, at least not for very long.
b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about all this, don
Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same overnovernover
There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to time. But not recently.
e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more accessible kind of prose.
f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst all the traffic, isn't easy.
don
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope this is only for the moment.
don
On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide. Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises questions and flags to me.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities... hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071220/7bae3d52/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 15:39:19 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 15:46:15 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712201514x1ebc345dja1fff83030e709b6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <985267.34898.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Ciao Ka & all, few thinkgs
a _ neuroplastics: kath, why not just put up a little proposal on the list (where you coming from with this one, and where you might want to go with it), some meat we can bite into... instead all those abstract tit-bits (or 's that one of your in'famous annoucements you then never follow up on..... btw: how far back does that feature of yours go? teacherhood? motherhood? loverhood? childhood?)
b _ since it seems it just a few boinds @ this playground here ATM: what is your take(out), ka, why all the 'oldtimer' & 'regulars' & 'bohmfans' & 'expertialogers' -- in a moment of "crisis", as don f put is -- sticking their heads in the sssssands, ooops, of course meant: szszszzzzsssuspension
c _ will (cross)post some rather tasty stuff from another (dialog)group in a bit(e) here.... ciao bones
humanimal
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere.
I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone else from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying we need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat, either. Nothing from dl.
Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on why BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am happy to hear your voice, btw.
Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain neuroplasticity. Would love to get some scientists in that field interested in TAS, and on this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein from the latest research findings. Among other important assumptions, the findings definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you listening? I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the first few pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice.
Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'.... 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not ('at least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it from there
c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding y'ourselves.... please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then, also, we could ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the (b'locked) flow-o-meaning that is going on here
d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will tell you differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number cruncher of this enter prise here?
e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
cheers, ~
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
ok, lets take a(nother) look:
a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on. who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it our own way, at least not for very long.
b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about all this, don
Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same overnovernover
There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to time. But not recently.
e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more accessible kind of prose.
f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst all the traffic, isn't easy.
don
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope this is only for the moment.
don
On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide. Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises questions and flags to me.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities... hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
--
---------------------------------
--
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/5f6eead1/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 15:42:11 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 15:49:05 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
"single acting" and "double acting".
In-Reply-To: <371301.80706.qm@web57405.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <835735.41115.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
hey al, you freakyflowr @round here
l@@k, i cans do(be) that, t@@:
However, if the mixture is acidic, baking powder's
additional acids will remain unconsumed in the chemical
reaction and often lend an unpleasant chemical taste to
food. High acidity can be caused by ingredients like
buttermilk, lemon, yoghurt, citrus, or honey. When
excessive acidity is present, some of the baking powder
is replaced with baking soda. You might further direct
an it onto "single acting" and "double acting".
)(
pit { 1.5 actin }
Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Donald Factor. Because I don't yet know how to respond or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. And what was the board of directors at Merrill Lynch thinking when it
allowed disgraced CEO Stan O'Neal to back a truck up to the company loading dock and fill it up with $160 million in bonus and termination payments after O'Neal presided over at least $8 billion in losses? It has been silent as of late. Some say there is a bubble. But I am not in a panic, not even a rush, to get my life savings out of this bank. Rest assured. There is a bird flying by my window; I have to go now. All a pleasant day! AL
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
ok, lets take a(nother) look:
a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on. who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it our own way, at least not for very long.
b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about all this, don
Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same overnovernover
There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to time. But not recently.
e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more accessible kind of prose.
f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst all the traffic, isn't easy.
don
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope this is only for the moment.
don
On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide. Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises questions and flags to me.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities... hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/131eb804/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 16:37:15 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 16:44:11 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <985267.34898.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712201514x1ebc345dja1fff83030e709b6@mail.gmail.com>
<985267.34898.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712210737w4053b74wa3ee72f280820f23@mail.gmail.com>
I: Mornin' peter & all. That sounds like an offer I can't refuse. I shall
aim for posting it no later than tomorrow morning's coffee.
It seems significant that a proposed conference on Bohm's Legacy is ignoring
dialogue. Why is that?
As for your "b" - 'all'? How many is that?! I don't like to generalize
without really having facts to go on. I can't help thinking, though, it's
related to past history with you. Is it coincidental that William proposes
a new list the moment you declare your presence? Seems like a pattern. A
reflex. I'd like to think that the silences are at least a "wait and see"
attitude as far as interacting with you, if that is true.
Another cause could be a subliminal self concept as a 'follower' in a group
that is supposed to be based on equality, and mutual responsibility. And
THAT should be dialogged. Maybe they are waiting for the 'leaders' to
accept or reject you.
It could be "I don't want to alienate the group" if they think they need to
flee from you!
Frankly, I think they give you too much power.
People like us, pit, are often thought of as pariahs. Pat shouldn't get
exclusive use of 'funny'. There's a 'funny club' that forms in other
people's minds, and those who dare to say "The emperor is naked" are
automatically elected to it.
Oh, I almost forgot. You posted a striking 'white noise' url. I had no
idea how much damage it causes until I read about it in brain plasticity.
Didn't even know what it was, really. Need to go back and try to see what
you were saying in that post.
My respect for df continues in place. He is not only a gentleman, but (I
understand you were merciless towards him) he has reached out to interact
with you, as you have with him. I truly hope that develops well.
Am looking forward to your crosspost. Meanwhile Bach calls. Yesterday, I
found a recording of Keith Jarrett performing the Goldberg on a
harpsichord! Haven't listened yet, but Jarrett is a foremost jazz
improviser. What will Jarrett see-hear that Glen Gould and I haven't?
ok - turning on the email notified, and starting Bach.
On Dec 21, 2007 9:39 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ciao Ka & all, few thinkgs
>
> a _ neuroplastics: kath, why not just put up a little proposal on the list
> (where you coming from with this one, and where you might want to go with
> it), some meat we can bite into... instead all those abstract tit-bits (or
> 's that one of your in'famous annoucements you then never follow up on.....
> btw: how far back does that feature of yours go? teacherhood? motherhood?
> loverhood? childhood?)
>
> b _ since it seems it just a few boinds @ this playground here ATM: what
> is your take(out), ka, why all the 'oldtimer' & 'regulars' & 'bohmfans' &
> 'expertialogers' -- in a moment of "crisis", as don f put is -- sticking
> their heads in the sssssands, ooops, of course meant: szszszzzzsssuspension
>
> c _ will (cross)post some rather tasty stuff from another (dialog)group in
> a bit(e) here.... ciao bones
>
> humanimal
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere.
>
> I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone else
> from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying we
> need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat,
> either. Nothing from dl.
> Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on why
> BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my
> fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's
> called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your
> convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my
> grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone
> of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am
> happy to hear your voice, btw.
>
> Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain neuroplasticity.
> Would love to get some scientists in that field interested in TAS, and on
> this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein from the latest
> research findings. Among other important assumptions, the findings
> definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you listening?
> I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the first few
> pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice.
>
> Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
> >
> > a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the
> > typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'....
> > 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core
> > d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
> >
> > b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not ('at
> > least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it from
> > there
> >
> > c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding y'ourselves....
> > please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then, also, we could
> > ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the (b'locked)
> > flow-o-meaning that is going on here
> >
> > d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will tell
> > you differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number cruncher
> > of this enter prise here?
> >
> > e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
> >
> > cheers, ~
> >
> >
> >
> > *donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> >
> > ok, lets take a(nother) look:
> >
> >
> > a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on.
> > who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and
> > why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
> >
> >
> > Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this
> > before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it
> > our own way, at least not for very long.
> >
> >
> > b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about
> > all this, don
> >
> >
> > Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick
> > of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
> >
> >
> > c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
> >
> >
> > I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either.
> > And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
> >
> >
> > d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens
> > of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways
> > the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and,
> > look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same
> > overnovernover
> >
> >
> > There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your
> > return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there
> > does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to
> > time. But not recently.
> >
> >
> > e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look
> > at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do
> > (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
> >
> >
> > This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more
> > accessible kind of prose.
> >
> >
> > f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot
> > 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody
> > HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
> >
> >
> > I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads
> > quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be
> > looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst
> > all the traffic, isn't easy.
> >
> >
> > don
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
> >
> > All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has
> > already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made
> > by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the
> > fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope
> > this is only for the moment.
> > don
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> >
> > I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or
> > the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least
> > I know the two of you know your Bohm.
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The
> > > in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything
> > > that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than
> > > words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the
> > > printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide.
> > > Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises
> > > questions and flags to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's
> > > > shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you
> > > > tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities...
> > > > hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
> > > >
> > > > )(
> > > >
> > > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to
> > > > face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you
> > > > > wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have
> > > > > an actual BD type of dialogue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Susan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > > > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
> > > > > *Subject: *Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and
> > > > > less
> > > > >
> > > > > I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If
> > > > > you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to
> > > > > talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in
> > > > > January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or
> > > > > Albuquerque, aren't you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up
> > > > > > your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I
> > > > > > have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not
> > > > > > read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're
> > > > > > not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to
> > > > > > convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest
> > > > > > in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I
> > > > > > have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what
> > > > > > they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could
> > > > > > come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could
> > > > > > come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to
> > > > > > coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group
> > > > > > and setting it up and keeping it going.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so
> > > > > > far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan
> > > > > > and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that
> > > > > > pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Susan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/3cd0812a/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 16:58:46 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 17:05:46 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Can a space-rocket kill God? Marx? Bohm? Abba?
Hitler? ... You?.....
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712210737w4053b74wa3ee72f280820f23@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <941260.36695.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
about to head out to have sashimi with a young lady for lunch, bones
how about this bit(e) for now, until her return (and know you now)
((re&turn he {free}will ~ ~ all'ways ;-))
humanimal
Can a space-rocket kill God? Marx? Hitler? You?....
After all, we are physical organisms transcended by
nature, and if we are to survive at all we must immediately
tally up the relationship of our powers to those of the world
that surround us. The problem of power is the basic, natural
animal question. It is also the primary question of an animal
destined to strive for heroism: power must be his principal
preoccupation both as a vehicle for himself, and as n hindrance
to success.
This explains why man's life, from childhood on, is an
exploration of the problem of evident and hidden power. Children
are forever asking questions about the hiearchy of power: "Can a
tree kill a mountain?" "Can a robot kill a dinosaur?" - "a lion
and elephant?" - "Can a pistol kill a cougar- a crocodile?" "Can
a space rocket kill God?" and so on, and on [...] The
preoccupation of children with army toys and guns is not a
perverse expression of a "killer instinct", but a natural
response to the power realities of their lived world. When we
grow up we have already established the hierarchy of power and
rarely dwell on it, but merely live it implicitly. We draw our
own power and support from sources higher in the hierarchy than
ourselves, and we exercise our own powers over things beneath us.
A person's whole sustenance comes to be based in a power source
unknown or unacknowledged to himself. One of the life's most
shattering and self-revealing experiences is to have divulged to
oneself the unconscious sources of his power: mother, the boss,
money, the Pentagon, the heros of the free-enterprise system,
Marx and Lenin, Humanity, the Church, one's spouse, his Guru, or
his guns.
One of the principal aspects of cultures is that there are very diverse hierarchies from which one can draw power, his heroism.
And the matter is so crucial, and so revealing of the whole
question of the relative answers to our six common human
problems, that it is worth dwelling on ...
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Mornin' peter & all. That sounds like an offer I can't refuse. I shall aim for posting it no later than tomorrow morning's coffee.
It seems significant that a proposed conference on Bohm's Legacy is ignoring dialogue. Why is that?
As for your "b" - 'all'? How many is that?! I don't like to generalize without really having facts to go on. I can't help thinking, though, it's related to past history with you. Is it coincidental that William proposes a new list the moment you declare your presence? Seems like a pattern. A reflex. I'd like to think that the silences are at least a "wait and see" attitude as far as interacting with you, if that is true.
Another cause could be a subliminal self concept as a 'follower' in a group that is supposed to be based on equality, and mutual responsibility. And THAT should be dialogged. Maybe they are waiting for the 'leaders' to accept or reject you.
It could be "I don't want to alienate the group" if they think they need to flee from you!
Frankly, I think they give you too much power.
People like us, pit, are often thought of as pariahs. Pat shouldn't get exclusive use of 'funny'. There's a 'funny club' that forms in other people's minds, and those who dare to say "The emperor is naked" are automatically elected to it.
Oh, I almost forgot. You posted a striking 'white noise' url. I had no idea how much damage it causes until I read about it in brain plasticity. Didn't even know what it was, really. Need to go back and try to see what you were saying in that post.
My respect for df continues in place. He is not only a gentleman, but (I understand you were merciless towards him) he has reached out to interact with you, as you have with him. I truly hope that develops well.
Am looking forward to your crosspost. Meanwhile Bach calls. Yesterday, I found a recording of Keith Jarrett performing the Goldberg on a harpsichord! Haven't listened yet, but Jarrett is a foremost jazz improviser. What will Jarrett see-hear that Glen Gould and I haven't?
ok - turning on the email notified, and starting Bach.
On Dec 21, 2007 9:39 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ciao Ka & all, few thinkgs
a _ neuroplastics: kath, why not just put up a little proposal on the list (where you coming from with this one, and where you might want to go with it), some meat we can bite into... instead all those abstract tit-bits (or 's that one of your in'famous annoucements you then never follow up on..... btw: how far back does that feature of yours go? teacherhood? motherhood? loverhood? childhood?)
b _ since it seems it just a few boinds @ this playground here ATM: what is your take(out), ka, why all the 'oldtimer' & 'regulars' & 'bohmfans' & 'expertialogers' -- in a moment of "crisis", as don f put is -- sticking their heads in the sssssands, ooops, of course meant: szszszzzzsssuspension
c _ will (cross)post some rather tasty stuff from another (dialog)group in a bit(e) here.... ciao bones
humanimal
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere.
I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone else from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying we need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat, either. Nothing from dl.
Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on why BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am happy to hear your voice, btw.
Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain neuroplasticity. Would love to get some scientists in that field interested in TAS, and on this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein from the latest research findings. Among other important assumptions, the findings definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you listening? I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the first few pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice.
Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'.... 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not ('at least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it from there
c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding y'ourselves.... please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then, also, we could ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the (b'locked) flow-o-meaning that is going on here
d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will tell you differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number cruncher of this enter prise here?
e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
cheers, ~
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
ok, lets take a(nother) look:
a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on. who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it our own way, at least not for very long.
b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about all this, don
Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same overnovernover
There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to time. But not recently.
e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more accessible kind of prose.
f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst all the traffic, isn't easy.
don
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope this is only for the moment.
don
On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide. Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises questions and flags to me.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities... hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
--
---------------------------------
--
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/d9554e31/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 17:59:29 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 18:06:27 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
Message-ID: <c47283890712210859i4a00c5d0r71d6a0e7cd976c19@mail.gmail.com>
I'm looking for bohm's ideas on instinct, but the indexes to my books aren't
yielding any clues. DF, William, Pat, anyone else with memories of Bohm,
did he say anything that you remember? Did he define 'instinct'?
According to Norman Doidge, nothing about the brain is 'hard wired', nor is
plasticity confined to the young. He sounds like Bohm when he discusses the
scientific community's attitude towards change. He states "The brain
structure that regulates instinctive behaviors, including sex, called the
hypothalamus, is plastic, as is the amygdala, the structure that processes
emotion and anxiety. Plasticity exists in the hippocampus as well as in
areas that control our breathing, process primitive sensation, and process
pain. p 97 The Brain That Changes Itself
and
Nature has given us a brain that survives in a world by changing itself.
p 26
It seems to me that Bohm would have been intrigued by this.
Thanks.
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/ec4fdec9/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 21 19:00:36 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:10:29 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
Message-ID: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very limited. We
have then developed thought to deal with more complex situations, but
even thought is not very subtle.
~
The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based
feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together, and the
intelligence goes beyond all of them.
~
There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by our
total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history or by our
thought. It is really open and creative. This is a crucial point.
~
Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self -
preservation.
~
Instinct is an inherited reflex.
~
The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive response to
the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of significance that
is grounded in past experience. From the deep initial intention to act
toward an object, the action incorporates or assimilates the object into
a cycle of inward and outward activity. The action changes the
perception, and there is another action, and then another perception.
Does the action fit the intention? The intention is modified and thus the
action is modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and
consequences, after which it may remain stable until further
discrepancies occur.
~
As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for safety;
an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/e2a38cf5/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 19:19:38 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:26:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211019se57aaa9l8ccf27caa71d6f79@mail.gmail.com>
*There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by our total
being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history or by our thought.
It is really open and creative. This is a crucial point.
*The initial intention is to find meaning.
*
K: YES, YES, YES, YES YES!
* deep initial intention
He DOES acknowledge the value of intention.
I KNEW it. A man of his genius could go only there. I wonder if he could
foresee the depth, width, and breadth to which science has take it, and the
possibilities it still holds. And its implications for dialogue.
Thank you so much for sending this.
On Dec 21, 2007 1:00 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very limited. We
> have then developed thought to deal with more complex situations, but even
> thought is not very subtle.
> ~
> The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based feelings,
> and the instincts, could be put more or less together, and the intelligence
> goes beyond all of them.
> ~
> *There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by our
> total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history or by our
> thought. It is really open and creative. This is a crucial point.
> *~
> Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self -
> preservation.
> ~
> Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> ~
> The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
> significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive response to the
> experience of the species, and partly on a kind of significance that is
> grounded in past experience. From the deep initial intention to act toward
> an object, the action incorporates or assimilates the object into a cycle of
> inward and outward activity. The action changes the perception, and there is
> another action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the
> intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is modified, until
> a fit is obtained between intentions and consequences, after which it may
> remain stable until further discrepancies occur.
> ~
> As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for safety; an
> electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
> ~
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/78ecb9f6/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Fri Dec 21 19:24:36 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:31:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com>
Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved
in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to
breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when
startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made.
don
On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very
> limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex
> situations, but even thought is not very subtle.
> ~
> The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based
> feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together,
> and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.
> ~
> There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by
> our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history
> or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a
> crucial point.
> ~
> Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self
> - preservation.
> ~
> Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> ~
> The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
> significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive
> response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of
> significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep
> initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates
> or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward
> activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another
> action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the
> intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is
> modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and
> consequences, after which it may remain stable until further
> discrepancies occur.
> ~
> As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for
> safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
> ~
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
From w at david-bohm.net Fri Dec 21 19:30:12 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:37:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
References: <c47283890712210859i4a00c5d0r71d6a0e7cd976c19@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <476C0634.000007.01152@VAIO-584793128F>
>According to Norman Doidge, nothing about the brain is 'hard wired',
>nor is plasticity confined to the young. He sounds like Bohm when he
>discusses the scientific community's attitude towards change. He states
>"The brain structure that regulates instinctive behaviors, including sex,
>called the hypothalamus, is plastic, as is the amygdala, the structure that
>processes emotion and anxiety. Plasticity exists in the hippocampus as
>well as in areas that control our breathing, process primitive sensation,
>and process pain. p 97 The Brain That Changes Itself
As you will remember from my previous posts on this subject, I do not regard
the brain as terribly significant. To me, the brain is analogous to the
electronic chips in the computer; it's only the hardware enabling the
software to do its thing. Now, although this hardware is absolutely
necessary (without it nothing goes) it is nevertheless the power of the
software that is the determining factor about what the "computer", or we
human beings, can do.
A new more powerful piece of computer software doesn't necessarily require
a new chip. The existing electronics can be used in new ways. Similarly (in
the case of human beings) our existing brain can be used in new ways simply
by upgrading our intellectual software. The hardware does impose limits in
terms of speed and capacity, and this can severely limit the power of the
software but this can be overcome by making faster chips with greater
capacities. The "driving" factor is the software; the hardware simply does
what it is told by the software. There is no intelligence in the hardware.
Similarly, there is no intelligence in the brain. It's just the human
hardware' that does what it is told by human software (mind). The
intelligence does not come from the brain as most scientists and
philosophers still seem to believe. Rather, i think, it's the other way
round; the brain is trying to keep up with the demands from the mind, and
will grow new brain cells if necessary in much the same way that the muscle
cells are trying to keep up with demand for more muscle power. The demand
stimulates the growth, and it is no different with the brain; the principle
is the same.
So, as the world gets more complex, the mind will develop itself to keep up
with the increasingly sophisticated demands from the world, and the brain
will change itself to keep up with the increasingly sophisticated demands
from the mind. I presume, it also works the other way round; if the world
ever gets simpler then the decreased demands will probably also cause a
correspondingly degeneration of the brain.
With regard to basic instincts, I don't know, here things are pretty much
hardwired", and the system will probably need a bit more time to adjust, but
who knows...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/61ea1aef/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 19:32:16 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:39:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] (humanimalian) INSTINCT
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211019se57aaa9l8ccf27caa71d6f79@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <167679.48896.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: YES, YES, YES, YES YES!
He DOES acknowledge the value of intention.
I KNEW it. A man of his genius could go only there. I wonder if he could foresee the depth, width, and breadth to which science has take it, and the possibilities it still holds.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/387073096_3a8c30ba41_o.jpg
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/785d9e4b/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 19:25:52 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:39:27 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <360997.98794.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Funny, 's that the 'best' you can dOffer
(At the current moment of "crises", quote, here):
Go (stay) with'in'to your stack-shack-shelter ofallthose books
And, like the good childgirlpupil you have dobeebeebeen
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaall 'your' life (deutsch: musterschueler )
And copy "fleissig" lines together _ to pleasepleaseplease
Your environmentals
O boy, O pat
;-)
humanimal
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex situations, but even thought is not very subtle.
~
The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together, and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.
~
There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a crucial point.
~
Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self - preservation.
~
Instinct is an inherited reflex.
~
The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and consequences, after which it may remain stable until further discrepancies occur.
~
As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
~
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/529364a5/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 19:27:37 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:41:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] neuroplasticplosivs
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712210859i4a00c5d0r71d6a0e7cd976c19@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <772436.33632.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Ka, why are YOU into that neuroplastic-stuff?
humanimal
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm looking for bohm's ideas ...
According to Norman Doidge, ...
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/b8ccf07c/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 19:35:03 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:41:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] (humanimalian) INSTINCT
In-Reply-To: <167679.48896.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211019se57aaa9l8ccf27caa71d6f79@mail.gmail.com>
<167679.48896.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211035i1015995epa6b625af72af7a84@mail.gmail.com>
K: Peter, is the 'down side' the best YOU can offer? C'mon. I bet you can
think of something positive if you try.
On Dec 21, 2007 1:32 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:*
> K: YES, YES, YES, YES YES!*
> He DOES acknowledge the value of intention.
> I KNEW it. A man of his genius could go only there. I wonder if he could
> foresee the depth, width, and breadth to which science has take it, and the
> possibilities it still holds.
>
>
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/387073096_3a8c30ba41_o.jpg
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/e2ff16e0/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 19:36:32 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:43:28 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com>
References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211036j5463f043q9f38100d26a87203@mail.gmail.com>
K: Sounds right to me. I think proprioception and suspension need to take
notice of what people believe instinct is. It has rationalized-justified
destruction and chaos. I also see it as a component of cultural definitions
of 'human nature'.
I was going to post this later, but here goes, because I see all this
fitting together, and welcome more input.
William just sent something through and I want to post what I was going to
put here over there.
On Dec 21, 2007 1:24 PM, donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved
> in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to
> breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when
> startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very
> > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex
> > situations, but even thought is not very subtle.
> > ~
> > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based
> > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together,
> > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.
> > ~
> > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by
> > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history
> > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a
> > crucial point.
> > ~
> > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self
> > - preservation.
> > ~
> > Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> > ~
> > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
> > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive
> > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of
> > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep
> > initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates
> > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward
> > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another
> > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the
> > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is
> > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and
> > consequences, after which it may remain stable until further
> > discrepancies occur.
> > ~
> > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for
> > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
> > ~
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/a39f46ea/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 19:37:38 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:44:33 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohmon, W
In-Reply-To: <476C0634.000007.01152@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <657888.98230.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
http://lh3.google.com/_mwlZT76ePdo/RbrmyRLD0nI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/sQ02XcZBnBY/s800/IMG_3098.jpg
will i was wrote:
As you will remember from my previous posts on this subject, I do not regard the brain as terribly significant.
yep, give it a shot, mistr v-d-h
lets see how much (better/worse) you will run w/o it
your in sign i fic and brain ;---)
humanimal & brainlover
(make that: BOIND)
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/662c019f/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 19:40:17 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:47:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <111277.65677.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
simplying... oh, ii likes that
hello don.... what about those off-list mails
you&me sent?
any sig'n'all from a'bove yet?
)(
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved
in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to
breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when
startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made.
don
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/bd1653b8/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 19:40:38 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:47:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <360997.98794.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<360997.98794.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211040h3323702n3d68fafc57c1b4e4@mail.gmail.com>
K: Peter, have you lost all sense of affect? Not everybody understands the
basic caring nature that exists under that sarcastic exterior as I do. Can
you now wonder why people might look for an alternative list? They just
don't realize that you will always be there.
Love you, but hey -
On Dec 21, 2007 1:25 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Funny, 's that the 'best' you can dOffer
> (At the current moment of "crises", quote, here):
> Go (stay) with'in'to your stack-shack-shelter ofallthose books
> And, like the good childgirlpupil you have dobeebeebeen
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaall 'your' life (deutsch: *musterschueler* )
> And copy "fleissig" lines together _ to pleasepleaseplease
> Your environmentals
> O boy, O pat
>
> ;-)
>
> humanimal
>
>
> *ae.dropper@juno.com* wrote:
>
> Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very limited. We
> have then developed thought to deal with more complex situations, but even
> thought is not very subtle.
> ~
> The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based feelings,
> and the instincts, could be put more or less together, and the intelligence
> goes beyond all of them.
> ~
> *There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by our
> total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history or by our
> thought. It is really open and creative. This is a crucial point.
> *~
> Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self -
> preservation.
> ~
> Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> ~
> The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
> significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive response to the
> experience of the species, and partly on a kind of significance that is
> grounded in past experience. From the deep initial intention to act toward
> an object, the action incorporates or assimilates the object into a cycle of
> inward and outward activity. The action changes the perception, and there is
> another action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the
> intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is modified, until
> a fit is obtained between intentions and consequences, after which it may
> remain stable until further discrepancies occur.
> ~
> As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for safety; an
> electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
> ~
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/c80dad9a/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 19:42:03 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:48:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] neuroplasticplosivs
In-Reply-To: <772436.33632.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712210859i4a00c5d0r71d6a0e7cd976c19@mail.gmail.com>
<772436.33632.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211042j16e1e8bfna70348d95b0e726@mail.gmail.com>
K: Peter, why are YOU scared of it?
On Dec 21, 2007 1:27 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ka, why are YOU into that neuroplastic-stuff?
>
> humanimal
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> I'm looking for bohm's ideas ...
> According to Norman Doidge, ...
>
> ------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/f91e68c7/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 19:43:25 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:50:20 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <883469.41632.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
inotweb@juno.com wrote: Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self - preservation. ~~ Instinct is an inherited reflex.
http://www.puppen.ch/miniatur/goebel/musterschuelerin.jpg
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/f0b871ab/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 19:45:02 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:51:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <883469.41632.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <287165.8509.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Funny!
Cute!
http://estb.msn.com/i/12/E04B662DB904F93E4FF1ED9FC563.jpg
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
inotweb@juno.com wrote: Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self - preservation. ~~ Instinct is an inherited reflex.
http://www.puppen.ch/miniatur/goebel/musterschuelerin.jpg
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/9d9e13bc/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Fri Dec 21 19:48:19 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Dec 21 19:55:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <360997.98794.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <360997.98794.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B6816300-8EFD-48F2-B8E2-F2325711C39A@dc.rr.com>
pit, this is the sort of stuff that you do to excess and that bothers
me along with other people here who do not find it all that funny.
Its what got you unsubscribed all those times before. I think you
have good stuff to say, but this sort of tone along with your private
language makes it too distracting and difficult to take seriously.
This is why I held your request for a new identity for William to
look at, He would like to just unsubscribe you and be done with it.
But I think, that you could play a more coherent role if you really
wanted to. Coherent means here, that what you do gets the results you
want, And I don't think that your stuff does that.
don
On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> Funny, 's that the 'best' you can dOffer
> (At the current moment of "crises", quote, here):
> Go (stay) with'in'to your stack-shack-shelter ofallthose books
> And, like the good childgirlpupil you have dobeebeebeen
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaall 'your' life (deutsch: musterschueler )
> And copy "fleissig" lines together _ to pleasepleaseplease
> Your environmentals
> O boy, O pat
>
> ;-)
>
> humanimal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/78c0bdc6/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 19:55:36 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:02:31 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <B6816300-8EFD-48F2-B8E2-F2325711C39A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <63293.82559.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: pit, this is the sort of stuff that you do to excess and that bothers me
a gift! can you get into that? can you actually (for once) DO what bohm is talking about (and parroted here for 10orso-years).... lets seehear y'our b'locks & b'others, don!
ii is all ear
humanimal
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/42c1c20e/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 19:59:03 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:05:58 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <B6816300-8EFD-48F2-B8E2-F2325711C39A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <164016.84291.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
don you raise "results" that i might want, you say not what those are
please, "by-any-means", do
cheers
)(
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
.... Coherent means here, that what you do gets the results you want, And I don't think that your stuff does that.
don
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/d1474eca/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 19:53:02 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:06:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712210737w4053b74wa3ee72f280820f23@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <737926.13279.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
hi ka,
few thinkgs:
a _ what's your take about williams re'flexing, as you (shyly) sketched it.... can you fine-brush some?
b _ "wait and see"... what for? for jesus christ to return? for amagedon? for the mars-landing? for immortality?
c _ & how does all that explain the group also ignoring the reflexions you have and do offere as far as whats going on|off here right now..... whats the heart (at the core) of (bohm)dialogue for you?
d _ "power"..... to (un)do what, exactly?... to, maybe, display some of their denials and phoninessmesses?
humanimal
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Mornin' peter & all. That sounds like an offer I can't refuse. I shall aim for posting it no later than tomorrow morning's coffee.
It seems significant that a proposed conference on Bohm's Legacy is ignoring dialogue. Why is that?
As for your "b" - 'all'? How many is that?! I don't like to generalize without really having facts to go on. I can't help thinking, though, it's related to past history with you. Is it coincidental that William proposes a new list the moment you declare your presence? Seems like a pattern. A reflex. I'd like to think that the silences are at least a "wait and see" attitude as far as interacting with you, if that is true.
Another cause could be a subliminal self concept as a 'follower' in a group that is supposed to be based on equality, and mutual responsibility. And THAT should be dialogged. Maybe they are waiting for the 'leaders' to accept or reject you.
It could be "I don't want to alienate the group" if they think they need to flee from you!
Frankly, I think they give you too much power.
People like us, pit, are often thought of as pariahs. Pat shouldn't get exclusive use of 'funny'. There's a 'funny club' that forms in other people's minds, and those who dare to say "The emperor is naked" are automatically elected to it.
Oh, I almost forgot. You posted a striking 'white noise' url. I had no idea how much damage it causes until I read about it in brain plasticity. Didn't even know what it was, really. Need to go back and try to see what you were saying in that post.
My respect for df continues in place. He is not only a gentleman, but (I understand you were merciless towards him) he has reached out to interact with you, as you have with him. I truly hope that develops well.
Am looking forward to your crosspost. Meanwhile Bach calls. Yesterday, I found a recording of Keith Jarrett performing the Goldberg on a harpsichord! Haven't listened yet, but Jarrett is a foremost jazz improviser. What will Jarrett see-hear that Glen Gould and I haven't?
ok - turning on the email notified, and starting Bach.
On Dec 21, 2007 9:39 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ciao Ka & all, few thinkgs
a _ neuroplastics: kath, why not just put up a little proposal on the list (where you coming from with this one, and where you might want to go with it), some meat we can bite into... instead all those abstract tit-bits (or 's that one of your in'famous annoucements you then never follow up on..... btw: how far back does that feature of yours go? teacherhood? motherhood? loverhood? childhood?)
b _ since it seems it just a few boinds @ this playground here ATM: what is your take(out), ka, why all the 'oldtimer' & 'regulars' & 'bohmfans' & 'expertialogers' -- in a moment of "crisis", as don f put is -- sticking their heads in the sssssands, ooops, of course meant: szszszzzzsssuspension
c _ will (cross)post some rather tasty stuff from another (dialog)group in a bit(e) here.... ciao bones
humanimal
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere.
I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone else from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying we need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat, either. Nothing from dl.
Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on why BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am happy to hear your voice, btw.
Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain neuroplasticity. Would love to get some scientists in that field interested in TAS, and on this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein from the latest research findings. Among other important assumptions, the findings definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you listening? I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the first few pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice.
Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'.... 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not ('at least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it from there
c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding y'ourselves.... please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then, also, we could ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the (b'locked) flow-o-meaning that is going on here
d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will tell you differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number cruncher of this enter prise here?
e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
cheers, ~
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
ok, lets take a(nother) look:
a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on. who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it our own way, at least not for very long.
b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about all this, don
Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same overnovernover
There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to time. But not recently.
e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more accessible kind of prose.
f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst all the traffic, isn't easy.
don
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope this is only for the moment.
don
On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide. Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises questions and flags to me.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities... hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
--
---------------------------------
--
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/27ed6bdc/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:00:56 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:07:54 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
In-Reply-To: <476C0634.000007.01152@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <c47283890712210859i4a00c5d0r71d6a0e7cd976c19@mail.gmail.com>
<476C0634.000007.01152@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211100m3d7b2957j9bc08ff11aee3a79@mail.gmail.com>
K: William, have you studied any of this research? If so, it would be most
helpful to hear where and why you disagree.
>From Preface:
K: For 400 years mainstream medicine and science believed that brain
anatomy was fixed. The common wisdom was that after childhood the brain
changed only when it began the long process of decline; that when brain
cells failed to develop properly, or were injured, or died, they could not
be replaced. Nor could the brain ever alter its structure and find a new
way to function if part of it was damaged. The theory of the unchanging
brain decreed that people who were born with brain or mental limitations, or
who sustained brain damage, would be limited or damaged for life.
Scientists who wondered if the healthy brain might be improved or preserved
through activity or mental exercise were told not to waste their time. A
neurological nihilism - a sense that treatment for many brain problems was
ineffective or even unwarranted - had taken hold, and it spread through our
culture, *even stunting our overall view of human nature. * (Emphasis mine)
Since the brain could not change, human nature, which emerges from it,
seemed necessarily fixed and unalterable as well.
K: This last sentence seems another way of looking at the reflexive nature
of thought.
The belief that the brain could not change had three major sources: the
fact that brain-damaged patients could so rarely make full recovery; our
inability to observe the living brain's microscopic activities; and the idea
- dating back to the beginnings of modern science - that the brain is like a
glorious machine. And while machines do many extraordinary things, they
don't change and grow.
I became interested in the idea of a changing brain because of my work as a
research psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. When patients did not progress
psychologically as much as hoped, often the conventional medical wisdom was
that their problems were deeply "hardwired" into an unchangeable brain.
*"Hardwiring"* was another machine metaphor coming from the idea of the
brain as computer hardware, with permanently connected circuits, each
designed to perform a specific, unchangeable function.
The neuroplastic revolution has implications for, among other things, our
understanding of how love, sex, grief, relationships, learning, addictions,
culture, tecnology, and psychotherapies change our brains. All of the
humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences, insofar as they deal
with human nature, are affected, as are all forms of training. All of these
disciplines will have to come to terms with the fact of the self-changing
brain, and with the realization that the architecture of the brain differs
from one person to the next, and that it changes in the course of our
individual lives.
The author's credentials can be Googled, if one doubts them. He also has a
website.
On Dec 21, 2007 1:30 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
> >According to Norman Doidge, nothing about the brain is 'hard wired',
> >nor is plasticity confined to the young. He sounds like Bohm when he
> >discusses the scientific community's attitude towards change. He states
> >"The brain structure that regulates instinctive behaviors, including sex,
>
> >called the hypothalamus, is plastic, as is the amygdala, the structure
> that
> >processes emotion and anxiety. Plasticity exists in the hippocampus as
> >well as in areas that control our breathing, process primitive sensation,
>
> >and process pain. p 97 The Brain That Changes Itself
>
> As you will remember from my previous posts on this subject, I do not
> regard the brain as terribly significant. To me, the brain is analogous to
> the electronic chips in the computer; it's only the hardware enabling the
> software to do its thing. Now, although this hardware is absolutely
> necessary (without it nothing goes) it is nevertheless the power of the
> software that is the determining factor about what the "computer", or we
> human beings, can do.
> A new more powerful piece of computer software doesn't necessarily
> require a new chip. The existing electronics can be used in new ways.
> Similarly (in the case of human beings) our existing brain can be used in
> new ways simply by upgrading our intellectual software. The hardware does
> impose limits in terms of speed and capacity, and this can severely limit
> the power of the software but this can be overcome by making faster chips
> with greater capacities. The "driving" factor is the software; the hardware
> simply does what it is told by the software. There is no intelligence in the
> hardware. Similarly, there is no intelligence in the brain. It's just the
> human 'hardware' that does what it is told by human software (mind). The
> intelligence does not come from the brain as most scientists and
> philosophers still seem to believe. Rather, i think, it's the other way
> 'round; the brain is trying to keep up with the demands from the mind, and
> will grow new brain cells if necessary in much the same way that the muscle
> cells are trying to keep up with demand for more muscle power. The demand
> stimulates the growth, and it is no different with the brain; the principle
> is the same.
> So, as the world gets more complex, the mind will develop itself to keep
> up with the increasingly sophisticated demands from the world, and the brain
> will change itself to keep up with the increasingly sophisticated demands
> from the mind. I presume, it also works the other way round; if the world
> ever gets simpler then the decreased demands will probably also cause a
> correspondingly degeneration of the brain.
> With regard to basic instincts, I don't know, here things are pretty much
> "hardwired", and the system will probably need a bit more time to adjust,
> but who knows...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/4605a832/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:02:15 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:09:11 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] will i am wants to be "done" (with you)
In-Reply-To: <B6816300-8EFD-48F2-B8E2-F2325711C39A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <383124.41308.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
a _ done with what?
b _ and how? by suppression? repression? what a feast: hey william, by any chance, ahve you read some bohm lately.... ever? what a joke. choke. jokker...
~
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
...He [will i am] would like to just unsubscribe you and be done with it.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/15d8f0fc/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:06:00 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:12:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <737926.13279.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712210737w4053b74wa3ee72f280820f23@mail.gmail.com>
<737926.13279.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211106n564d2a19u2fcff3f18668170@mail.gmail.com>
K: Does insulting people make them receptive to new ideas, to change, to
self examination? I know you think you're just 'telling it like it is', but
you and I clashed on this when you were Zoe. Use a little tact, please.
What are 'they' waiting for? Maybe to see whether or not you've developed
any people skills!
On Dec 21, 2007 1:53 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> hi ka,
>
> few thinkgs:
>
> a _ what's your take about williams re'flexing, as you (shyly) sketched
> it.... can you fine-brush some?
>
> b _ "wait and see"... what for? for jesus christ to return? for amagedon?
> for the mars-landing? for immortality?
>
> c _ & how does all that explain the group also ignoring the reflexions you
> have and do offere as far as whats going on|off here right now..... whats
> the heart (at the core) of (bohm)dialogue for you?
>
> d _ "power"..... to (un)do what, exactly?... to, maybe, display some of
> their denials and phoninessmesses?
>
> humanimal
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> I: Mornin' peter & all. That sounds like an offer I can't refuse. I
> shall aim for posting it no later than tomorrow morning's coffee.
>
> It seems significant that a proposed conference on Bohm's Legacy is
> ignoring dialogue. Why is that?
>
> As for your "b" - 'all'? How many is that?! I don't like to generalize
> without really having facts to go on. I can't help thinking, though, it's
> related to past history with you. Is it coincidental that William proposes
> a new list the moment you declare your presence? Seems like a pattern. A
> reflex. I'd like to think that the silences are at least a "wait and see"
> attitude as far as interacting with you, if that is true.
>
> Another cause could be a subliminal self concept as a 'follower' in a
> group that is supposed to be based on equality, and mutual responsibility.
> And THAT should be dialogged. Maybe they are waiting for the 'leaders' to
> accept or reject you.
>
> It could be "I don't want to alienate the group" if they think they need
> to flee from you!
> Frankly, I think they give you too much power.
>
> People like us, pit, are often thought of as pariahs. Pat shouldn't get
> exclusive use of 'funny'. There's a 'funny club' that forms in other
> people's minds, and those who dare to say "The emperor is naked" are
> automatically elected to it.
>
> Oh, I almost forgot. You posted a striking 'white noise' url. I had no
> idea how much damage it causes until I read about it in brain plasticity.
> Didn't even know what it was, really. Need to go back and try to see what
> you were saying in that post.
>
> My respect for df continues in place. He is not only a gentleman, but (I
> understand you were merciless towards him) he has reached out to interact
> with you, as you have with him. I truly hope that develops well.
>
> Am looking forward to your crosspost. Meanwhile Bach calls. Yesterday, I
> found a recording of Keith Jarrett performing the Goldberg on a
> harpsichord! Haven't listened yet, but Jarrett is a foremost jazz
> improviser. What will Jarrett see-hear that Glen Gould and I haven't?
>
> ok - turning on the email notified, and starting Bach.
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 9:39 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ciao Ka & all, few thinkgs
> >
> > a _ neuroplastics: kath, why not just put up a little proposal on the
> > list (where you coming from with this one, and where you might want to go
> > with it), some meat we can bite into... instead all those abstract tit-bits
> > (or 's that one of your in'famous annoucements you then never follow up
> > on..... btw: how far back does that feature of yours go? teacherhood?
> > motherhood? loverhood? childhood?)
> >
> > b _ since it seems it just a few boinds @ this playground here ATM: what
> > is your take(out), ka, why all the 'oldtimer' & 'regulars' & 'bohmfans' &
> > 'expertialogers' -- in a moment of "crisis", as don f put is -- sticking
> > their heads in the sssssands, ooops, of course meant: szszszzzzsssuspension
> >
> > c _ will (cross)post some rather tasty stuff from another (dialog)group
> > in a bit(e) here.... ciao bones
> >
> > humanimal
> >
> > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere.
> >
> > I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone else
> > from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying we
> > need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat,
> > either. Nothing from dl.
> > Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on
> > why BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my
> > fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's
> > called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your
> > convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my
> > grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone
> > of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am
> > happy to hear your voice, btw.
> >
> > Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain
> > neuroplasticity. Would love to get some scientists in that field interested
> > in TAS, and on this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein
> > from the latest research findings. Among other important assumptions, the
> > findings definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you
> > listening? I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the
> > first few pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice.
> >
> > Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
> >
> > > ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
> > >
> > > a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the
> > > typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'....
> > > 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core
> > > d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
> > >
> > > b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not ('at
> > > least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it from
> > > there
> > >
> > > c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding y'ourselves....
> > > please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then, also, we could
> > > ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the (b'locked)
> > > flow-o-meaning that is going on here
> > >
> > > d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will tell
> > > you differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number cruncher
> > > of this enter prise here?
> > >
> > > e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
> > >
> > > cheers, ~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> > >
> > > ok, lets take a(nother) look:
> > >
> > >
> > > a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on.
> > > who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and
> > > why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
> > >
> > >
> > > Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this
> > > before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it
> > > our own way, at least not for very long.
> > >
> > >
> > > b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about
> > > all this, don
> > >
> > >
> > > Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the
> > > thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
> > >
> > >
> > > c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
> > >
> > >
> > > I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it
> > > either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
> > >
> > >
> > > d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually
> > > dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less
> > > allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?.....
> > > and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same
> > > overnovernover
> > >
> > >
> > > There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since
> > > your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually,
> > > there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from
> > > time to time. But not recently.
> > >
> > >
> > > e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother)
> > > look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do
> > > (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
> > >
> > >
> > > This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more
> > > accessible kind of prose.
> > >
> > >
> > > f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot
> > > 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody
> > > HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads
> > > quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be
> > > looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst
> > > all the traffic, isn't easy.
> > >
> > >
> > > don
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
> > >
> > > All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has
> > > already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made
> > > by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the
> > > fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope
> > > this is only for the moment.
> > > don
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> > >
> > > I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms.
> > > Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At
> > > least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The
> > > > in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything
> > > > that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than
> > > > words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the
> > > > printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide.
> > > > Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises
> > > > questions and flags to me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's
> > > > > shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you
> > > > > tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities...
> > > > > hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
> > > > >
> > > > > )(
> > > > >
> > > > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to
> > > > > face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons <
> > > > > Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you
> > > > > > wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have
> > > > > > an actual BD type of dialogue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Susan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > > > > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > > > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
> > > > > > *Subject: *Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and
> > > > > > less
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone.
> > > > > > If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to
> > > > > > talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in
> > > > > > January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or
> > > > > > Albuquerque, aren't you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up
> > > > > > > your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I
> > > > > > > have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not
> > > > > > > read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're
> > > > > > > not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to
> > > > > > > convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest
> > > > > > > in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I
> > > > > > > have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what
> > > > > > > they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could
> > > > > > > come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could
> > > > > > > come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to
> > > > > > > coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group
> > > > > > > and setting it up and keeping it going.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there
> > > > > > > so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown
> > > > > > > plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my
> > > > > > > posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Susan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/352ca916/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:06:05 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:13:02 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] neuroplasticplosivs
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211042j16e1e8bfna70348d95b0e726@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <896799.21228.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
can i please seehear some stuff(ing) first before i can
make-up-my-mind (neuroplastics) if i want to dobe:
"scrared" ;-)
what are you proposing to do with neuroplastics?
and, almost booder:
HOW (exACTly)?
Via surgery??
Via education??
Put some stuff in the public water-supply?
Be specific, please... i am (almost) on my knees ;____}}
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Peter, why are YOU scared of it?
On Dec 21, 2007 1:27 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
Ka, why are YOU into that neuroplastic-stuff?
humanimal
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm looking for bohm's ideas ...
According to Norman Doidge, ...
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/af129076/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:07:51 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:14:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <883469.41632.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<883469.41632.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211107m440816cfy4ac1db6bc63f0b2e@mail.gmail.com>
K: Yes, we absolutely do learn from birth. Maybe even in the womb.
On Dec 21, 2007 1:43 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> *inotweb@juno.com* wrote:
>
> Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self -
> preservation. ~~ Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> http://www.puppen.ch/miniatur/goebel/musterschuelerin.jpg
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/ab2575e6/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:10:41 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:17:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211040h3323702n3d68fafc57c1b4e4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <269820.81709.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
ciao ka,
what you mean: "lost all SENSE of AFFECT"? explain, bittascheen
and: people like to neck-massage each other?? can you, alsoplease, tell us howhere bohm writestalksingsuggests about such a: thinkg?
bohm-dialogue, is thusly, correct me if i am wrong: to make each other feel warm & cuddly??
like soap-opra-tv... just 'more'.... "personal"??
haha, what a ffffeast
cheers, for lay(heywhereishe?)ing it all out
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Peter, have you lost all sense of affect? Not everybody understands the basic caring nature that exists under that sarcastic exterior as I do. Can you now wonder why people might look for an alternative list? They just don't realize that you will always be there.
Love you, but hey -
On Dec 21, 2007 1:25 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Funny, 's that the 'best' you can dOffer
(At the current moment of "crises", quote, here):
Go (stay) with'in'to your stack-shack-shelter ofallthose books
And, like the good childgirlpupil you have dobeebeebeen
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaall 'your' life (deutsch: musterschueler )
And copy "fleissig" lines together _ to pleasepleaseplease
Your environmentals
O boy, O pat
;-)
humanimal
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex situations, but even thought is not very subtle.
~
The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together, and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.
~
There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a crucial point.
~
Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self - preservation.
~
Instinct is an inherited reflex.
~
The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and consequences, after which it may remain stable until further discrepancies occur.
~
As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
~
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/1e0c1ecb/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:11:16 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:18:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <B6816300-8EFD-48F2-B8E2-F2325711C39A@dc.rr.com>
References: <360997.98794.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<B6816300-8EFD-48F2-B8E2-F2325711C39A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211111g6efce3a3meb3e3140a17ac3f6@mail.gmail.com>
K: I absolutely agree, Don. He's stuck. I don't understand why people
can't learn from experience. I'd settle for a change of tone. After all,
one step at a time is a maxim! Please, Peter. You can be so nice, even
while saying what's on your mind.
On Dec 21, 2007 1:48 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> pit, this is the sort of stuff that you do to excess and that bothers me
> along with other people here who do not find it all that funny. Its what got
> you unsubscribed all those times before. I think you have good stuff to say,
> but this sort of tone along with your private language makes it too
> distracting and difficult to take seriously. This is why I held your request
> for a new identity for William to look at, He would like to just unsubscribe
> you and be done with it. But I think, that you could play a more coherent
> role if you really wanted to. Coherent means here, that what you do gets the
> results you want, And I don't think that your stuff does that.
> don
>
> On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
> Funny, 's that the 'best' you can dOffer
> (At the current moment of "crises", quote, here):
> Go (stay) with'in'to your stack-shack-shelter ofallthose books
> And, like the good childgirlpupil you have dobeebeebeen
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaall 'your' life (deutsch: *musterschueler* )
> And copy "fleissig" lines together _ to pleasepleaseplease
> Your environmentals
> O boy, O pat
>
> ;-)
>
> humanimal
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/76f0bdcf/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:16:00 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:22:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice"
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211036j5463f043q9f38100d26a87203@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <675158.50469.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
ka, stupid question, 'who', no: what, no:HOWHAT actually (could) activate what you call (shophophop a round as): "proprioception" & "suspension" ... do you have any REAL-life-examples, please, or (just) this super&facial make&uppy pepp&talk?
can bohm dialogue, "ever", dobe: REAListictictic?
cheers
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Sounds right to me. I think proprioception and suspension need to take notice of what people believe ....
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/7b605e20/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:16:09 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:23:07 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <269820.81709.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211040h3323702n3d68fafc57c1b4e4@mail.gmail.com>
<269820.81709.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211116g5a51604ft915cbed3145964b6@mail.gmail.com>
K: Affect - emotions, feelings. I know you have feelings. You're very
sensitive, but they seem to be behind an impenetrable wall. And you deny
their existence in others.
Why do you put down feeling good? Love? Consideration for others? Don't
you understand that I'm speaking frankly to you out of love? Can you notice
that I'm not ridiculing you, calling you names, putting you down? Can't you
acknowledge that such a reality exists?
On Dec 21, 2007 2:10 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ciao ka,
>
> what you mean: "lost all SENSE of AFFECT"? explain, bittascheen
>
> and: people like to neck-massage each other?? can you, alsoplease, tell us
> howhere bohm writestalksingsuggests about such a: thinkg?
>
> bohm-dialogue, is thusly, correct me if i am wrong: to make each other
> feel warm & cuddly??
>
> like soap-opra-tv... just 'more'.... "personal"??
>
> haha, what a ffffeast
>
> cheers, for lay(heywhereishe?)ing it all out
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> K: Peter, have you lost all sense of affect? Not everybody understands
> the basic caring nature that exists under that sarcastic exterior as I do.
> Can you now wonder why people might look for an alternative list? They just
> don't realize that you will always be there.
>
> Love you, but hey -
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 1:25 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Funny, 's that the 'best' you can dOffer
> > (At the current moment of "crises", quote, here):
> > Go (stay) with'in'to your stack-shack-shelter ofallthose books
> > And, like the good childgirlpupil you have dobeebeebeen
> > Aaaaaaaaaaaaaall 'your' life (deutsch: *musterschueler* )
> > And copy "fleissig" lines together _ to pleasepleaseplease
> > Your environmentals
> > O boy, O pat
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > humanimal
> >
> >
> > *ae.dropper@juno.com *wrote:
> >
> > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very limited.
> > We have then developed thought to deal with more complex situations, but
> > even thought is not very subtle.
> > ~
> > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based
> > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together, and the
> > intelligence goes beyond all of them.
> > ~
> > *There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by our
> > total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history or by our
> > thought. It is really open and creative. This is a crucial point.
> > *~
> > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self -
> > preservation.
> > ~
> > Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> > ~
> > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
> > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive response to the
> > experience of the species, and partly on a kind of significance that is
> > grounded in past experience. From the deep initial intention to act toward
> > an object, the action incorporates or assimilates the object into a cycle of
> > inward and outward activity. The action changes the perception, and there is
> > another action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the
> > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is modified, until
> > a fit is obtained between intentions and consequences, after which it may
> > remain stable until further discrepancies occur.
> > ~
> > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for safety;
> > an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
> > ~
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/a25030f4/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:17:34 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:24:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] neuroplasticplosivs
In-Reply-To: <896799.21228.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211042j16e1e8bfna70348d95b0e726@mail.gmail.com>
<896799.21228.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211117k29e00868j8563d5bb22e40eba@mail.gmail.com>
K: If you're so anxious, why not buy the book and read it? Otherwise,
you'll just have to wait on my piecemeal postings.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:06 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> can i please seehear some stuff(ing) first before i can
> make-up-my-mind (neuroplastics) if i want to dobe:
> "scrared" ;-)
>
> what are you proposing to do with neuroplastics?
>
> and, almost booder:
>
> HOW (exACTly)?
>
> Via surgery??
>
> Via education??
>
> Put some stuff in the public water-supply?
>
> Be specific, please... i am (almost) on my knees ;____}}
>
> )(
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> K: Peter, why are YOU scared of it?
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 1:27 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> >
> > Ka, why are YOU into that neuroplastic-stuff?
> >
> > humanimal
> >
> >
> > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > I'm looking for bohm's ideas ...
> > According to Norman Doidge, ...
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/2714e7f2/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:17:53 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:24:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211106n564d2a19u2fcff3f18668170@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <880435.48235.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
well, lets see (hear): tell us the specific "insult(ing)", and lets take it from there... the examination... the dialogue
context, please!
cheers, ~
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Does insulting people make them receptive to new ideas, to change, to self examination?
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/9e41fa33/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 20:18:26 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:25:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712181715o786bbc2fqfc77f5af96f716df@mail.gmail.com>
References: <439325.58372.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<009501c840c9$c9da9a10$b5c16018@DL01>
<00ae01c840cb$c07ac830$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W879FB36B103BA98E4068CDC620@phx.gbl>
<010801c840e1$de342e00$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W350E74A4BF40EED8D77188DC620@phx.gbl>
<062001c8412b$6f5f12c0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W16E8AE638BF5DDE8487711DC5C0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712181641je29040boeb7cccac299fabf6@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W150CBE15C832D75770BDCDDC5C0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712181715o786bbc2fqfc77f5af96f716df@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W17395F01D87EE2A9FE85BADC5E0@phx.gbl>
oh Irene. Sarcasm?
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:36 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementI: It's the 'good stuff' you cut off. I have no idea what it's referring to.Time out. Gotta dispose of old microwave.
On Dec 18, 2007 8:08 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
no I didn't Irene.
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:41:58 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementI: Rob, you cut off dl's message you're responding to. Please don't.
On Dec 18, 2007 7:29 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
this is good stuff Don. you seem to be saying IT IS without acting or pretending
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:06:58 -0500
I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things. -- Rob
Me too! I believe it is ultimately important!
DB says that nothing can be without meaning. Of course, the question ... What is meaning? !!
I believe folk wisdom holds that meaning is what is meant to be, and maybe this means what is intended.
Thus, we say the whole of Being is whatever IT intends to be ... or what it is intending.
What's that?
Look around. Feel it, listen to it, taste it ... etc. This is it, whatever IT IS, this is it simply because there is no other actuality. Is there? -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things.
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:21 -0500
Rob: I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending
dl: Maybe so. Thought, however, presents the idea that what we act and pretend is the known, the repeated, but there is always the new, maybe New Being that is experienced as not the same old known roles, etc.
Rob: I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity? I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:02 -0500
I can feel those final grains of self aggrandizement flying out of my pores from the morning readings. -- Funny
Does the experience of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " precede the experience of the identity processes being suspended, being held in suspension?
If so, then maybe the meaning of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " might be that identity has limited meaning.
Then what is the meaning of someone talking about "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores "? Could it be to demonstrate meaning?
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity?
Resonance anyone? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
When the identity movement is suspended, experience of being does not cease.
Then, it becomes clear that ontic intelligence does not have to be personalized as Bohm indicates, I believe in the interview with Weber.
Watching the identity movement (thought), awareness of the identity thought may and does at times suspend the identity processes.
Maybe we should say when awareness clearly presents the reasoning that identity processes are not needed, then that awareness suspends the unneeded processes. Later, when awareness of need occurs, then the identity processes recur.
It appears that the I identity is not needed for identity suspension. That's the way it seems to me, to this identity when the identity processes are present.
Resonance anyone ..., all you outer identities "out there"? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/1755d026/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 20:19:59 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:26:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
In-Reply-To: <3E9D0B23-6B50-42F9-9418-DE9F46921C62@dc.rr.com>
References: <016201c840e6$ded1b440$b5c16018@DL01><C38C3C99.FA94%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com><c47283890712171353j95c274bj9096a97ab64953bc@mail.gmail.com><035301c840fb$4d1463d0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712171432w7e5a633ej7673469675579782@mail.gmail.com>
<03a501c84114$78c7a3c0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W173CB36371D1797F0A9CCDDC5C0@phx.gbl>
<3E9D0B23-6B50-42F9-9418-DE9F46921C62@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W2556969448CC65FE5B90A3DC5E0@phx.gbl>
there is no good or bad art. Just stuff you like and stuff you don't.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate OrderDate: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:54:23 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgAs I said, Art Acts. And there are all kinds of art. But there is no such animal as good art or bad art. There is only art and non-art.
don
On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:01 PM, rob mooney wrote:
"poems are epiphanic documents and show the writer in the process of making their discoveries, so that the reader can re-enact and re-live them, not merely feel their after effects or learn the poet's wise conclusions." (Don patterson) I expect this goes for C++, painting, music, dancing, sculpture, photography, millenery, etc. Maybe even when Don F chooses a tee shirt...
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate OrderDate: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:22:32 -0500
ISmeaningfulTM to say the answer to these questions is yes, and to say that Bohm, talking about infinite subtlety and when he says it is as far "in there" inside the atom as it is "out there" through the universe substantiates the view I'm trying to learn how to explicate.
Where or what is the personal identity while being sensitive enough to "hear" the direction that amounts to improv?
Once again, my programming friend says there is no identity movement while writing code. If there was, he would be unable to write code because C++, he says, is not the language appropriate for the personal identity. That is, personal identity simply has no meaning in the Visual Basic or C++ language.
Are you aware of Irene's personal identity movement while doing improv? -- dl
\
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
I: We're getting into the idea of Nada Brahma, now. And to say more, I'd have to go get my book.It would have been more accurate to say one creates a time-space line when one moves, I think. Why do all the good things happen at once? I'm working on Bach Goldberg. My Eurhythmics teacher is giving a three day workshop soon on what an improviser can learn from them, and I'm preparing for it. I would love to have heard Bach sit down and jam with Paquito d'Rivera; throw in Sidney Bechet for good measure on clarinet, and Eugene Ysaye on violin.
On Dec 17, 2007 5:22 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
I: Every time you move you are creating explicate time-space.
What about the idea that every time you move, you are using time and space?
Is there time and space absent homo-sappo, prior to homo-sappo? Perhaps more precisely, is there some actuality indicated by time and space that is prior to homo-sappo? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
I: Every time you move you are creating explicate time-space. And imagination has its place when it's not out of balance.
On Dec 17, 2007 4:47 PM, Lynne Tolk < lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
To be or not to be? Is there a choice? Is the question the problem? What about yes? (form is emptiness, emptiness is form; explicate is implicate is explicate?)
On 12/17/07 12:56 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
the old old thought occurs -- no us? -- RobMaybe. I've been using the idea of imagination, thought to think of the identity of things including us.I think I'm beginning to understand something like the idea of all this that is as unknown and thought equating with the imaged known, with the language or knowing system of imagination.It's a bit spooky to think that us is not. That is, the notness or non being must be addressed. The anxiety does not go away simply by acting and pretending it is not there. Maybe one way to avoid the anxiety of non being is to understand the idea that relative being is part of the whole of Being. dl http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message ----- From: rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:37 PMSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate OrderThe thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could there be no space? the old old thought occurs -- no us?
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate OrderDate: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500if there is no space time tea cake etc aren't we wasting our... um... breathThe thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could there be no space? Maybe we could say that it is only a useful concept and use while being aware that it is limited.Would that be in the direction of unlimited experience? -- dl -- Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogueinfo: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/d9841dbf/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:21:52 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:28:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] will i am wants to be "done" (with you)
In-Reply-To: <383124.41308.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <B6816300-8EFD-48F2-B8E2-F2325711C39A@dc.rr.com>
<383124.41308.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211121l4e766c6fk464eb26fcc7642e7@mail.gmail.com>
K: Peter, if they do unsubscribe you, I know you will subscribe again. But
think. You'll just have to keep silent or change your tone anyway or you'll
get unsubbed all over again.
Creative people can find more than one way to make their points. And I know
you're creative.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> a _ done with what?
>
> b _ and how? by suppression? repression? what a feast: hey william, by any
> chance, ahve you read some bohm lately.... ever? what a joke. choke.
> jokker...
>
> ~
>
> *donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
>
> ...He [will i am] would like to just unsubscribe you and be done with it.
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/1208765f/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:22:51 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:29:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211106n564d2a19u2fcff3f18668170@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <517179.93449.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
"tact": ... as in.... ?.... mitlaeufer?
"peopleskills":.... as in... ?..... neckmassaging?.... kissinass? ..... stickingheadinrears??
you know whats 'funny', just yesterday you asked susan to explain the new 'style' she envision for the 'new' group..... and you do the same thinkg: all abstract..... all blabla.... so lets hear, ka: how would you like for folks to behave (=THINK) in this group... and what that has to do with the essence of B-dialogue. Lets hear.
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Does insulting people make them receptive to new ideas, to change, to self examination? I know you think you're just 'telling it like it is', but you and I clashed on this when you were Zoe. Use a little tact, please.
What are 'they' waiting for? Maybe to see whether or not you've developed any people skills!
On Dec 21, 2007 1:53 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
hi ka,
few thinkgs:
a _ what's your take about williams re'flexing, as you (shyly) sketched it.... can you fine-brush some?
b _ "wait and see"... what for? for jesus christ to return? for amagedon? for the mars-landing? for immortality?
c _ & how does all that explain the group also ignoring the reflexions you have and do offere as far as whats going on|off here right now..... whats the heart (at the core) of (bohm)dialogue for you?
d _ "power"..... to (un)do what, exactly?... to, maybe, display some of their denials and phoninessmesses?
humanimal
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Mornin' peter & all. That sounds like an offer I can't refuse. I shall aim for posting it no later than tomorrow morning's coffee.
It seems significant that a proposed conference on Bohm's Legacy is ignoring dialogue. Why is that?
As for your "b" - 'all'? How many is that?! I don't like to generalize without really having facts to go on. I can't help thinking, though, it's related to past history with you. Is it coincidental that William proposes a new list the moment you declare your presence? Seems like a pattern. A reflex. I'd like to think that the silences are at least a "wait and see" attitude as far as interacting with you, if that is true.
Another cause could be a subliminal self concept as a 'follower' in a group that is supposed to be based on equality, and mutual responsibility. And THAT should be dialogged. Maybe they are waiting for the 'leaders' to accept or reject you.
It could be "I don't want to alienate the group" if they think they need to flee from you!
Frankly, I think they give you too much power.
People like us, pit, are often thought of as pariahs. Pat shouldn't get exclusive use of 'funny'. There's a 'funny club' that forms in other people's minds, and those who dare to say "The emperor is naked" are automatically elected to it.
Oh, I almost forgot. You posted a striking 'white noise' url. I had no idea how much damage it causes until I read about it in brain plasticity. Didn't even know what it was, really. Need to go back and try to see what you were saying in that post.
My respect for df continues in place. He is not only a gentleman, but (I understand you were merciless towards him) he has reached out to interact with you, as you have with him. I truly hope that develops well.
Am looking forward to your crosspost. Meanwhile Bach calls. Yesterday, I found a recording of Keith Jarrett performing the Goldberg on a harpsichord! Haven't listened yet, but Jarrett is a foremost jazz improviser. What will Jarrett see-hear that Glen Gould and I haven't?
ok - turning on the email notified, and starting Bach.
On Dec 21, 2007 9:39 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
Ciao Ka & all, few thinkgs
a _ neuroplastics: kath, why not just put up a little proposal on the list (where you coming from with this one, and where you might want to go with it), some meat we can bite into... instead all those abstract tit-bits (or 's that one of your in'famous annoucements you then never follow up on..... btw: how far back does that feature of yours go? teacherhood? motherhood? loverhood? childhood?)
b _ since it seems it just a few boinds @ this playground here ATM: what is your take(out), ka, why all the 'oldtimer' & 'regulars' & 'bohmfans' & 'expertialogers' -- in a moment of "crisis", as don f put is -- sticking their heads in the sssssands, ooops, of course meant: szszszzzzsssuspension
c _ will (cross)post some rather tasty stuff from another (dialog)group in a bit(e) here.... ciao bones
humanimal
Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere.
I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone else from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying we need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat, either. Nothing from dl.
Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on why BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am happy to hear your voice, btw.
Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain neuroplasticity. Would love to get some scientists in that field interested in TAS, and on this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein from the latest research findings. Among other important assumptions, the findings definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you listening? I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the first few pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice.
Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'.... 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not ('at least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it from there
c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding y'ourselves.... please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then, also, we could ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the (b'locked) flow-o-meaning that is going on here
d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will tell you differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number cruncher of this enter prise here?
e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
cheers, ~
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
ok, lets take a(nother) look:
a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on. who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it our own way, at least not for very long.
b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about all this, don
Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same overnovernover
There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to time. But not recently.
e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more accessible kind of prose.
f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst all the traffic, isn't easy.
don
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope this is only for the moment.
don
On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide. Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises questions and flags to me.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities... hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
--
---------------------------------
--
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/15945f14/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:23:28 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:30:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice"
In-Reply-To: <675158.50469.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211036j5463f043q9f38100d26a87203@mail.gmail.com>
<675158.50469.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211123l7357b6a6i5a16e3c62a267387@mail.gmail.com>
K: I'm having to bite my tongue to keep from making a wise ass comment.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:16 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ka, stupid question, 'who', no: what, no:HOWHAT actually (could) activate
> what you call (shophophop a round as): "proprioception" & "suspension" ...
> do you have any REAL-life-examples, please, or (just) this super&facial
> make&uppy pepp&talk?
>
> can bohm dialogue, "ever", dobe: REAListictictic?
>
> cheers
>
> )(
>
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> K: Sounds right to me. I think proprioception and suspension need to
> take notice of what people believe ....
>
> ------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/98f0f651/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 20:23:39 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:30:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
In-Reply-To: <9CE6CCB0-CC80-480A-983E-472D2D8F98D1@dc.rr.com>
References: <439325.58372.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com><476679F0.60003@siit.tu.ac.th>
<003101c840b4$1a0909b0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W316D168A86355AA8647C79DC620@phx.gbl>
<00e501c840df$bb92bda0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W3205646DF39FCB075F9CE5DC620@phx.gbl>
<1F7DA20A-E59A-4220-978F-3AA284BBD26C@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W17D702155BD553E462636EDC620@phx.gbl>
<8E62992E-CB4A-4FD0-B267-A050FBAE608A@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W3142D1739711E2E101EA09DC5C0@phx.gbl>
<9CE6CCB0-CC80-480A-983E-472D2D8F98D1@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W14B45973CEEB90A41DDA9EDC5E0@phx.gbl>
I have heard of my space and face book. I just don't know what you are talking about.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate OrderDate: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:56:21 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgWhat? You don't know My Space? Try Googling it. There is also Face Book but My Space is even closer to home.
don
On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:08 PM, rob mooney wrote:
and where would that be Don? over the rainbow? through the looking glass? in a dialogue?
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate OrderDate: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:00:22 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgOR My Space.
don
On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:04 PM, rob mooney wrote:
why would I single you out Don?
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate OrderDate: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:14 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgShould be me, no?
X
On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:37 AM, rob mooney wrote:
The thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could there be no space? the old old thought occurs -- no us?
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate OrderDate: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500
if there is no space time tea cake etc aren't we wasting our... um... breath
The thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could there be no space? Maybe we could say that it is only a useful concept and use while being aware that it is limited.
Would that be in the direction of unlimited experience? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
if there is no space time tea cake etc aren't we wasting our... um... breath
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate OrderDate: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:52:41 -0500
"is there space, time causality in the implicate order",
If one reads something like Bohm's "wholeness and the implicate order' I think that it is fairly clear that things like space and time can be explicated out of the implicate order (in which they are implicated). -- Jeff
Hi Jeff.
Does the question imply space or time by using the idea expressed by "in"?
If so, does this imply the language we use is not adequate to address the meaning of the question? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Webb
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
Hi,I would like to comment on the issue: is there space, time causality in the implicate order.If one reads something like Bohm's "wholeness and the implicate order' I think that it is fairly clear that things like space and time can be explicated out of the implicate order (in which they are implicated). So the statement "in the implicate order (t)here in no space, time causality, matter, or mind' seems to me to indicate that the maker of this statement has completely misunderstood Bohms notion of the implicate order.I'm sure that others on this list will be able to add more details.Jeff>> In the attached article, the author writes, ?in the> 'implicate' order ere is no space, time, causality,> matter, or mind.? (Note: I am guessing ?ere? is a typo for> ?there?.)>> In the implicate order there is no space, time, causality,> matter, or mind. ?? Is this statement true?>> Regina>>> ??>info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Everything in one place? All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/73942fdc/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:23:47 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:30:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211107m440816cfy4ac1db6bc63f0b2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <464183.98877.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
aaaaand?
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: K: Yes, we absolutely do learn from birth. Maybe even in the womb.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/e74df919/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:25:42 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:32:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W17395F01D87EE2A9FE85BADC5E0@phx.gbl>
References: <439325.58372.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<BAY123-W879FB36B103BA98E4068CDC620@phx.gbl>
<010801c840e1$de342e00$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W350E74A4BF40EED8D77188DC620@phx.gbl>
<062001c8412b$6f5f12c0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W16E8AE638BF5DDE8487711DC5C0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712181641je29040boeb7cccac299fabf6@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W150CBE15C832D75770BDCDDC5C0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712181715o786bbc2fqfc77f5af96f716df@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W17395F01D87EE2A9FE85BADC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211125y7faf3650w7add5c7bb6730354@mail.gmail.com>
K: Oh Rob, are you by any chance one of Peter's "i", "ii" or "iii's"?
On Dec 21, 2007 2:18 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> oh Irene. Sarcasm?
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:36 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> I: It's the 'good stuff' you cut off. I have no idea what it's referring
> to.
>
> Time out. Gotta dispose of old microwave.
>
> On Dec 18, 2007 8:08 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> no I didn't Irene.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:41:58 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> I: Rob, you cut off dl's message you're responding to. Please don't.
>
> On Dec 18, 2007 7:29 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> this is good stuff Don. you seem to be saying IT IS without acting or
> pretending
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:06:58 -0500
>
>
> I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things. -- Rob
>
> Me too! I believe it is ultimately important!
>
> DB says that nothing can be without *meaning*. Of course, the question
> ... What is meaning? !!
>
> I believe folk wisdom holds that *meaning* is what is *meant to be*, and
> maybe this *means* what is *intended*.
>
> Thus, we say the whole of Being is whatever *IT* *intends to be ... or
> what it is intending.*
>
> What's that?
>
> Look around. Feel it, listen to it, taste it ... etc. This is it,
> whatever IT IS, this is it simply because there is no other actuality. Is
> there? -- dl
>
>
>
> *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 2:59 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to *have meaning*, *be
> meaningful*? dl
>
> I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:21 -0500
>
> Rob: I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending
> **
> dl: Maybe so. Thought, however, presents the idea that what we *act and
> pretend* is the *known*, the *repeated*, but there is always the *new,
> maybe New Being* that is experienced as not the same old known roles, etc.
>
> Rob: I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed
> to say stuff I don't understand
>
> dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to *have meaning*, *be
> meaningful*? dl
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 1:20 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> Could it be that one more participates in *this that is* when not *acting
> and pretending* the *social identity*?
>
> I think so
> and also maybe even when acting and pretending
>
> I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to
> say stuff I don't understand
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:02 -0500
>
> I can feel those final grains of self aggrandizement flying out of my
> pores from the morning readings. -- Funny
>
> Does the experience of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores "
> precede the experience of the *identity processes* being suspended, being
> held in suspension?
>
> If so, then maybe *the meaning* of "self aggrandizement flying out of my
> pores " might be that *identity* has *limited** meaning*.
>
> Then what is the *meaning* of someone talking about "self aggrandizement
> flying out of my pores "? Could it be to demonstrate *meaning*?
>
> Could it be that one more participates in *this that is* when not *acting
> and pretending* the *social identity*?
>
> Resonance anyone? -- dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 11:27 AM
> *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> When the *identity movement* is suspended, experience of being does not
> cease.
>
> Then, it becomes clear that *ontic intelligence* does not have to be *
> personalized* as Bohm indicates, I believe in the interview with Weber.
>
> *Watching* the *identity movement (thought)*, *awareness of* the identity
> thought may and does at times *suspend* the *identity processes*.
>
> Maybe we should say when awareness clearly presents the reasoning that *identity
> processes* are not needed, then that awareness suspends the
> unneeded processes. Later, when awareness of need occurs, then the *identity
> processes* recur.
>
> It appears that the *I* *identity* is not needed for *identity*suspension. That's the way it seems to me, to this
> *identity* when the *identity processes * are present.
>
> Resonance anyone ..., all you outer *identities* "out there"? -- dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!<http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/1fe56570/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 20:26:07 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:33:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <78D0172D-690E-490C-9348-31D02D2D4545@dc.rr.com>
References: <439325.58372.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com><476679F0.60003@siit.tu.ac.th><007701c840c1$3c9f5580$b5c16018@DL01><009501c840c9$c9da9a10$b5c16018@DL01><00ae01c840cb$c07ac830$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W879FB36B103BA98E4068CDC620@phx.gbl>
<010801c840e1$de342e00$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W350E74A4BF40EED8D77188DC620@phx.gbl>
<0B6839C7-B24F-4F22-A7A3-2354F8D15B6B@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W378C54AF712FEB739B63DEDC620@phx.gbl>
<1DF60B92-466C-4F19-9BB7-3A8583D658AB@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W211A0D57827E6DA9A95FEBDC5C0@phx.gbl>
<78D0172D-690E-490C-9348-31D02D2D4545@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W393ABD72245773D59E828BDC5E0@phx.gbl>
knowledge and caring seem close. you can't know much until you care or care much until you know.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementDate: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:01:17 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgI don't think it is knowledge so much as caring.
That is where the dance is
And there is only the dance.
don
On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:15 PM, rob mooney wrote:
i don't think it necessarily has to spoil it. with poetry anyway Don Patterson or Ruth Padel will go into the fricatives and the consonal rhymes and assonance and all the rest and the general affect (usually for me) is - oh, I see. So the understanding is furthered. I expect a grasp of geology probably adds to the appreciation of a landscape? Dunno - what do you think?
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementDate: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:15:47 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgBut some part of you does. The question is: does looking for that part spoil it all?
don
On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:42 PM, rob mooney wrote:
Don Patterson the English poet says that you can think of poems as something like a natural object, produced by us (or midwifed or something) out of our naturalness. I'm not sure you have to understand a hill or a spider or a waterfall to love it
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementDate: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:31:21 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgI don't understand many of my favorite poems. I don't understand a lot of my favorite art.
But some part of me must. The conscious part, the ego, is not the whole thing. There is
more, always morel.
don
On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:59 AM, rob mooney wrote:
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things.
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/ffd10be1/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:26:44 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:33:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <880435.48235.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211106n564d2a19u2fcff3f18668170@mail.gmail.com>
<880435.48235.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211126m7a0db80ex4c3f51f616ba0772@mail.gmail.com>
K: No, I don't have to quote specifics. YOU need to do your own work.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:17 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> well, lets see (hear): tell us the specific "insult(ing)", and lets take
> it from there... the examination... the dialogue
>
> context, please!
>
> cheers, ~
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> K: Does insulting people make them receptive to new ideas, to change, to
> self examination?
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/2e6fdddc/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 20:27:05 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:34:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <64880621-EDF0-476D-BD36-DE8903A61BE0@dc.rr.com>
References: <439325.58372.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com><476679F0.60003@siit.tu.ac.th><007701c840c1$3c9f5580$b5c16018@DL01><009501c840c9$c9da9a10$b5c16018@DL01><00ae01c840cb$c07ac830$b5c16018@DL01><BAY123-W879FB36B103BA98E4068CDC620@phx.gbl><010801c840e1$de342e00$b5c16018@DL01><BAY123-W350E74A4BF40EED8D77188DC620@phx.gbl>
<0B6839C7-B24F-4F22-A7A3-2354F8D15B6B@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W378C54AF712FEB739B63DEDC620@phx.gbl>
<028201c840f2$bed78dc0$b5c16018@DL01>
<DC320204-5FAA-48B5-8B7E-7DBF1F14EEC0@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W9CF810AFD84CBA506BBC9DC5C0@phx.gbl>
<64880621-EDF0-476D-BD36-DE8903A61BE0@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W335AC3D03F0EDABDD9B681DC5E0@phx.gbl>
trouts are meaning too.> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:03:47 -0800> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> > > On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:17 PM, rob mooney wrote:> > > i don't think art bears meaning it just is meaning probably this > > goes for everything else to.> >> > - - i mean> > But art jumps out of the stream like a trout.> > don> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/1b15f945/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:28:56 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:35:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] neuroplasticplosivs
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211117k29e00868j8563d5bb22e40eba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <380691.90576.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
You need/want ME to read a book for YOU to express 'your' thoughts on that neuroplastic stuff??
You cant post YOUR idemages on this topic to the list in a few sentences or a few more w/o the crutch of someone else(s book)??
ol lady, you are so shaki?
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: If you're so anxious, why not buy the book and read it? Otherwise, you'll just have to wait on my piecemeal postings.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:06 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
can i please seehear some stuff(ing) first before i can
make-up-my-mind (neuroplastics) if i want to dobe:
"scrared" ;-)
what are you proposing to do with neuroplastics?
and, almost booder:
HOW (exACTly)?
Via surgery??
Via education??
Put some stuff in the public water-supply?
Be specific, please... i am (almost) on my knees ;____}}
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Peter, why are YOU scared of it?
On Dec 21, 2007 1:27 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
Ka, why are YOU into that neuroplastic-stuff?
humanimal
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm looking for bohm's ideas ...
According to Norman Doidge, ...
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/f8031f7c/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:31:06 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:38:02 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W2556969448CC65FE5B90A3DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <380451.32102.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
and: 'worse'/'better' yet: that also changes (--not just-- like the weather: --))
)(
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } there is no good or bad art. Just stuff you like and stuff you don't.
---------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:54:23 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
As I said, Art Acts. And there are all kinds of art. But there is no such animal as good art or bad art. There is only art and non-art.
don
On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:01 PM, rob mooney wrote:
"poems are epiphanic documents and show the writer in the process of making their discoveries, so that the reader can re-enact and re-live them, not merely feel their after effects or learn the poet's wise conclusions."
(Don patterson)
I expect this goes for C++, painting, music, dancing, sculpture, photography, millenery, etc. Maybe even when Don F chooses a tee shirt...
---------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:22:32 -0500
ISmeaningfulTM to say the answer to these questions is yes, and to say that Bohm, talking about infinite subtlety and when he says it is as far "in there" inside the atom as it is "out there" through the universe substantiates the view I'm trying to learn how to explicate.
Where or what is the personal identity while being sensitive enough to "hear" the direction that amounts to improv?
Once again, my programming friend says there is no identity movement while writing code. If there was, he would be unable to write code because C++, he says, is not the language appropriate for the personal identity. That is, personal identity simply has no meaning in the Visual Basic or C++ language.
Are you aware of Irene's personal identity movement while doing improv? -- dl
\
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
I: We're getting into the idea of Nada Brahma, now. And to say more, I'd have to go get my book.
It would have been more accurate to say one creates a time-space line when one moves, I think.
Why do all the good things happen at once? I'm working on Bach Goldberg. My Eurhythmics teacher is giving a three day workshop soon on what an improviser can learn from them, and I'm preparing for it. I would love to have heard Bach sit down and jam with Paquito d'Rivera; throw in Sidney Bechet for good measure on clarinet, and Eugene Ysaye on violin.
On Dec 17, 2007 5:22 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
I: Every time you move you are creating explicate time-space.
What about the idea that every time you move, you are using time and space?
Is there time and space absent homo-sappo, prior to homo-sappo? Perhaps more precisely, is there some actuality indicated by time and space that is prior to homo-sappo? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
I: Every time you move you are creating explicate time-space. And imagination has its place when it's not out of balance.
On Dec 17, 2007 4:47 PM, Lynne Tolk < lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
To be or not to be? Is there a choice? Is the question the problem? What about yes? (form is emptiness, emptiness is form; explicate is implicate is explicate?)
On 12/17/07 12:56 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
the old old thought occurs -- no us? -- Rob
Maybe. I've been using the idea of imagination, thought to think of the identity of things including us.
I think I'm beginning to understand something like the idea of all this that is as unknown and thought equating with the imaged known, with the language or knowing system of imagination.
It's a bit spooky to think that us is not. That is, the notness or non being must be addressed. The anxiety does not go away simply by acting and pretending it is not there.
Maybe one way to avoid the anxiety of non being is to understand the idea that relative being is part of the whole of Being. dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
The thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could there be no space?
the old old thought occurs -- no us?
---------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500
if there is no space time tea cake etc aren't we wasting our... um... breath
The thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could there be no space? Maybe we could say that it is only a useful concept and use while being aware that it is limited.
Would that be in the direction of unlimited experience? -- dl
--
Irene
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/b6ae3657/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:31:52 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:38:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <517179.93449.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211106n564d2a19u2fcff3f18668170@mail.gmail.com>
<517179.93449.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211131n4f171fb7kbf760fe26519d1c1@mail.gmail.com>
I: Very simple. No putdowns. If you are really here to participate in
examination of thinking, not on a vengeance mission. I know it hurt when
they closed down the list, but can't you just say "It hurt." And get on
with life here? I think Don was pretty clear in that he values what you
COULD contribute. It's your manner that sucks.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:22 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "tact": ... as in.... ?.... mitlaeufer?
>
> "peopleskills":.... as in... ?..... neckmassaging?.... kissinass? .....
> stickingheadinrears??
>
> you know whats 'funny', just yesterday you asked susan to explain the new
> 'style' she envision for the 'new' group..... and you do the same thinkg:
> all abstract..... all blabla.... so lets hear, ka: how would you like for
> folks to behave (=THINK) in this group... and what that has to do with the
> essence of B-dialogue. Lets hear.
>
> )(
>
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> K: Does insulting people make them receptive to new ideas, to change, to
> self examination? I know you think you're just 'telling it like it is', but
> you and I clashed on this when you were Zoe. Use a little tact, please.
>
> What are 'they' waiting for? Maybe to see whether or not you've developed
> any people skills!
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 1:53 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > hi ka,
> >
> > few thinkgs:
> >
> > a _ what's your take about williams re'flexing, as you (shyly) sketched
> > it.... can you fine-brush some?
> >
> > b _ "wait and see"... what for? for jesus christ to return? for
> > amagedon? for the mars-landing? for immortality?
> >
> > c _ & how does all that explain the group also ignoring the reflexions
> > you have and do offere as far as whats going on|off here right now.....
> > whats the heart (at the core) of (bohm)dialogue for you?
> >
> > d _ "power"..... to (un)do what, exactly?... to, maybe, display some of
> > their denials and phoninessmesses?
> >
> > humanimal
> >
> > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > I: Mornin' peter & all. That sounds like an offer I can't refuse. I
> > shall aim for posting it no later than tomorrow morning's coffee.
> >
> > It seems significant that a proposed conference on Bohm's Legacy is
> > ignoring dialogue. Why is that?
> >
> > As for your "b" - 'all'? How many is that?! I don't like to
> > generalize without really having facts to go on. I can't help thinking,
> > though, it's related to past history with you. Is it coincidental that
> > William proposes a new list the moment you declare your presence? Seems
> > like a pattern. A reflex. I'd like to think that the silences are at least
> > a "wait and see" attitude as far as interacting with you, if that is true.
> >
> > Another cause could be a subliminal self concept as a 'follower' in a
> > group that is supposed to be based on equality, and mutual responsibility.
> > And THAT should be dialogged. Maybe they are waiting for the 'leaders' to
> > accept or reject you.
> >
> > It could be "I don't want to alienate the group" if they think they need
> > to flee from you!
> > Frankly, I think they give you too much power.
> >
> > People like us, pit, are often thought of as pariahs. Pat shouldn't get
> > exclusive use of 'funny'. There's a 'funny club' that forms in other
> > people's minds, and those who dare to say "The emperor is naked" are
> > automatically elected to it.
> >
> > Oh, I almost forgot. You posted a striking 'white noise' url. I had no
> > idea how much damage it causes until I read about it in brain plasticity.
> > Didn't even know what it was, really. Need to go back and try to see what
> > you were saying in that post.
> >
> > My respect for df continues in place. He is not only a gentleman, but
> > (I understand you were merciless towards him) he has reached out to interact
> > with you, as you have with him. I truly hope that develops well.
> >
> > Am looking forward to your crosspost. Meanwhile Bach calls. Yesterday,
> > I found a recording of Keith Jarrett performing the Goldberg on a
> > harpsichord! Haven't listened yet, but Jarrett is a foremost jazz
> > improviser. What will Jarrett see-hear that Glen Gould and I haven't?
> >
> > ok - turning on the email notified, and starting Bach.
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2007 9:39 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
> >
> > > Ciao Ka & all, few thinkgs
> > >
> > > a _ neuroplastics: kath, why not just put up a little proposal on the
> > > list (where you coming from with this one, and where you might want to go
> > > with it), some meat we can bite into... instead all those abstract tit-bits
> > > (or 's that one of your in'famous annoucements you then never follow up
> > > on..... btw: how far back does that feature of yours go? teacherhood?
> > > motherhood? loverhood? childhood?)
> > >
> > > b _ since it seems it just a few boinds @ this playground here ATM:
> > > what is your take(out), ka, why all the 'oldtimer' & 'regulars' & 'bohmfans'
> > > & 'expertialogers' -- in a moment of "crisis", as don f put is -- sticking
> > > their heads in the sssssands, ooops, of course meant: szszszzzzsssuspension
> > >
> > > c _ will (cross)post some rather tasty stuff from another
> > > (dialog)group in a bit(e) here.... ciao bones
> > >
> > > humanimal
> > >
> > > *Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> > >
> > > Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere.
> > >
> > > I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone
> > > else from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying
> > > we need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat,
> > > either. Nothing from dl.
> > > Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on
> > > why BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my
> > > fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's
> > > called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your
> > > convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my
> > > grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone
> > > of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am
> > > happy to hear your voice, btw.
> > >
> > > Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain
> > > neuroplasticity. Would love to get some scientists in that field interested
> > > in TAS, and on this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein
> > > from the latest research findings. Among other important assumptions, the
> > > findings definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you
> > > listening? I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the
> > > first few pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice.
> > >
> > > Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
> > > >
> > > > a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the
> > > > typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'....
> > > > 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core
> > > > d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
> > > >
> > > > b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not
> > > > ('at least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it
> > > > from there
> > > >
> > > > c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding
> > > > y'ourselves.... please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then,
> > > > also, we could ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the
> > > > (b'locked) flow-o-meaning that is going on here
> > > >
> > > > d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will
> > > > tell you differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number
> > > > cruncher of this enter prise here?
> > > >
> > > > e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
> > > >
> > > > cheers, ~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ok, lets take a(nother) look:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven
> > > > on. who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)...
> > > > and why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through
> > > > this before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have
> > > > it our own way, at least not for very long.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??....
> > > > about all this, don
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the
> > > > thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it
> > > > either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually
> > > > dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less
> > > > allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?.....
> > > > and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same
> > > > overnovernover
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since
> > > > your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually,
> > > > there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from
> > > > time to time. But not recently.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother)
> > > > look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do
> > > > (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more
> > > > accessible kind of prose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot
> > > > 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody
> > > > HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads
> > > > quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be
> > > > looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst
> > > > all the traffic, isn't easy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > don
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it
> > > > has already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being
> > > > made by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold
> > > > the fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I
> > > > hope this is only for the moment.
> > > > don
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it
> > > > forms. Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with
> > > > DF. At least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different.
> > > > > The in-person communication would contain more information, though.
> > > > > Everything that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more
> > > > > information than words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is
> > > > > excluded from the printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't
> > > > > provide. Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face.
> > > > > It raises questions and flags to me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's
> > > > > > shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you
> > > > > > tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities...
> > > > > > hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > )(
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to
> > > > > > face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons <
> > > > > > Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you
> > > > > > > wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have
> > > > > > > an actual BD type of dialogue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Susan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > > > > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
> > > > > > > *Subject: *Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more
> > > > > > > and less
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by
> > > > > > > telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone.
> > > > > > > I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in
> > > > > > > law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in
> > > > > > > Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make
> > > > > > > > up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what
> > > > > > > > I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not
> > > > > > > > read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're
> > > > > > > > not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to
> > > > > > > > convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest
> > > > > > > > in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I
> > > > > > > > have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what
> > > > > > > > they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could
> > > > > > > > come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could
> > > > > > > > come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to
> > > > > > > > coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group
> > > > > > > > and setting it up and keeping it going.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there
> > > > > > > > so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown
> > > > > > > > plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my
> > > > > > > > posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Susan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/36182b73/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:25:48 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:39:25 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211111g6efce3a3meb3e3140a17ac3f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <854711.41664.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Ka wants someone else, someboind else to PLAY (pretend, hi don lay) YOUR game.... to be'come a(s) phonirene (as kathirene)?
O boy, O kay
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Please, Peter. You can be so nice, even while saying what's on your mind.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/63d56c5d/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:35:26 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:42:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] neuroplasticplosivs
In-Reply-To: <380691.90576.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211117k29e00868j8563d5bb22e40eba@mail.gmail.com>
<380691.90576.qm@web45804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211135q1ca42df7qfd79419d06af4a8@mail.gmail.com>
K: No, dear ol man. You obviously either didn't read, or can't read, my
words below.
Speaking of age - you must be close to 70 now. How was your lunch with that
young girl? What was it you said you had for lunch?
On Dec 21, 2007 2:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You need/want ME to read a book for YOU to express 'your' thoughts on that
> neuroplastic stuff??
>
> You cant post YOUR idemages on this topic to the list in a few sentences
> or a few more w/o the crutch of someone else(s book)??
>
> ol lady, you are so shaki?
>
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> K: If you're so anxious, why not buy the book and read it? Otherwise,
> you'll just have to wait on my piecemeal postings.
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 2:06 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > can i please seehear some stuff(ing) first before i can
> > make-up-my-mind (neuroplastics) if i want to dobe:
> > "scrared" ;-)
> >
> > what are you proposing to do with neuroplastics?
> >
> > and, almost booder:
> >
> > HOW (exACTly)?
> >
> > Via surgery??
> >
> > Via education??
> >
> > Put some stuff in the public water-supply?
> >
> > Be specific, please... i am (almost) on my knees ;____}}
> >
> > )(
> >
> > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > K: Peter, why are YOU scared of it?
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2007 1:27 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Ka, why are YOU into that neuroplastic-stuff?
> > >
> > > humanimal
> > >
> > >
> > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> *wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm looking for bohm's ideas ...
> > > According to Norman Doidge, ...
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
> > >
> > >
> > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Irene
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
> > it now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/71a1874f/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:36:27 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:43:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] will i am wants to be "done" (with you)
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211121l4e766c6fk464eb26fcc7642e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <837010.82033.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
you (dont)know what the beauty(beast >>beausty) of all this is, bones:
"peter" does not go 'away' just by the will-i-ammmms of this whirld unsubing them
ovr & ovr & ovr
and you (dont)know why?
for the very (no-brainer) reason: that the "peter" ARE tas, are a part of tas, are an expression (implicated order, explicated order... does/tas that ring a bell a round here :--??)
the "peters" of this, y'our, whirld 're:
SYSTEMATIC
---sometice ii seriously doubts any of the bones here have ever touch bohm, or have been touched by him, penetrated ---- what a bunch of klowns, clones ::::----))))
~
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Peter, if they do unsubscribe you, I know you will subscribe again. But think. You'll just have to keep silent or change your tone anyway or you'll get unsubbed all over again.
Creative people can find more than one way to make their points. And I know you're creative.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
a _ done with what?
b _ and how? by suppression? repression? what a feast: hey william, by any chance, ahve you read some bohm lately.... ever? what a joke. choke. jokker...
~
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
...He [will i am] would like to just unsubscribe you and be done with it.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/c3039292/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:36:53 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:43:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
In-Reply-To: <380451.32102.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W2556969448CC65FE5B90A3DC5E0@phx.gbl>
<380451.32102.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211136h2b858a4at63d5d58bbc941c8a@mail.gmail.com>
K: Speaking of pretending, that comment tells me you know more about brain
plasticity than you let on.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:31 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> and: 'worse'/'better' yet: that also changes (--not just-- like the
> weather: --))
>
> )(
>
>
> *rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>* wrote:
>
> there is no good or bad art. Just stuff you like and stuff you don't.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:54:23 -0800
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> As I said, Art Acts. And there are all kinds of art. But there is no such
> animal as good art or bad art. There is only art and non-art.
> don
>
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:01 PM, rob mooney wrote:
>
> "poems are epiphanic documents and show the writer in the process of *
> making* their discoveries, so that the reader can re-enact and re-live
> them, not merely feel their after effects or learn the poet's wise
> conclusions."
>
> (Don patterson)
>
> I expect this goes for C++, painting, music, dancing, sculpture,
> photography, millenery, etc. Maybe even when Don F chooses a tee shirt...
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:22:32 -0500
>
> IS*meaningful*TM to say the answer to these questions is yes, and to say
> that Bohm, talking about infinite subtlety and when he says it is as far "in
> there" inside the atom as it is "out there" through the universe
> substantiates the view I'm trying to learn how to explicate.
>
> Where or what is the *personal identity* while being sensitive enough to
> "hear" the direction that amounts to improv?
>
> Once again, my programming friend says there is *no identity movement*while writing code. If there was, he would be unable to write code because
> C++, he says, is not the language appropriate for the *personal identity*.
> That is, personal identity simply has no meaning in the Visual Basic or C++
> language.
>
> Are you aware of Irene's *personal identity* *movement* while doing
> improv? -- dl
>
>
> \ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 5:32 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
>
> I: We're getting into the idea of Nada Brahma, now. And to say more, I'd
> have to go get my book.
>
> It would have been more accurate to say one creates a time-space line when
> one moves, I think.
>
> Why do all the good things happen at once? I'm working on Bach Goldberg.
> My Eurhythmics teacher is giving a three day workshop soon on what an
> improviser can learn from them, and I'm preparing for it. I would love to
> have heard Bach sit down and jam with Paquito d'Rivera; throw in Sidney
> Bechet for good measure on clarinet, and Eugene Ysaye on violin.
>
> On Dec 17, 2007 5:22 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>
> I: Every time you move you are creating explicate time-space.
>
> What about the idea that *every time you move, you are using time and
> space*?
>
> Is there time and space absent homo-sappo, prior to homo-sappo? Perhaps
> more precisely, is there some *actuality* indicated by time and space that
> is prior to homo-sappo? -- dl
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 4:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
>
> I: Every time you move you are creating explicate time-space. And
> imagination has its place when it's not out of balance.
>
> On Dec 17, 2007 4:47 PM, Lynne Tolk < lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
> wrote:
>
> To be or not to be? Is there a choice? Is the question the problem?
> What about yes? (form is emptiness, emptiness is form; explicate is
> implicate is explicate?)
>
>
> On 12/17/07 12:56 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>
> the old old thought occurs -- no us? -- Rob
>
> Maybe. I've been using the idea of *imagination*, thought to think of the
> *identity of things* including us.
>
> I think I'm beginning to understand something like the idea of *all this
> that is* as *unknown* and thought equating with the *imaged known*, with
> the language or *knowing system* of *imagination*.
>
> It's a bit spooky to think that us is not. That is, the *notness or non
> being* must be addressed. The anxiety does not go away simply by acting
> and pretending it is not there.
>
> Maybe one way to avoid the anxiety of non being is to understand the idea
> that *relative being is part of the whole of Being. * dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 2:37 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
>
> The thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could there
> be *no* space?
>
> the old old thought occurs -- no us?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500
>
> if there is no space time tea cake etc aren't we wasting our... um...
> breath
>
> The thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could there
> be *no* space? Maybe we could say that it is only a *useful concept* and
> use while being aware that it is *limited*.
>
> Would that be in the direction of *unlimited experience*? -- dl
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
> ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!<http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
> Charades! <http://www.searchcharades.com/>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/ba656cba/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:37:30 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:44:25 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice"
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211123l7357b6a6i5a16e3c62a267387@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <494455.6447.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Thats why you DIDONT 'get' (bohm)dialogue, doll ;--)
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: I'm having to bite my tongue to keep from making a wise ass comment.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:16 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
ka, stupid question, 'who', no: what, no:HOWHAT actually (could) activate what you call (shophophop a round as): "proprioception" & "suspension" ... do you have any REAL-life-examples, please, or (just) this super&facial make&uppy pepp&talk?
can bohm dialogue, "ever", dobe: REAListictictic?
cheers
)(
Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Sounds right to me. I think proprioception and suspension need to take notice of what people believe ....
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/c9170553/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:38:26 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:45:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <854711.41664.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211111g6efce3a3meb3e3140a17ac3f6@mail.gmail.com>
<854711.41664.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211138jdf89306l4691c588989cc2f@mail.gmail.com>
K: You ARE nice. I know it from experience. Why are you pretending that
side of you doesn't exist?
On Dec 21, 2007 2:25 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ka wants someone else, someboind else to PLAY (pretend, hi don lay) YOUR
> game.... to be'come a(s) phonirene (as kathirene)?
>
> O boy, O kay
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> Please, Peter. You can be so nice, even while saying what's on your mind.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/944fb983/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:39:19 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:46:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211125y7faf3650w7add5c7bb6730354@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <932805.93761.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
kathirenes, do yous have any idemage of what TAS 'is'... what it DOES (dobes)?
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Oh Rob, are you by any chance one of Peter's "i", "ii" or "iii's"?
On Dec 21, 2007 2:18 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
oh Irene. Sarcasm?
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:36 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
I: It's the 'good stuff' you cut off. I have no idea what it's referring to.
Time out. Gotta dispose of old microwave.
On Dec 18, 2007 8:08 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
no I didn't Irene.
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:41:58 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
I: Rob, you cut off dl's message you're responding to. Please don't.
On Dec 18, 2007 7:29 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
this is good stuff Don. you seem to be saying IT IS without acting or pretending
---------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:06:58 -0500
I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things. -- Rob
Me too! I believe it is ultimately important!
DB says that nothing can be without meaning. Of course, the question ... What is meaning? !!
I believe folk wisdom holds that meaning is what is meant to be, and maybe this means what is intended.
Thus, we say the whole of Being is whatever IT intends to be ... or what it is intending.
What's that?
Look around. Feel it, listen to it, taste it ... etc. This is it, whatever IT IS, this is it simply because there is no other actuality. Is there? -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl
I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things.
---------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:21 -0500
Rob: I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending
dl: Maybe so. Thought, however, presents the idea that what we act and pretend is the known, the repeated, but there is always the new, maybe New Being that is experienced as not the same old known roles, etc.
Rob: I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity?
I think so
and also maybe even when acting and pretending
I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
---------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:02 -0500
I can feel those final grains of self aggrandizement flying out of my pores from the morning readings. -- Funny
Does the experience of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " precede the experience of the identity processes being suspended, being held in suspension?
If so, then maybe the meaning of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " might be that identity has limited meaning.
Then what is the meaning of someone talking about "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores "? Could it be to demonstrate meaning?
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity?
Resonance anyone? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
When the identity movement is suspended, experience of being does not cease.
Then, it becomes clear that ontic intelligence does not have to be personalized as Bohm indicates, I believe in the interview with Weber.
Watching the identity movement (thought), awareness of the identity thought may and does at times suspend the identity processes.
Maybe we should say when awareness clearly presents the reasoning that identity processes are not needed, then that awareness suspends the unneeded processes. Later, when awareness of need occurs, then the identity processes recur.
It appears that the I identity is not needed for identity suspension. That's the way it seems to me, to this identity when the identity processes are present.
Resonance anyone ..., all you outer identities "out there"? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/cb0ae5b5/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:40:40 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:47:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice"
In-Reply-To: <494455.6447.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211123l7357b6a6i5a16e3c62a267387@mail.gmail.com>
<494455.6447.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211140r558c5c08u4da3207a985c6810@mail.gmail.com>
K: No love, that's why you keep getting bounced.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:37 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thats why you DIDONT 'get' (bohm)dialogue, doll ;--)
>
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> K: I'm having to bite my tongue to keep from making a wise ass comment.
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 2:16 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ka, stupid question, 'who', no: what, no:HOWHAT actually (could)
> > activate what you call (shophophop a round as): "proprioception" &
> > "suspension" ... do you have any REAL-life-examples, please, or (just) this
> > super&facial make&uppy pepp&talk?
> >
> > can bohm dialogue, "ever", dobe: REAListictictic?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > )(
> >
> >
> >
> > *Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > K: Sounds right to me. I think proprioception and suspension need to
> > take notice of what people believe ....
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/35270bf2/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:42:52 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:49:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211126m7a0db80ex4c3f51f616ba0772@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <858705.62130.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Of course you "dont"
But do you, seriously, expect me or anyboind else here, to read "YOUR" books [which, you sort of change like the latest fashion/religion].. or another pile of books on some subject to look at it here at BD..... so so Funny, since it is you who always bitches about susan not being a (big)bohm reader.... you phonirene ;-)
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: No, I don't have to quote specifics. YOU need to do your own work.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:17 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
well, lets see (hear): tell us the specific "insult(ing)", and lets take it from there... the examination... the dialogue
context, please!
cheers, ~
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Does insulting people make them receptive to new ideas, to change, to self examination?
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/5ee3d1cc/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 20:47:02 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:54:02 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1>
<030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W1AF0C2F9F5FF2C9EF3F5CDC5E0@phx.gbl>
well said Irene. i thought i didn't care one way or the other but now i think you are right: 'patience, understanding, forgiveness and commitment'. Okay, that sounds good.
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:58:35 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and lessI: I would like to pose a few questions and submit comments for consideration on this topic.Susan: Spamming and trolling are neither interesting or respectful. ME: We don't have that now. And all lists are susceptible to it. AllanM: We can keep this respectful while remaining challenging, right?I: Yes, and that shouldn't require a playground supervisor. Hmmmmmmm........well, it sounds interesting. If anyone is interested in this or has any ideas about it please email me at Susan.Joy@att.net K: I don't think this should be done 'privately'. I think it should be openly and thoroughly discussed here on the list. Not the least of the issues is how the 'alternative list' proposes to honor Bohm's design and philosophy. Susan, specifically how would you describe the responsibilities of a moderator, and what actions would you take to fulfill them? William: The second list would have to be different from the current one otherwise there is no point in doing it. Each should have another emphasis. The idea is to enrich the dialogue culture and make it more open to people with diverse interests. K: I agree that diversity is essential, but I think we have to think really clearly about this. As an article Peter Allen posted a couple of days ago pointed out, the internet makes it easy for 'birds of a feather to flock together', isolate themselves, and insulate themselves against new and diverse ideas. I fear this can happen in this proposed 'new' group. How would the group guard against that happening? How can or does the present group guard against that? The prime focus as I understand it, is to learn to watch thought in process so we can question our assumptions and actions in order to make this world a better place, by using Bohm's map of thinking, and updating it when necessary. Such focus doesn't exclude anyone but those who don't want to spend their time doing that. Unless, perhaps, they get the idea that we are a guru-driven worship group, and it conflicts with their religious beliefs. W: There are probably many people interested in Bohm dialogue but find it difficult to join a what at first glance appears to be a crazy bunch. K: What do you specifically see as constituting 'crazy' in our behavior? People I have mentioned the list to are initially interested, and ask how often and what time the group meets online. They want to 'instant message' so it feels 'real', and they don't want to spend much time doing it. They absolutely don't want to do it every day for hours at a time like we do. Once a week is an absolute max. Some have said that it takes a very mature person to even be attracted to such a dialogue, and that there aren't many of those/mature people around. Others have said it requires an advanced level of thinking that most people just don't do. I have also noticed that newcomers don't get much of a warm welcome, no orientation, and little encouragement to participate. A little more attention to their needs might help.W: My suggestion is to make the new list an alternative to the old one, perhaps by being a bit more conventional with regard to use of language and style. K: 'Conventional' in what way? What specific vocabulary would you omit? How would you prescribe 'style'? Would you give an example of what you see as 'ideal' style?I notice that today we have some scientific input. I'm not a scientist, and equations are not my strong suite, but I shall read and try to comprehend, and ask questions because it will add to meaning. W: The current list has developed a special jargon of its own. K: Would you please describe the characteristics of this jargon, and give an example of how you'd like to see it change?A: Do we all agree not (:-?) on that Don de'serves another (few) outlet(s).... to get his act of "pretenting&acting" to gether and on stagKe? K: I'm not religious, but there are some thinkgs that came from the Bible that form part of my value system. One is the story of the prodigal son, another is the moat & beam in your eye one. Yet another is the admonition to 'bear one another's burdens'. Or how about the song "Reach Out and Touch Somebody's Hand, make this world a better place, if you can." Yes, it requires patience, understanding, forgiveness, and committment. I hope to hear further comments.
On Dec 18, 2007 9:55 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Except this seems to be about a face to face group which leaves out the idea of an internet group where there can be spamming and trolling. Spamming and trolling are neither interesting or respectful.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Allan
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:59 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
A dialogue group must be open. It must be available to the input of all opinions and individuals from all kinds of cultural and ideational backgrounds.. Silencing certain people and allowing others to speak....is that really how you want to conduct affairs?? That seems to me to be closed-minded. Certainly, people can choose what they want to accept or dismiss. Accepting or rejecting a person altogether, is a different matter. Acceptance fosters understanding. Isn't that what we are here for? Peter may test the boundaries, and doesn't growth occur at the edges? As a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, we should not censor another's ideas by banning them from the forum.The only rule there should be is that posts containing abusive content gets deleted. We can keep this respectful while remaining challenging, right?
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/aa03856f/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:47:06 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:54:04 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211131n4f171fb7kbf760fe26519d1c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <296102.61514.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
ahhh, whats that: "putdowns"
lets see, for example (you k'now, ii likes real&life xample):
if someone calls YOU, kathirene : "FAT" when you are clearly, medically, scientifically thatL fat (see BMI):
then
this would be a "putdown"?
but calling you, same person, same fat, same body, same weight etc:
"obese"
that would be just... shall we say: swell??
haha
this is gettingtong booder n booder by the minutemaxute
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Very simple. No putdowns. If you are really here to participate in examination of thinking, not on a vengeance mission. I know it hurt when they closed down the list, but can't you just say "It hurt." And get on with life here? I think Don was pretty clear in that he values what you COULD contribute. It's your manner that sucks.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:22 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
"tact": ... as in.... ?.... mitlaeufer?
"peopleskills":.... as in... ?..... neckmassaging?.... kissinass? ..... stickingheadinrears??
you know whats 'funny', just yesterday you asked susan to explain the new 'style' she envision for the 'new' group..... and you do the same thinkg: all abstract..... all blabla.... so lets hear, ka: how would you like for folks to behave (=THINK) in this group... and what that has to do with the essence of B-dialogue. Lets hear.
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Does insulting people make them receptive to new ideas, to change, to self examination? I know you think you're just 'telling it like it is', but you and I clashed on this when you were Zoe. Use a little tact, please.
What are 'they' waiting for? Maybe to see whether or not you've developed any people skills!
On Dec 21, 2007 1:53 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
hi ka,
few thinkgs:
a _ what's your take about williams re'flexing, as you (shyly) sketched it.... can you fine-brush some?
b _ "wait and see"... what for? for jesus christ to return? for amagedon? for the mars-landing? for immortality?
c _ & how does all that explain the group also ignoring the reflexions you have and do offere as far as whats going on|off here right now..... whats the heart (at the core) of (bohm)dialogue for you?
d _ "power"..... to (un)do what, exactly?... to, maybe, display some of their denials and phoninessmesses?
humanimal
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Mornin' peter & all. That sounds like an offer I can't refuse. I shall aim for posting it no later than tomorrow morning's coffee.
It seems significant that a proposed conference on Bohm's Legacy is ignoring dialogue. Why is that?
As for your "b" - 'all'? How many is that?! I don't like to generalize without really having facts to go on. I can't help thinking, though, it's related to past history with you. Is it coincidental that William proposes a new list the moment you declare your presence? Seems like a pattern. A reflex. I'd like to think that the silences are at least a "wait and see" attitude as far as interacting with you, if that is true.
Another cause could be a subliminal self concept as a 'follower' in a group that is supposed to be based on equality, and mutual responsibility. And THAT should be dialogged. Maybe they are waiting for the 'leaders' to accept or reject you.
It could be "I don't want to alienate the group" if they think they need to flee from you!
Frankly, I think they give you too much power.
People like us, pit, are often thought of as pariahs. Pat shouldn't get exclusive use of 'funny'. There's a 'funny club' that forms in other people's minds, and those who dare to say "The emperor is naked" are automatically elected to it.
Oh, I almost forgot. You posted a striking 'white noise' url. I had no idea how much damage it causes until I read about it in brain plasticity. Didn't even know what it was, really. Need to go back and try to see what you were saying in that post.
My respect for df continues in place. He is not only a gentleman, but (I understand you were merciless towards him) he has reached out to interact with you, as you have with him. I truly hope that develops well.
Am looking forward to your crosspost. Meanwhile Bach calls. Yesterday, I found a recording of Keith Jarrett performing the Goldberg on a harpsichord! Haven't listened yet, but Jarrett is a foremost jazz improviser. What will Jarrett see-hear that Glen Gould and I haven't?
ok - turning on the email notified, and starting Bach.
On Dec 21, 2007 9:39 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
Ciao Ka & all, few thinkgs
a _ neuroplastics: kath, why not just put up a little proposal on the list (where you coming from with this one, and where you might want to go with it), some meat we can bite into... instead all those abstract tit-bits (or 's that one of your in'famous annoucements you then never follow up on..... btw: how far back does that feature of yours go? teacherhood? motherhood? loverhood? childhood?)
b _ since it seems it just a few boinds @ this playground here ATM: what is your take(out), ka, why all the 'oldtimer' & 'regulars' & 'bohmfans' & 'expertialogers' -- in a moment of "crisis", as don f put is -- sticking their heads in the sssssands, ooops, of course meant: szszszzzzsssuspension
c _ will (cross)post some rather tasty stuff from another (dialog)group in a bit(e) here.... ciao bones
humanimal
Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere.
I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone else from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying we need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat, either. Nothing from dl.
Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on why BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am happy to hear your voice, btw.
Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain neuroplasticity. Would love to get some scientists in that field interested in TAS, and on this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein from the latest research findings. Among other important assumptions, the findings definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you listening? I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the first few pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice.
Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'.... 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not ('at least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it from there
c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding y'ourselves.... please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then, also, we could ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the (b'locked) flow-o-meaning that is going on here
d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will tell you differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number cruncher of this enter prise here?
e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
cheers, ~
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
ok, lets take a(nother) look:
a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on. who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it our own way, at least not for very long.
b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about all this, don
Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same overnovernover
There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to time. But not recently.
e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more accessible kind of prose.
f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst all the traffic, isn't easy.
don
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope this is only for the moment.
don
On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide. Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises questions and flags to me.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities... hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
--
---------------------------------
--
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/ad86c2d7/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:47:45 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:54:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <932805.93761.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211125y7faf3650w7add5c7bb6730354@mail.gmail.com>
<932805.93761.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211147j6dd3c1b1y9be47a025e1e3225@mail.gmail.com>
K: I have an idea of what it CAN do in many different people. My idea will
change as more experience, information and exploration is gone through. I
would welcome your ideas on that, though. And I'm not being sarcastic. I
really mean it. And if anyone else is interested, I'd be glad to translate
your language into a style they don't have to struggle with.
One thing I believe it can do is rewire the brain so we don't have to wait
for Cosmic Consciousness to solve the climate crisis. That's particularly
important since we are the microcosm of the macrocosm.
And on power, we only have power over ourselves. But when we change, we
affect all the other orders.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> kathirenes, do yous have any idemage of what TAS 'is'... what it DOES
> (dobes)?
>
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> K: Oh Rob, are you by any chance one of Peter's "i", "ii" or "iii's"?
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 2:18 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > oh Irene. Sarcasm?
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:36 -0500
> > From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> >
> > I: It's the 'good stuff' you cut off. I have no idea what it's
> > referring to.
> >
> > Time out. Gotta dispose of old microwave.
> >
> > On Dec 18, 2007 8:08 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > no I didn't Irene.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:41:58 -0500
> > From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> >
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> >
> > I: Rob, you cut off dl's message you're responding to. Please don't.
> >
> > On Dec 18, 2007 7:29 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > this is good stuff Don. you seem to be saying IT IS without acting or
> > pretending
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > From: donlay@knology.net
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:06:58 -0500
> >
> >
> > I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things. --
> > Rob
> >
> > Me too! I believe it is ultimately important!
> >
> > DB says that nothing can be without *meaning*. Of course, the question
> > ... What is meaning? !!
> >
> > I believe folk wisdom holds that *meaning* is what is *meant to be*, and
> > maybe this *means* what is *intended*.
> >
> > Thus, we say the whole of Being is whatever *IT* *intends to be ... or
> > what it is intending.*
> >
> > What's that?
> >
> > Look around. Feel it, listen to it, taste it ... etc. This is it,
> > whatever IT IS, this is it simply because there is no other actuality. Is
> > there? -- dl
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> >
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 2:59 PM
> > *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> >
> > dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to *have meaning*, *be
> > meaningful*? dl
> >
> > I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > From: donlay@knology.net
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:21 -0500
> >
> > Rob: I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending
> > **
> > dl: Maybe so. Thought, however, presents the idea that what we *act
> > and pretend* is the *known*, the *repeated*, but there is always the *new,
> > maybe New Being* that is experienced as not the same old known roles,
> > etc.
> >
> > Rob: I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is
> > allowed to say stuff I don't understand
> >
> > dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to *have meaning*, *be
> > meaningful*? dl
> >
> > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 1:20 PM
> > *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> >
> > Could it be that one more participates in *this that is* when not *acting
> > and pretending* the *social identity*?
> >
> > I think so
> > and also maybe even when acting and pretending
> >
> > I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to
> > say stuff I don't understand
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > From: donlay@knology.net
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:02 -0500
> >
> > I can feel those final grains of self aggrandizement flying out of my
> > pores from the morning readings. -- Funny
> >
> > Does the experience of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores "
> > precede the experience of the *identity processes* being suspended,
> > being held in suspension?
> >
> > If so, then maybe *the meaning* of "self aggrandizement flying out of my
> > pores " might be that *identity* has *limited** meaning*.
> >
> > Then what is the *meaning* of someone talking about "self aggrandizement
> > flying out of my pores "? Could it be to demonstrate *meaning*?
> >
> > Could it be that one more participates in *this that is* when not *acting
> > and pretending* the *social identity*?
> >
> > Resonance anyone? -- dl
> >
> >
> > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 11:27 AM
> > *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> >
> > When the *identity movement* is suspended, experience of being does not
> > cease.
> >
> > Then, it becomes clear that *ontic intelligence* does not have to be *
> > personalized* as Bohm indicates, I believe in the interview with Weber.
> >
> > *Watching* the *identity movement (thought)*, *awareness of* the
> > identity thought may and does at times *suspend* the *identity processes
> > *.
> >
> > Maybe we should say when awareness clearly presents the reasoning that *identity
> > processes* are not needed, then that awareness suspends the
> > unneeded processes. Later, when awareness of need occurs, then the *identity
> > processes* recur.
> >
> > It appears that the *I* *identity* is not needed for *identity*suspension. That's the way it seems to me, to this
> > *identity* when the *identity processes * are present.
> >
> > Resonance anyone ..., all you outer *identities* "out there"? -- dl
> >
> >
> > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!<http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/b6b5ceca/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:48:53 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:55:50 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W1AF0C2F9F5FF2C9EF3F5CDC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <132939.12268.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
hey, that sounds 'even' good here (at least 'right' now ;---))
)(
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } well said Irene. i thought i didn't care one way or the other but now i think you are right: 'patience, understanding, forgiveness and commitment'. Okay, that sounds good.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/646497aa/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:49:40 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:56:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W1AF0C2F9F5FF2C9EF3F5CDC5E0@phx.gbl>
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1>
<030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W1AF0C2F9F5FF2C9EF3F5CDC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211149k5733020ep7661b25148604e5e@mail.gmail.com>
K: It's good to have you agree. Two have more influence than one.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:47 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> well said Irene. i thought i didn't care one way or the other but now i
> think you are right: 'patience, understanding, forgiveness and commitment'.
> Okay, that sounds good.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:58:35 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
>
>
> I: I would like to pose a few questions and submit comments for
> consideration on this topic.
>
> Susan: Spamming and trolling are neither interesting or respectful.
> ME: We don't have that now. And all lists are susceptible to it.
>
> AllanM: We can keep this respectful while remaining challenging, right?
> I: Yes, and that shouldn't require a playground supervisor.
>
> Hmmmmmmm........well, it sounds interesting. If anyone is interested in
> this or has any ideas about it please email me at Susan.Joy@att.net
> K: I don't think this should be done 'privately'. I think it should be
> openly and thoroughly discussed here on the list. Not the least of the
> issues is how the 'alternative list' proposes to honor Bohm's design and
> philosophy.
> Susan, specifically how would you describe the responsibilities of a
> moderator, and what actions would you take to fulfill them?
>
> William: The second list would have to be different from the current one
> otherwise there is no point in doing it. Each should have another emphasis.
> The idea is to enrich the dialogue culture and make it more open to people
> with diverse interests.
> K: I agree that diversity is essential, but I think we have to think
> really clearly about this. As an article Peter Allen posted a couple of
> days ago pointed out, the internet makes it easy for 'birds of a feather to
> flock together', isolate themselves, and insulate themselves against new and
> diverse ideas. I fear this can happen in this proposed 'new' group. How
> would the group guard against that happening? How can or does the present
> group guard against that?
>
> The prime focus as I understand it, is to learn to watch thought in
> process so we can question our assumptions and actions in order to make this
> world a better place, by using Bohm's map of thinking, and updating it when
> necessary. Such focus doesn't exclude anyone but those who don't want to
> spend their time doing that. Unless, perhaps, they get the idea that we are
> a guru-driven worship group, and it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
>
> W: There are probably many people interested in Bohm dialogue but find it
> difficult to join a what at first glance appears to be a crazy bunch.
> K: What do you specifically see as constituting 'crazy' in our behavior?
> People I have mentioned the list to are initially interested, and ask how
> often and what time the group meets online. They want to 'instant message'
> so it feels 'real', and they don't want to spend much time doing it. They
> absolutely don't want to do it every day for hours at a time like we do.
> Once a week is an absolute max. Some have said that it takes a very mature
> person to even be attracted to such a dialogue, and that there aren't many
> of those/mature people around. Others have said it requires an advanced
> level of thinking that most people just don't do.
>
> I have also noticed that newcomers don't get much of a warm welcome, no
> orientation, and little encouragement to participate. A little more
> attention to their needs might help.
>
> W: My suggestion is to make the new list an alternative to the old one,
> perhaps by being a bit more conventional with regard to use of language and
> style.
> K: 'Conventional' in what way? What specific vocabulary would you omit?
> How would you prescribe 'style'? Would you give an example of what you see
> as 'ideal' style?
> I notice that today we have some scientific input. I'm not a scientist,
> and equations are not my strong suite, but I shall read and try to
> comprehend, and ask questions because it will add to meaning.
>
> W: The current list has developed a special jargon of its own.
> K: Would you please describe the characteristics of this jargon, and give
> an example of how you'd like to see it change?
>
> A: Do we all agree not (:-?) on that Don de'serves another (few)
> outlet(s).... to get his act of "pretenting&acting" to gether and on stagKe?
>
> K: I'm not religious, but there are some thinkgs that came from the Bible
> that form part of my value system. One is the story of the prodigal son,
> another is the moat & beam in your eye one. Yet another is the admonition to
> 'bear one another's burdens'. Or how about the song "Reach Out and Touch
> Somebody's Hand, make this world a better place, if you can." Yes, it
> requires patience, understanding, forgiveness, and committment.
>
> I hope to hear further comments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2007 9:55 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net >
> wrote:
>
> Except this seems to be about a face to face group which leaves out the
> idea of an internet group where there can be spamming and trolling.
> Spamming and trolling are neither interesting or respectful.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Allan <allan.mckenna@blueyonder.co.uk>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:59 PM
> *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
>
> A dialogue group must be open. It must be available to the input of all
> opinions and individuals from all kinds of cultural and ideational
> backgrounds.. Silencing
> certain people and allowing others to speak....is that really how you want
>
> to conduct affairs?? That seems to me to be closed-minded. Certainly,
> people can choose what they want to accept or dismiss. Accepting or
> rejecting a person altogether, is a different matter. Acceptance fosters
> understanding. Isn't that what we are here for? Peter may test the
> boundaries, and doesn't growth occur at the edges?
> As a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, we should not
> censor another's ideas by banning them from the forum.
> The only rule there should be is that posts containing abusive content
> gets deleted. We can keep this respectful while remaining
> challenging, right?
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
>
> ------------------------------
> She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!<http://www.msnsearchstar.com>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/b1809960/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:51:10 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 20:58:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <132939.12268.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W1AF0C2F9F5FF2C9EF3F5CDC5E0@phx.gbl>
<132939.12268.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211151q3e34b721i74b6a217c8786aa2@mail.gmail.com>
K: Then we are the power of three. Here's another 'three' for you, Pat.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:48 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> hey, that sounds 'even' good here (at least 'right' now ;---))
>
> )(
>
> *rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>* wrote:
>
> well said Irene. i thought i didn't care one way or the other but now i
> think you are right: *'patience, understanding, forgiveness and
> commitment'.* Okay, that sounds good.
>
> ------------------------------
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/1890edb0/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 20:53:39 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:00:36 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with "good stuff"
In-Reply-To: <738740.79088.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <20071219.131021.3184.156.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<738740.79088.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W14831BE95F99E1D42E06B4DC5E0@phx.gbl>
yup. you can have it steamed (with lettuce)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:11:19 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] staying with "good stuff"To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
seem to be
can i has that for lunch ;--O
abc
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
this is good stuff Don. you (seem to be) saying IT IS without acting or pretending (rob)
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/293f4172/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 20:54:27 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:01:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211147j6dd3c1b1y9be47a025e1e3225@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <175341.81279.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Ohhhh, do we?? Like kathiren has all way all that power over here when she 'goes through' another pint of i-i-i-i-i-i-cedream? If you have all that power, so munch power, why are you so fat, Ka? Why are you in so much pain? Why not just: "opt out"....choose NOT to have, to BE IN PAIN..... oh, its almost painful to take a break now... this is sooooo much fun... but other thinkgs to play with&in this humanimal here, too.... so, later bones, ...later, as all ways (hi will i am, you little 1/2german control-freak-out)
;--)
ciao
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
And on power, we only have power over ourselves. But when we change, we affect all the other orders.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/4576fc57/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:01:17 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:08:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Cycling
In-Reply-To: <893351.77350.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com>
<893351.77350.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W8690425C2C93501FF9729DC5E0@phx.gbl>
this is spot on
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:40:41 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Cycling
only me,
or anyboind else here observing
how (b)dialogue seem to keep
~ over + over ~
running&bumping&pumping
in the 'same' pot hole & b locks
i have often cited the case of a woman who woke up in the middle of the night hitting herself. what had happened was that she had had a stroke that damaged her sensory nerves, which would tell her what she was doing. but the stroke left the motor nerves so that she could still move her muscles. apparently she had touched herself, but since she wasnt being informed that it was her own touch she assumed right away that it was an attack by somebody else. then the more she defended the worse the attack got. when the light was turned on, the proprioception was reestablished because she could then see with her eyes what she was doing, so she stopped hitting herself. there was also a case published of another woman who somehow lost pp overnight, and couldnt move her body w/o watching every movement. she had to learn to watch very skilfully and somehow to get along, apparently that never changed. -- bohm
for xampl
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/6e0093e0/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 21:02:49 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:09:46 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <175341.81279.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211147j6dd3c1b1y9be47a025e1e3225@mail.gmail.com>
<175341.81279.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211202w70e86e68g4a9b43a7e6132572@mail.gmail.com>
Why not just: "opt out"....choose NOT to have, to BE IN PAIN..
K: Peter, shall we dialogue that? It sounds very important to me. I don't
opt out because I'm having too much fun in this explicate order. I don't
have everything I want, but I have more than what i need. And i can see the
beauty as well as the pathos of life. I'm really not in pain. But I don't
know about others. And I truly worry about you. Talk to us about pain.
Your pain. Nobody will ridicule you. Susan has a website about that, I
believe, that i didn't read. Did you?
Between you and me, I wonder if the obesity crisis started with the
appearance of AIDS. People are afraid and have turned to substitutes and
sublimations. Doidge has a lot to say about pornography.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:54 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ohhhh, do we?? Like kathiren has all way all that power over here when she
> 'goes through' another pint of i-i-i-i-i-i-cedream? If you have all that
> power, so munch power, why are you so fat, Ka? Why are you in so much pain?
> Why not just: "opt out"....choose NOT to have, to BE IN PAIN..... oh, its
> almost painful to take a break now... this is sooooo much fun... but other
> thinkgs to play with&in this humanimal here, too.... so, later bones,
> ...later, as all ways (hi will i am, you little 1/2german control-freak-out)
>
> ;--)
>
> ciao
>
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
>
> And on power, we only have power over ourselves. But when we change, we
> affect all the other orders.
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/5ec1a524/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 21:05:06 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:12:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Cycling
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W8690425C2C93501FF9729DC5E0@phx.gbl>
References: <c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com>
<893351.77350.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<BAY123-W8690425C2C93501FF9729DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211205lf67062bi201e214080fa047@mail.gmail.com>
K: Me, too. Would somebody like to start naming the potholes so we can be
aware of them as we writealog?
On Dec 21, 2007 3:01 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> this is spot on
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:40:41 -0800
> From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Cycling
>
>
>
> only me,
> or anyboind else here observing
> how (b)dialogue seem to keep
> ~ over + over ~
> running&bumping&pumping
> in the 'same' pot hole & b locks
>
>
>
> *i have often cited the case of a woman who woke up in the middle of the
> night hitting herself. what had happened was that she had had a stroke that
> damaged her sensory nerves, which would tell her what she was doing. but the
> stroke left the motor nerves so that she could still move her muscles.
> apparently she had touched herself, but since she wasnt being informed that
> it was her own touch she assumed right away that it was an attack by
> somebody else. then the more she defended the worse the attack got. when the
> light was turned on, the proprioception was reestablished because she could
> then see with her eyes what she was doing, so she stopped hitting herself.
> there was also a case published of another woman who somehow lost pp
> overnight, and couldnt move her body w/o watching every movement. she had to
> learn to watch very skilfully and somehow to get along, apparently that
> never changed. -- bohm*
>
>
> for xampl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!<http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/e6ea2ded/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:07:16 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:14:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
In-Reply-To: <005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W20EB798139B18042747916DC5E0@phx.gbl>
There is no difficulty to the understanding here, is there? I love Matisse.
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our PoemDate: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:20:16 -0500
When Matisse was asked in a 1942 radio interview why he painted, he said: "Why, to translate my emotions, my feelings, and the reactions of my sensibility into color and design, which neither the most perfect camera, even in color, nor the cinema can do. ... [Artists are] useful because they can augment color and design through the richness of their imagination intensified by their emotion and their reflection on the beauties of nature, just as poets or musicians do."Quote source: Matisse on Art, edited by Jack D. Flam, page 92
Anyone understand this? -- dl
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/476bc6b5/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Fri Dec 21 21:09:03 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:16:04 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
References: <c47283890712211100m3d7b2957j9bc08ff11aee3a79@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <476C1D5F.000009.01152@VAIO-584793128F>
>K: William, have you studied any of this research? If so, it would be
most helpful to hear where and why you disagree.
No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me from answering
the second part of your question.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/a03c535d/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:12:41 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:19:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
In-Reply-To: <007a01c842b7$4987e3f0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com><005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01>
<7E56CA9A-70FA-40B6-AB05-7D28A6724F19@dc.rr.com>
<007a01c842b7$4987e3f0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W317E9FD498B492567A214FDC5E0@phx.gbl>
it could really almost be any of them but I like the snail (tho it's not a painting)
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our PoemDate: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:20:35 -0500
What is the meaning ... referencing understand?
Do you mean that you stand under his articulated position?
Which Matisse painting do you suppose might best suggest his augmenting "color and design through the richness of ... [his] imagination intensified by [his] emotion and ... reflection on the beauties of nature"?
I'll send you my supposition in a few minutes ... maybe, since I may be unable to stay awake for a few minutes -- but I'm trying to make it into a jpg that I can send. -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
On Dec 19, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Don Lay wrote:
When Matisse was asked in a 1942 radio interview why he painted, he said: "Why, to translate my emotions, my feelings, and the reactions of my sensibility into color and design, which neither the most perfect camera, even in color, nor the cinema can do. ... [Artists are] useful because they can augment color and design through the richness of their imagination intensified by their emotion and their reflection on the beauties of nature, just as poets or musicians do."Quote source: Matisse on Art, edited by Jack D. Flam, page 92
Anyone understand this? -- dl
I do.
don
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/f4e03957/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 21:13:58 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:20:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
In-Reply-To: <476C1D5F.000009.01152@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <c47283890712211100m3d7b2957j9bc08ff11aee3a79@mail.gmail.com>
<476C1D5F.000009.01152@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211213m6de987c7s6fb6d04e086a0732@mail.gmail.com>
K: Thanks for the answer. It does seem that a theory should take into
consideration the most valid scientific research available.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:09 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
> >K: William, have you studied any of this research? If so, it would
> be most helpful to hear where and why you disagree.
>
> No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me from answering
> the second part of your question.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/ba01c000/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:14:10 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:21:06 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
In-Reply-To: <008501c842b8$660ccdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com><005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01>
<7E56CA9A-70FA-40B6-AB05-7D28A6724F19@dc.rr.com>
<008501c842b8$660ccdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W1128F4F1128F7198F273C0DC5E0@phx.gbl>
okay that's a good one too.
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our PoemDate: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:28:32 -0500
Henri Matisse, La Danse (second version), 1909 Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/38f6572f/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:15:14 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:22:11 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem, More visual poetry
In-Reply-To: <009b01c842b8$98b93770$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com><005401c8429e$19507b70$b5c16018@DL01><7E56CA9A-70FA-40B6-AB05-7D28A6724F19@dc.rr.com>
<008501c842b8$660ccdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
<009b01c842b8$98b93770$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W611C4BB293DD5490D61B9DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Madame Matisse is REAL
From: donlay@knology.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem, More visual poetryDate: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:29:58 -0500
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/2a1bb454/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:17:27 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:24:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] System(a tictictic)&Failure?
In-Reply-To: <159206.26581.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <6696F445-08DA-43FD-8295-FC478C5719EF@dc.rr.com>
<159206.26581.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W40BA65C03FB293E2197815DC5E0@phx.gbl>
yes. quite right. you are all right.
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:34:57 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: [Bohm_Dialogue] System(a tictictic)&Failure?
Mind-blowing(?):
Let's take a look:
There is a group, called "Bohm_Dialogue".
Online they (pretend to) look at David Bohm's proposals etc regarding dialogue, communication, incoherence, blocks, reflexes...
One Day
One Member
Of the group pop us his head/hand and says: I don't like THIS dialogue. Lets open another (group). (And thus, utterly, missing the point of what Bohm's work 's about).
So what does the group to in response?
More'o'less: Zip. Nada. Nix.
All those dialogue-big-wigs who usually fill the (digital) pages with their musings (for years and years): zip.
Big bunkerin-down is "angesagt".
Bigsilence (oh, ah, does ii hear some xpertzzz here szszszay: suspension )
Whas a bunch of BS, or, as peter would say (and does):
Pullpushit!
FanFunTasTicTicTic
HUmanimalian
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/f7466bcb/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:25:42 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:32:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <007b01c84321$7d5eb680$4677480c@HOME>
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1><030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME><c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com><012801c8427d$146cf7d0$ab76480c@HOME><c47283890712191247x6d690499i927680311267c4e4@mail.gmail.com><003f01c84318$adb2a020$4677480c@HOME><c47283890712200739w6292c0c5s567642cb5a0b35b2@mail.gmail.com><005301c8431f$089419f0$4677480c@HOME><c47283890712200749v67bf4464v4c5cdd70c6800095@mail.gmail.com><006701c84320$0cd613f0$4677480c@HOME>
<c47283890712200755h2fde0935s693199a5147669c6@mail.gmail.com>
<007b01c84321$7d5eb680$4677480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W373D27CBCE42AF361B3358DC5E0@phx.gbl>
how strange. I got that feeling again that two people where the same person. i don't think they are but i felt they were. I saw too that it is when people draw furthest apart - it might be angrily or flirtatiously - that they resemble each other. needs some further thought.
-- reflective troll
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and lessDate: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:00:48 -0700
I joined this group because I am fascinated by the idea of having an internet dialogue. While one on one face to face relationships are great, they are not what I joined the group for. The whole idea is to talk about what's important to us in a group setting and that's what I'm hoping for. I understand if that's too uncomfortable for you and you don't really want to try a real dialogue. But meeting the members face to face and having private conversations is not what it's about for me.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan, I just asked if we could meet when I come to the Southwest, and also asked if you'd have a phone conversation. I have no problems giving my information to anyone in a private email, and am really eager to meet group members face to face. Shall I infer that you prefer not to?
On Dec 20, 2007 10:50 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Not sure what you mean. What does writealog alone mean? And what is more real about face to face?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you? Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogueinfo: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/0305f420/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:38:48 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:45:45 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com>
References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W420F3A26AA8C0069AA47EDDC5E0@phx.gbl>
the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> > Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved > in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to > breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when > startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made.> > don> > On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:> > > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very > > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex > > situations, but even thought is not very subtle.> > ~> > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based > > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together, > > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.> > ~> > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by > > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history > > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a > > crucial point.> > ~> > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self > > - preservation.> > ~> > Instinct is an inherited reflex.> > ~> > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial > > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive > > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of > > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep > > initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates > > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward > > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another > > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the > > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is > > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and > > consequences, after which it may remain stable until further > > discrepancies occur.> > ~> > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for > > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.> > ~> >> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue> > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/c659c849/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:46:17 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:53:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <B6816300-8EFD-48F2-B8E2-F2325711C39A@dc.rr.com>
References: <360997.98794.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<B6816300-8EFD-48F2-B8E2-F2325711C39A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W285720CA2F5B30757AC796DC5E0@phx.gbl>
it's so boring! I am quite happy to keep skipping it but what a waste of humanimality
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm QuotesDate: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:48:19 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgpit, this is the sort of stuff that you do to excess and that bothers me along with other people here who do not find it all that funny. Its what got you unsubscribed all those times before. I think you have good stuff to say, but this sort of tone along with your private language makes it too distracting and difficult to take seriously. This is why I held your request for a new identity for William to look at, He would like to just unsubscribe you and be done with it. But I think, that you could play a more coherent role if you really wanted to. Coherent means here, that what you do gets the results you want, And I don't think that your stuff does that.
don
On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Funny, 's that the 'best' you can dOffer
(At the current moment of "crises", quote, here):
Go (stay) with'in'to your stack-shack-shelter ofallthose books
And, like the good childgirlpupil you have dobeebeebeen
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaall 'your' life (deutsch: musterschueler )
And copy "fleissig" lines together _ to pleasepleaseplease
Your environmentals
O boy, O pat
;-)
humanimal
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/43240d8b/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 21:49:24 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:56:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W420F3A26AA8C0069AA47EDDC5E0@phx.gbl>
References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W420F3A26AA8C0069AA47EDDC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211249r72e5efeancf12e0c3301fc75d@mail.gmail.com>
I: What definition of 'instinct' are you using. Check out the article on
it:
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/I27_INV/INSTINCT.html
On Dec 21, 2007 3:38 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too
>
> > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
> > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> >
> > Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved
> > in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to
> > breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when
> > startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made.
> >
> > don
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very
> > > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex
> > > situations, but even thought is not very subtle.
> > > ~
> > > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based
> > > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together,
> > > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.
> > > ~
> > > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by
> > > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history
> > > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a
> > > crucial point.
> > > ~
> > > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self
> > > - preservation.
> > > ~
> > > Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> > > ~
> > > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
> > > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive
> > > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of
> > > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep
> > > initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates
> > > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward
> > > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another
> > > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the
> > > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is
> > > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and
> > > consequences, after which it may remain stable until further
> > > discrepancies occur.
> > > ~
> > > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for
> > > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
> > > ~
> > >
> > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> ------------------------------
> Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!<http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/2e633fe7/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:50:12 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:57:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice"
In-Reply-To: <675158.50469.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211036j5463f043q9f38100d26a87203@mail.gmail.com>
<675158.50469.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W160EFAEEE9339BCAED6604DC5E0@phx.gbl>
for fuck sake Don just give him what he's begging you for.
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:16:00 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice"To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
ka, stupid question, 'who', no: what, no:HOWHAT actually (could) activate what you call (shophophop a round as): "proprioception" & "suspension" ... do you have any REAL-life-examples, please, or (just) this super&facial make&uppy pepp&talk?
can bohm dialogue, "ever", dobe: REAListictictic?
cheers
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Sounds right to me. I think proprioception and suspension need to take notice of what people believe ....
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/f47a647e/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:52:56 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 21:59:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211125y7faf3650w7add5c7bb6730354@mail.gmail.com>
References: <439325.58372.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<BAY123-W879FB36B103BA98E4068CDC620@phx.gbl>
<010801c840e1$de342e00$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W350E74A4BF40EED8D77188DC620@phx.gbl>
<062001c8412b$6f5f12c0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W16E8AE638BF5DDE8487711DC5C0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712181641je29040boeb7cccac299fabf6@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W150CBE15C832D75770BDCDDC5C0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712181715o786bbc2fqfc77f5af96f716df@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W17395F01D87EE2A9FE85BADC5E0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712211125y7faf3650w7add5c7bb6730354@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W32788C55CFBC896D5F3BA0DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Look at my spelling Kathryn. I am not anybody.
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:25:42 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementK: Oh Rob, are you by any chance one of Peter's "i", "ii" or "iii's"?
On Dec 21, 2007 2:18 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
oh Irene. Sarcasm?
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:36 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementI: It's the 'good stuff' you cut off. I have no idea what it's referring to.Time out. Gotta dispose of old microwave.
On Dec 18, 2007 8:08 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
no I didn't Irene.
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:41:58 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementI: Rob, you cut off dl's message you're responding to. Please don't.
On Dec 18, 2007 7:29 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
this is good stuff Don. you seem to be saying IT IS without acting or pretending
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:06:58 -0500
I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things. -- Rob
Me too! I believe it is ultimately important!
DB says that nothing can be without meaning. Of course, the question ... What is meaning? !!
I believe folk wisdom holds that meaning is what is meant to be, and maybe this means what is intended.
Thus, we say the whole of Being is whatever IT intends to be ... or what it is intending.
What's that?
Look around. Feel it, listen to it, taste it ... etc. This is it, whatever IT IS, this is it simply because there is no other actuality. Is there? -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things.
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:21 -0500
Rob: I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending
dl: Maybe so. Thought, however, presents the idea that what we act and pretend is the known, the repeated, but there is always the new, maybe New Being that is experienced as not the same old known roles, etc.
Rob: I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity? I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:02 -0500
I can feel those final grains of self aggrandizement flying out of my pores from the morning readings. -- Funny
Does the experience of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " precede the experience of the identity processes being suspended, being held in suspension?
If so, then maybe the meaning of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " might be that identity has limited meaning.
Then what is the meaning of someone talking about "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores "? Could it be to demonstrate meaning?
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity?
Resonance anyone? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
When the identity movement is suspended, experience of being does not cease.
Then, it becomes clear that ontic intelligence does not have to be personalized as Bohm indicates, I believe in the interview with Weber.
Watching the identity movement (thought), awareness of the identity thought may and does at times suspend the identity processes.
Maybe we should say when awareness clearly presents the reasoning that identity processes are not needed, then that awareness suspends the unneeded processes. Later, when awareness of need occurs, then the identity processes recur.
It appears that the I identity is not needed for identity suspension. That's the way it seems to me, to this identity when the identity processes are present.
Resonance anyone ..., all you outer identities "out there"? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/23aad119/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:55:08 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:02:05 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less and less
and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211131n4f171fb7kbf760fe26519d1c1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c47283890712211106n564d2a19u2fcff3f18668170@mail.gmail.com>
<517179.93449.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<c47283890712211131n4f171fb7kbf760fe26519d1c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W31828FA0EE770C28D21565DC5E0@phx.gbl>
fuckin' 'ell how many years ago was that? move on
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:31:52 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less and less and less and..??I: Very simple. No putdowns. If you are really here to participate in examination of thinking, not on a vengeance mission. I know it hurt when they closed down the list, but can't you just say "It hurt." And get on with life here? I think Don was pretty clear in that he values what you COULD contribute. It's your manner that sucks.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:22 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
"tact": ... as in.... ?.... mitlaeufer?
"peopleskills":.... as in... ?..... neckmassaging?.... kissinass? ..... stickingheadinrears??
you know whats 'funny', just yesterday you asked susan to explain the new 'style' she envision for the 'new' group..... and you do the same thinkg: all abstract..... all blabla.... so lets hear, ka: how would you like for folks to behave (=THINK) in this group... and what that has to do with the essence of B-dialogue. Lets hear.
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Does insulting people make them receptive to new ideas, to change, to self examination? I know you think you're just 'telling it like it is', but you and I clashed on this when you were Zoe. Use a little tact, please. What are 'they' waiting for? Maybe to see whether or not you've developed any people skills!
On Dec 21, 2007 1:53 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
hi ka,
few thinkgs:
a _ what's your take about williams re'flexing, as you (shyly) sketched it.... can you fine-brush some?
b _ "wait and see"... what for? for jesus christ to return? for amagedon? for the mars-landing? for immortality?
c _ & how does all that explain the group also ignoring the reflexions you have and do offere as far as whats going on|off here right now..... whats the heart (at the core) of (bohm)dialogue for you?
d _ "power"..... to (un)do what, exactly?... to, maybe, display some of their denials and phoninessmesses?
humanimalIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Mornin' peter & all. That sounds like an offer I can't refuse. I shall aim for posting it no later than tomorrow morning's coffee.It seems significant that a proposed conference on Bohm's Legacy is ignoring dialogue. Why is that? As for your "b" - 'all'? How many is that?! I don't like to generalize without really having facts to go on. I can't help thinking, though, it's related to past history with you. Is it coincidental that William proposes a new list the moment you declare your presence? Seems like a pattern. A reflex. I'd like to think that the silences are at least a "wait and see" attitude as far as interacting with you, if that is true. Another cause could be a subliminal self concept as a 'follower' in a group that is supposed to be based on equality, and mutual responsibility. And THAT should be dialogged. Maybe they are waiting for the 'leaders' to accept or reject you. It could be "I don't want to alienate the group" if they think they need to flee from you! Frankly, I think they give you too much power.People like us, pit, are often thought of as pariahs. Pat shouldn't get exclusive use of 'funny'. There's a 'funny club' that forms in other people's minds, and those who dare to say "The emperor is naked" are automatically elected to it. Oh, I almost forgot. You posted a striking 'white noise' url. I had no idea how much damage it causes until I read about it in brain plasticity. Didn't even know what it was, really. Need to go back and try to see what you were saying in that post. My respect for df continues in place. He is not only a gentleman, but (I understand you were merciless towards him) he has reached out to interact with you, as you have with him. I truly hope that develops well. Am looking forward to your crosspost. Meanwhile Bach calls. Yesterday, I found a recording of Keith Jarrett performing the Goldberg on a harpsichord! Haven't listened yet, but Jarrett is a foremost jazz improviser. What will Jarrett see-hear that Glen Gould and I haven't? ok - turning on the email notified, and starting Bach.
On Dec 21, 2007 9:39 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
Ciao Ka & all, few thinkgs
a _ neuroplastics: kath, why not just put up a little proposal on the list (where you coming from with this one, and where you might want to go with it), some meat we can bite into... instead all those abstract tit-bits (or 's that one of your in'famous annoucements you then never follow up on..... btw: how far back does that feature of yours go? teacherhood? motherhood? loverhood? childhood?)
b _ since it seems it just a few boinds @ this playground here ATM: what is your take(out), ka, why all the 'oldtimer' & 'regulars' & 'bohmfans' & 'expertialogers' -- in a moment of "crisis", as don f put is -- sticking their heads in the sssssands, ooops, of course meant: szszszzzzsssuspension
c _ will (cross)post some rather tasty stuff from another (dialog)group in a bit(e) here.... ciao bones
humanimalIrene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone else from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying we need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat, either. Nothing from dl. Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on why BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am happy to hear your voice, btw. Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain neuroplasticity. Would love to get some scientists in that field interested in TAS, and on this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein from the latest research findings. Among other important assumptions, the findings definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you listening? I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the first few pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice. Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'.... 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not ('at least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it from there
c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding y'ourselves.... please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then, also, we could ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the (b'locked) flow-o-meaning that is going on here
d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will tell you differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number cruncher of this enter prise here?
e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
cheers, ~
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
ok, lets take a(nother) look:
a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on. who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it our own way, at least not for very long.
b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about all this, don
Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same overnovernover
There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to time. But not recently.
e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more accessible kind of prose.
f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst all the traffic, isn't easy.
don
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope this is only for the moment.
don
On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide. Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises questions and flags to me.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities... hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you? Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
--
--
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/99b00173/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 21:57:03 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:04:00 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W32788C55CFBC896D5F3BA0DC5E0@phx.gbl>
References: <439325.58372.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<BAY123-W350E74A4BF40EED8D77188DC620@phx.gbl>
<062001c8412b$6f5f12c0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W16E8AE638BF5DDE8487711DC5C0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712181641je29040boeb7cccac299fabf6@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W150CBE15C832D75770BDCDDC5C0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712181715o786bbc2fqfc77f5af96f716df@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W17395F01D87EE2A9FE85BADC5E0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712211125y7faf3650w7add5c7bb6730354@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W32788C55CFBC896D5F3BA0DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211257o6573b5caucca42515c0b7efce@mail.gmail.com>
I see.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:52 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Look at my spelling Kathryn. I am not anybody.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:25:42 -0500
>
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> K: Oh Rob, are you by any chance one of Peter's "i", "ii" or "iii's"?
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 2:18 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> oh Irene. Sarcasm?
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:36 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> I: It's the 'good stuff' you cut off. I have no idea what it's referring
> to.
>
> Time out. Gotta dispose of old microwave.
>
> On Dec 18, 2007 8:08 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> no I didn't Irene.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:41:58 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> I: Rob, you cut off dl's message you're responding to. Please don't.
>
> On Dec 18, 2007 7:29 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> this is good stuff Don. you seem to be saying IT IS without acting or
> pretending
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:06:58 -0500
>
>
> I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things. -- Rob
>
> Me too! I believe it is ultimately important!
>
> DB says that nothing can be without *meaning*. Of course, the question
> ... What is meaning? !!
>
> I believe folk wisdom holds that *meaning* is what is *meant to be*, and
> maybe this *means* what is *intended*.
>
> Thus, we say the whole of Being is whatever *IT* *intends to be ... or
> what it is intending.*
>
> What's that?
>
> Look around. Feel it, listen to it, taste it ... etc. This is it,
> whatever IT IS, this is it simply because there is no other actuality. Is
> there? -- dl
>
>
>
> *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 2:59 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to *have meaning*, *be
> meaningful*? dl
>
> I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:21 -0500
>
> Rob: I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending
> **
> dl: Maybe so. Thought, however, presents the idea that what we *act and
> pretend* is the *known*, the *repeated*, but there is always the *new,
> maybe New Being* that is experienced as not the same old known roles, etc.
>
> Rob: I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed
> to say stuff I don't understand
>
> dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to *have meaning*, *be
> meaningful*? dl
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 1:20 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> Could it be that one more participates in *this that is* when not *acting
> and pretending* the *social identity*?
>
> I think so
> and also maybe even when acting and pretending
>
> I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to
> say stuff I don't understand
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:02 -0500
>
> I can feel those final grains of self aggrandizement flying out of my
> pores from the morning readings. -- Funny
>
> Does the experience of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores "
> precede the experience of the *identity processes* being suspended, being
> held in suspension?
>
> If so, then maybe *the meaning* of "self aggrandizement flying out of my
> pores " might be that *identity* has *limited** meaning*.
>
> Then what is the *meaning* of someone talking about "self aggrandizement
> flying out of my pores "? Could it be to demonstrate *meaning*?
>
> Could it be that one more participates in *this that is* when not *acting
> and pretending* the *social identity*?
>
> Resonance anyone? -- dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 11:27 AM
> *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
>
> When the *identity movement* is suspended, experience of being does not
> cease.
>
> Then, it becomes clear that *ontic intelligence* does not have to be *
> personalized* as Bohm indicates, I believe in the interview with Weber.
>
> *Watching* the *identity movement (thought)*, *awareness of* the identity
> thought may and does at times *suspend* the *identity processes*.
>
> Maybe we should say when awareness clearly presents the reasoning that *identity
> processes* are not needed, then that awareness suspends the
> unneeded processes. Later, when awareness of need occurs, then the *identity
> processes* recur.
>
> It appears that the *I* *identity* is not needed for *identity*suspension. That's the way it seems to me, to this
> *identity* when the *identity processes * are present.
>
> Resonance anyone ..., all you outer *identities* "out there"? -- dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!<http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
> Charades! <http://www.searchcharades.com>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/7d64ce44/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 21:57:08 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:04:05 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] will i am wants to be "done" (with you)
In-Reply-To: <837010.82033.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211121l4e766c6fk464eb26fcc7642e7@mail.gmail.com>
<837010.82033.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W1251643284B6B0330D4DDDDC5E0@phx.gbl>
Don F = Pit? this would make some sense.
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:36:27 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] will i am wants to be "done" (with you)To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
you (dont)know what the beauty(beast >>beausty) of all this is, bones:
"peter" does not go 'away' just by the will-i-ammmms of this whirld unsubing them
ovr & ovr & ovr
and you (dont)know why?
for the very (no-brainer) reason: that the "peter" ARE tas, are a part of tas, are an expression (implicated order, explicated order... does/tas that ring a bell a round here :--??)
the "peters" of this, y'our, whirld 're:
SYSTEMATIC
---sometice ii seriously doubts any of the bones here have ever touch bohm, or have been touched by him, penetrated ---- what a bunch of klowns, clones ::::----))))
~
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Peter, if they do unsubscribe you, I know you will subscribe again. But think. You'll just have to keep silent or change your tone anyway or you'll get unsubbed all over again. Creative people can find more than one way to make their points. And I know you're creative.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
a _ done with what?
b _ and how? by suppression? repression? what a feast: hey william, by any chance, ahve you read some bohm lately.... ever? what a joke. choke. jokker...
~donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
...He [will i am] would like to just unsubscribe you and be done with it.
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/e08ea320/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 21:57:27 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:04:25 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice"
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W160EFAEEE9339BCAED6604DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <796188.72416.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Gen au
Gen'au
Righton!
http://tinyurl.com/yolopu
hey, santa kr aus is back in t onwned ... at least/last for a bit/bite ;0}}}
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } for fuck sake Don just give him what he's begging you for.
---------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:16:00 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice"
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
ka, stupid question, 'who', no: what, no:HOWHAT actually (could) activate what you call (shophophop a round as): "proprioception" & "suspension" ... do you have any REAL-life-examples, please, or (just) this super&facial make&uppy pepp&talk?
can bohm dialogue, "ever", dobe: REAListictictic?
cheers
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Sounds right to me. I think proprioception and suspension need to take notice of what people believe ....
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/6ebffc02/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 21:58:47 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:05:44 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
In-Reply-To: <476C1D5F.000009.01152@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <703535.16486.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
will i am is so full of ..it ...
no, wait,.... so empti ;-)
)(
w@net:
No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me ....
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/632cb25a/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 22:00:22 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:07:21 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211147j6dd3c1b1y9be47a025e1e3225@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c47283890712211125y7faf3650w7add5c7bb6730354@mail.gmail.com>
<932805.93761.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<c47283890712211147j6dd3c1b1y9be47a025e1e3225@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W3008A7969291B68314D87ADC5E0@phx.gbl>
any time I get sarcastic I really do mean it too
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:47:45 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementK: I have an idea of what it CAN do in many different people. My idea will change as more experience, information and exploration is gone through. I would welcome your ideas on that, though. And I'm not being sarcastic. I really mean it. And if anyone else is interested, I'd be glad to translate your language into a style they don't have to struggle with. One thing I believe it can do is rewire the brain so we don't have to wait for Cosmic Consciousness to solve the climate crisis. That's particularly important since we are the microcosm of the macrocosm.And on power, we only have power over ourselves. But when we change, we affect all the other orders.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
kathirenes, do yous have any idemage of what TAS 'is'... what it DOES (dobes)?
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Oh Rob, are you by any chance one of Peter's "i", "ii" or "iii's"?
On Dec 21, 2007 2:18 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
oh Irene. Sarcasm?
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:36 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementI: It's the 'good stuff' you cut off. I have no idea what it's referring to. Time out. Gotta dispose of old microwave.
On Dec 18, 2007 8:08 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
no I didn't Irene.
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:41:58 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementI: Rob, you cut off dl's message you're responding to. Please don't.
On Dec 18, 2007 7:29 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
this is good stuff Don. you seem to be saying IT IS without acting or pretending
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:06:58 -0500
I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things. -- Rob
Me too! I believe it is ultimately important!
DB says that nothing can be without meaning. Of course, the question ... What is meaning? !!
I believe folk wisdom holds that meaning is what is meant to be, and maybe this means what is intended.
Thus, we say the whole of Being is whatever IT intends to be ... or what it is intending.
What's that?
Look around. Feel it, listen to it, taste it ... etc. This is it, whatever IT IS, this is it simply because there is no other actuality. Is there? -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful ? dl I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things.
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:21 -0500
Rob: I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending
dl: Maybe so. Thought, however, presents the idea that what we act and pretend is the known, the repeated, but there is always the new, maybe New Being that is experienced as not the same old known roles, etc.
Rob: I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful ? dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity? I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:02 -0500
I can feel those final grains of self aggrandizement flying out of my pores from the morning readings. -- Funny
Does the experience of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " precede the experience of the identity processes being suspended, being held in suspension?
If so, then maybe the meaning of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " might be that identity has limited meaning.
Then what is the meaning of someone talking about "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores "? Could it be to demonstrate meaning?
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity?
Resonance anyone? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
When the identity movement is suspended, experience of being does not cease.
Then, it becomes clear that ontic intelligence does not have to be personalized as Bohm indicates, I believe in the interview with Weber.
Watching the identity movement (thought) , awareness of the identity thought may and does at times suspend the identity processes.
Maybe we should say when awareness clearly presents the reasoning that identity processes are not needed, then that awareness suspends the unneeded processes. Later, when awareness of need occurs, then the identity processes recur.
It appears that the I identity is not needed for identity suspension. That's the way it seems to me, to this identity when the identity processes are present.
Resonance anyone ..., all you outer identities "out there"? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/fda1d26e/attachment-0001.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 22:01:18 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:08:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <132939.12268.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W1AF0C2F9F5FF2C9EF3F5CDC5E0@phx.gbl>
<132939.12268.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W41026B7EBD708CAA375E3DC5E0@phx.gbl>
good but hard Whoo hahah
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:48:53 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and lessTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
hey, that sounds 'even' good here (at least 'right' now ;---))
)(rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
well said Irene. i thought i didn't care one way or the other but now i think you are right: 'patience, understanding, forgiveness and commitment'. Okay, that sounds good.
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/81184a86/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:01:49 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:08:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211257o6573b5caucca42515c0b7efce@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <34480.81883.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
i not see
i so sorry
i at tele path i sucks
i can be made seen by kath-i-i-i-is?
wht shee sheeing?
pussled, i
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I see.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:52 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Look at my spelling Kathryn. I am not anybody.
---------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:25:42 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
K: Oh Rob, are you by any chance one of Peter's "i", "ii" or "iii's"?
On Dec 21, 2007 2:18 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
oh Irene. Sarcasm?
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:36 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
I: It's the 'good stuff' you cut off. I have no idea what it's referring to.
Time out. Gotta dispose of old microwave.
On Dec 18, 2007 8:08 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
no I didn't Irene.
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:41:58 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
I: Rob, you cut off dl's message you're responding to. Please don't.
On Dec 18, 2007 7:29 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
this is good stuff Don. you seem to be saying IT IS without acting or pretending
---------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:06:58 -0500
I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things. -- Rob
Me too! I believe it is ultimately important!
DB says that nothing can be without meaning. Of course, the question ... What is meaning? !!
I believe folk wisdom holds that meaning is what is meant to be, and maybe this means what is intended.
Thus, we say the whole of Being is whatever IT intends to be ... or what it is intending.
What's that?
Look around. Feel it, listen to it, taste it ... etc. This is it, whatever IT IS, this is it simply because there is no other actuality. Is there? -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl
I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things.
---------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:21 -0500
Rob: I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending
dl: Maybe so. Thought, however, presents the idea that what we act and pretend is the known, the repeated, but there is always the new, maybe New Being that is experienced as not the same old known roles, etc.
Rob: I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity?
I think so
and also maybe even when acting and pretending
I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
---------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:02 -0500
I can feel those final grains of self aggrandizement flying out of my pores from the morning readings. -- Funny
Does the experience of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " precede the experience of the identity processes being suspended, being held in suspension?
If so, then maybe the meaning of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " might be that identity has limited meaning.
Then what is the meaning of someone talking about "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores "? Could it be to demonstrate meaning?
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity?
Resonance anyone? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
When the identity movement is suspended, experience of being does not cease.
Then, it becomes clear that ontic intelligence does not have to be personalized as Bohm indicates, I believe in the interview with Weber.
Watching the identity movement (thought), awareness of the identity thought may and does at times suspend the identity processes.
Maybe we should say when awareness clearly presents the reasoning that identity processes are not needed, then that awareness suspends the unneeded processes. Later, when awareness of need occurs, then the identity processes recur.
It appears that the I identity is not needed for identity suspension. That's the way it seems to me, to this identity when the identity processes are present.
Resonance anyone ..., all you outer identities "out there"? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
---------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/eb656a06/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 22:02:37 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:09:33 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211149k5733020ep7661b25148604e5e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1>
<030f01c841ea$8cfaf9b0$fb76480c@HOME>
<c47283890712190758y4fda14f1m93980b45160f22e6@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W1AF0C2F9F5FF2C9EF3F5CDC5E0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712211149k5733020ep7661b25148604e5e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W2220C830036D39D9B267EADC5E0@phx.gbl>
wait a minute didn't you just say you thought i was Pit too? do you want it both ways?
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:49:40 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and lessK: It's good to have you agree. Two have more influence than one.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:47 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
well said Irene. i thought i didn't care one way or the other but now i think you are right: 'patience, understanding, forgiveness and commitment'. Okay, that sounds good.
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:58:35 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: I would like to pose a few questions and submit comments for consideration on this topic. Susan: Spamming and trolling are neither interesting or respectful. ME: We don't have that now. And all lists are susceptible to it. AllanM: We can keep this respectful while remaining challenging, right? I: Yes, and that shouldn't require a playground supervisor. Hmmmmmmm........well, it sounds interesting. If anyone is interested in this or has any ideas about it please email me at Susan.Joy@att.net K: I don't think this should be done 'privately'. I think it should be openly and thoroughly discussed here on the list. Not the least of the issues is how the 'alternative list' proposes to honor Bohm's design and philosophy. Susan, specifically how would you describe the responsibilities of a moderator, and what actions would you take to fulfill them? William: The second list would have to be different from the current one otherwise there is no point in doing it. Each should have another emphasis. The idea is to enrich the dialogue culture and make it more open to people with diverse interests. K: I agree that diversity is essential, but I think we have to think really clearly about this. As an article Peter Allen posted a couple of days ago pointed out, the internet makes it easy for 'birds of a feather to flock together', isolate themselves, and insulate themselves against new and diverse ideas. I fear this can happen in this proposed 'new' group. How would the group guard against that happening? How can or does the present group guard against that? The prime focus as I understand it, is to learn to watch thought in process so we can question our assumptions and actions in order to make this world a better place, by using Bohm's map of thinking, and updating it when necessary. Such focus doesn't exclude anyone but those who don't want to spend their time doing that. Unless, perhaps, they get the idea that we are a guru-driven worship group, and it conflicts with their religious beliefs. W: There are probably many people interested in Bohm dialogue but find it difficult to join a what at first glance appears to be a crazy bunch. K: What do you specifically see as constituting 'crazy' in our behavior? People I have mentioned the list to are initially interested, and ask how often and what time the group meets online. They want to 'instant message' so it feels 'real', and they don't want to spend much time doing it. They absolutely don't want to do it every day for hours at a time like we do. Once a week is an absolute max. Some have said that it takes a very mature person to even be attracted to such a dialogue, and that there aren't many of those/mature people around. Others have said it requires an advanced level of thinking that most people just don't do. I have also noticed that newcomers don't get much of a warm welcome, no orientation, and little encouragement to participate. A little more attention to their needs might help.W: My suggestion is to make the new list an alternative to the old one, perhaps by being a bit more conventional with regard to use of language and style. K: 'Conventional' in what way? What specific vocabulary would you omit? How would you prescribe 'style'? Would you give an example of what you see as 'ideal' style?I notice that today we have some scientific input. I'm not a scientist, and equations are not my strong suite, but I shall read and try to comprehend, and ask questions because it will add to meaning. W: The current list has developed a special jargon of its own. K: Would you please describe the characteristics of this jargon, and give an example of how you'd like to see it change?A: Do we all agree not (:-?) on that Don de'serves another (few) outlet(s).... to get his act of "pretenting&acting" to gether and on stagKe? K: I'm not religious, but there are some thinkgs that came from the Bible that form part of my value system. One is the story of the prodigal son, another is the moat & beam in your eye one. Yet another is the admonition to 'bear one another's burdens'. Or how about the song "Reach Out and Touch Somebody's Hand, make this world a better place, if you can." Yes, it requires patience, understanding, forgiveness, and committment. I hope to hear further comments.
On Dec 18, 2007 9:55 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Except this seems to be about a face to face group which leaves out the idea of an internet group where there can be spamming and trolling. Spamming and trolling are neither interesting or respectful.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Allan
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:59 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
A dialogue group must be open. It must be available to the input of all opinions and individuals from all kinds of cultural and ideational backgrounds.. Silencing certain people and allowing others to speak....is that really how you want to conduct affairs?? That seems to me to be closed-minded. Certainly, people can choose what they want to accept or dismiss. Accepting or rejecting a person altogether, is a different matter. Acceptance fosters understanding. Isn't that what we are here for? Peter may test the boundaries, and doesn't growth occur at the edges? As a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, we should not censor another's ideas by banning them from the forum.The only rule there should be is that posts containing abusive content gets deleted. We can keep this respectful while remaining challenging, right? info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -- Irene
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/cc05a102/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 22:03:55 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:10:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
In-Reply-To: <703535.16486.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <476C1D5F.000009.01152@VAIO-584793128F>
<703535.16486.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211303p6380593frcddd51dc84b68ab4@mail.gmail.com>
I: Hi Pit!
btw - speaking of Googling people, I Googled William, but I can't find
anything on OUR William. There are plenty of William van den Heuvels out
there. I'd love to hear how William met Bohm, how all this ties in with his
life work, his interests, etc. I'd love to have a fuller picture of him,
actually all of us, as live people.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:58 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> will i am is so full of ..it ...
> no, wait,.... so empti ;-)
>
> )(
>
>
> w@net:
> No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me ....
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/de17dedf/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 21:57:59 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:11:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W285720CA2F5B30757AC796DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <63609.90735.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } it's so boring! I am quite happy to keep skipping .... --SKIP-- hey, welcome to the club.... everyboindoesithere. in clu ding (ding in german = thinkg) this crittr ;---,}
)(
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/fcd7442f/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 22:07:00 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:13:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211249r72e5efeancf12e0c3301fc75d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W420F3A26AA8C0069AA47EDDC5E0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712211249r72e5efeancf12e0c3301fc75d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W194E502531B431F78E77B4DC5E0@phx.gbl>
the Jungian, fairly obviously.
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:24 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm QuotesI: What definition of 'instinct' are you using. Check out the article on it:http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/I27_INV/INSTINCT.html
On Dec 21, 2007 3:38 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved > in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to > breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when > startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made. > > don> > On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:> > > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very > > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex > > situations, but even thought is not very subtle.> > ~> > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based > > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together, > > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.> > ~> > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by > > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history > > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a > > crucial point.> > ~> > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self > > - preservation.> > ~> > Instinct is an inherited reflex.> > ~> > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial > > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive > > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of > > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep > > initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates > > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward > > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another > > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the > > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is > > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and > > consequences, after which it may remain stable until further > > discrepancies occur.> > ~> > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for > > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.> > ~> >> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue> > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/b535f084/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:07:15 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:14:11 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211213m6de987c7s6fb6d04e086a0732@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200982.32743.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Yesyes, thanksthanks. Ernte&Dank&Fest:
We went to the feed store yesterday - wheat a year ago was $7 for
a 50 lb bag, then up to $9.50 recently, then $12.50 a month ago, now
$19.50. My friend in the pig industry regularily sends me stuff about
how the pork, chicken, beaf industries are worried as they don't think
they will be able to pass on all their increases in costs to consumers
who will stop buying meat if it gets too high. No, wait, mistake,
can you, could you, all of you, kindly, replace feed with fuel w thought
w thinkgs. Danke, Danke againgaingain
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Thanks for the answer. It does seem that a theory should take into consideration the most valid scientific research available.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:09 PM, william < w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
>K: William, have you studied any of this research? If so, it would be most helpful to hear where and why you disagree.
No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me from answering the second part of your question.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/3788747f/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 22:07:57 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:14:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211257o6573b5caucca42515c0b7efce@mail.gmail.com>
References: <439325.58372.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<BAY123-W350E74A4BF40EED8D77188DC620@phx.gbl>
<062001c8412b$6f5f12c0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W16E8AE638BF5DDE8487711DC5C0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712181641je29040boeb7cccac299fabf6@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W150CBE15C832D75770BDCDDC5C0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712181715o786bbc2fqfc77f5af96f716df@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W17395F01D87EE2A9FE85BADC5E0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712211125y7faf3650w7add5c7bb6730354@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W32788C55CFBC896D5F3BA0DC5E0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712211257o6573b5caucca42515c0b7efce@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W3185C604CC2C85A5B19708DC5E0@phx.gbl>
well that's your rhythms taken care of then
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:57:03 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementI see.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:52 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Look at my spelling Kathryn. I am not anybody.
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:25:42 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementK: Oh Rob, are you by any chance one of Peter's "i", "ii" or "iii's"?
On Dec 21, 2007 2:18 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
oh Irene. Sarcasm?
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:36 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementI: It's the 'good stuff' you cut off. I have no idea what it's referring to.Time out. Gotta dispose of old microwave.
On Dec 18, 2007 8:08 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
no I didn't Irene.
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:41:58 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity MovementI: Rob, you cut off dl's message you're responding to. Please don't.
On Dec 18, 2007 7:29 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
this is good stuff Don. you seem to be saying IT IS without acting or pretending
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:06:58 -0500
I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things. -- Rob
Me too! I believe it is ultimately important!
DB says that nothing can be without meaning. Of course, the question ... What is meaning? !!
I believe folk wisdom holds that meaning is what is meant to be, and maybe this means what is intended.
Thus, we say the whole of Being is whatever IT intends to be ... or what it is intending.
What's that?
Look around. Feel it, listen to it, taste it ... etc. This is it, whatever IT IS, this is it simply because there is no other actuality. Is there? -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things.
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:21 -0500
Rob: I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending
dl: Maybe so. Thought, however, presents the idea that what we act and pretend is the known, the repeated, but there is always the new, maybe New Being that is experienced as not the same old known roles, etc.
Rob: I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, be meaningful? dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity? I think so and also maybe even when acting and pretending I also have no idea what Pat meant but I know that a poet is allowed to say stuff I don't understand
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:02 -0500
I can feel those final grains of self aggrandizement flying out of my pores from the morning readings. -- Funny
Does the experience of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " precede the experience of the identity processes being suspended, being held in suspension?
If so, then maybe the meaning of "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores " might be that identity has limited meaning.
Then what is the meaning of someone talking about "self aggrandizement flying out of my pores "? Could it be to demonstrate meaning?
Could it be that one more participates in this that is when not acting and pretending the social identity?
Resonance anyone? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement
When the identity movement is suspended, experience of being does not cease.
Then, it becomes clear that ontic intelligence does not have to be personalized as Bohm indicates, I believe in the interview with Weber.
Watching the identity movement (thought), awareness of the identity thought may and does at times suspend the identity processes.
Maybe we should say when awareness clearly presents the reasoning that identity processes are not needed, then that awareness suspends the unneeded processes. Later, when awareness of need occurs, then the identity processes recur.
It appears that the I identity is not needed for identity suspension. That's the way it seems to me, to this identity when the identity processes are present.
Resonance anyone ..., all you outer identities "out there"? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/98f14627/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:12:56 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:19:54 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211303p6380593frcddd51dc84b68ab4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <979627.36051.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
ka, you 'see' (not):
ii is really not into william
ii means, against coomon dobelief here
that ii 'hates' or dislikes or whatever him:
s'he is just a(nother)voice in this
primordial soup of dialogue
--- she 's a bit of a control'freak'out, tho ;--)
but hey, whatever turns his crank &
pushis but tons
he is, after all, a creature of (2nd generation)
pass i on
wait, will clip & plug that in here
&&&, of course that didoes answer your re:quest not
shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live'
just hopp over the ocean
i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Hi Pit!
btw - speaking of Googling people, I Googled William, but I can't find anything on OUR William. There are plenty of William van den Heuvels out there. I'd love to hear how William met Bohm, how all this ties in with his life work, his interests, etc. I'd love to have a fuller picture of him, actually all of us, as live people.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:58 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
will i am is so full of ..it ...
no, wait,.... so empti ;-)
)(
w@net:
No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me ....
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/6077470a/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 22:12:22 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:20:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
In-Reply-To: <200982.32743.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211213m6de987c7s6fb6d04e086a0732@mail.gmail.com>
<200982.32743.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W1626620817EC2C370945B9DC5E0@phx.gbl>
would you like to hear some of my problems? No, wait, i sort those out myself.
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:07:15 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct questionTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Yesyes, thanksthanks. Ernte&Dank&Fest:We went to the feed store yesterday - wheat a year ago was $7 fora 50 lb bag, then up to $9.50 recently, then $12.50 a month ago, now$19.50. My friend in the pig industry regularily sends me stuff abouthow the pork, chicken, beaf industries are worried as they don't thinkthey will be able to pass on all their increases in costs to consumerswho will stop buying meat if it gets too high. No, wait, mistake,
can you, could you, all of you, kindly, replace feed with fuel w thought
w thinkgs. Danke, Danke againgaingain
AlanIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Thanks for the answer. It does seem that a theory should take into consideration the most valid scientific research available.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:09 PM, william < w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
>K: William, have you studied any of this research? If so, it would be most helpful to hear where and why you disagree. No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me from answering the second part of your question.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/dddf83a6/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 22:16:59 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:23:56 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W194E502531B431F78E77B4DC5E0@phx.gbl>
References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W420F3A26AA8C0069AA47EDDC5E0@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712211249r72e5efeancf12e0c3301fc75d@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W194E502531B431F78E77B4DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211316j118815f3ia2fb6a7918827a06@mail.gmail.com>
I: And why that one?
On Dec 21, 2007 4:07 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> the Jungian, fairly obviously.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:24 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
>
> I: What definition of 'instinct' are you using. Check out the article on
> it:
>
>
> http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/I27_INV/INSTINCT.html
>
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 3:38 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
>
> the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too
>
> > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
> > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> >
> > Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved
> > in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to
> > breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when
> > startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made.
> >
> > don
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very
> > > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex
> > > situations, but even thought is not very subtle.
> > > ~
> > > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based
> > > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together,
> > > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.
> > > ~
> > > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by
> > > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history
> > > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a
> > > crucial point.
> > > ~
> > > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self
> > > - preservation.
> > > ~
> > > Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> > > ~
> > > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
> > > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive
> > > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of
> > > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep
> > > initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates
> > > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward
> > > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another
> > > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the
> > > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is
> > > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and
> > > consequences, after which it may remain stable until further
> > > discrepancies occur.
> > > ~
> > > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for
> > > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
> > > ~
> > >
> > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> ------------------------------
> Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!<http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!<http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/8d6edab8/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 21 22:18:17 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:25:15 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our Poem
In-Reply-To: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071219.131021.3184.157.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W423C42B47B63E422EA6725DC5E0@phx.gbl>
afterwards
the streets are
dangerous, graves
and dialogue are
also temporary
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:25:41 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Our PoemFrom: ae.dropper@juno.com
The pieces shimmer with
belonging in their
temporary seats
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:53:43 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
Fullness pours out what I see
it does not seem
it all empties into white
the mounds of it - frozen overnight
in the fine snow, crystals,
worms throw up casts.
On my screen I see it blackbut I know up close you can see
the colors - LOOK- there is no black intransmittedlight.
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/de3f459a/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:24:26 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:31:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] com&passion
In-Reply-To: <979627.36051.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <57061.57555.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<tag>
>>passion , >>compassion, >>william
</tag>
this one is a "keeper":
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope with
the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" suspension
(resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You see,
at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always
suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore. Usually
the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a response
This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt
you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and they
want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always in
suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no
reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing
because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there
is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be
regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. If
you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are
effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to
communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. The
point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is
invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually your
intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode, which
however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you
reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of
compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would you
like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is
leading up to.
herr will-i-am, annos demzbros eightos twentyzerozerosevenos
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
ka, you 'see' (not):
ii is really not into william
ii means, against coomon dobelief here
that ii 'hates' or dislikes or whatever him:
s'he is just a(nother)voice in this
primordial soup of dialogue
--- she 's a bit of a control'freak'out, tho ;--)
but hey, whatever turns his crank &
pushis but tons
he is, after all, a creature of (2nd generation)
pass i on
wait, will clip & plug that in here
&&&, of course that didoes answer your re:quest not
shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live'
just hopp over the ocean
i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Hi Pit!
btw - speaking of Googling people, I Googled William, but I can't find anything on OUR William. There are plenty of William van den Heuvels out there. I'd love to hear how William met Bohm, how all this ties in with his life work, his interests, etc. I'd love to have a fuller picture of him, actually all of us, as live people.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:58 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
will i am is so full of ..it ...
no, wait,.... so empti ;-)
)(
w@net:
No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me ....
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/8ee99bba/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 22:32:11 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:39:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] com&passio
In-Reply-To: <57061.57555.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <979627.36051.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<57061.57555.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211332v7290c238x7f8e47c6ad7fc33f@mail.gmail.com>
K: Just might do that. Did I mention I may be in Dresden in June, hop on a
train to Totnes, then why not back on a train to Munich. One of our
Dalcroze people is buried in Perlmutter Forest. He was a member of the
German Resistance to Hitler. The SS caught and executed him the last day of
the war. And beheaded his nephew.
shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live'
just hopp over the ocean
i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you
On Dec 21, 2007 4:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <tag>
> >>passion , >>compassion, >>william
> </tag>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> this one is a "keeper":
>
> *I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope
> with
> the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" suspension
> (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You see,
> at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always
> suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore.
> Usually
> the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a
> response
> This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt
> you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and they
> want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always
> in
> suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no
> reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing
> because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there
> is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be
> regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. If
> you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are
> effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to
> communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways.
> The
> point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is
> invited. *
> *
> So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually your
> intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode,
> which
> however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you
> reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of
> compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would
> you
> like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is
> leading up to.*
>
> herr will-i-am, annos demzbros eightos twentyzerozerosevenos
>
>
> *"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com>* wrote:
>
> ka, you 'see' (not):
> ii is really not into william
> ii means, against coomon dobelief here
> that ii 'hates' or dislikes or whatever him:
> s'he is just a(nother)voice in this
> primordial soup of dialogue
> --- she 's a bit of a control'freak'out, tho ;--)
>
> but hey, whatever turns his crank &
> pushis but tons
>
> he is, after all, a creature of *(2nd generation)*
> *pass i on*
>
>
>
> wait, will clip & plug that in here
>
>
> &&&, of course that didoes answer your re:quest not
> shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live'
> just hopp over the ocean
> i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you
>
>
>
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> I: Hi Pit!
>
> btw - speaking of Googling people, I Googled William, but I can't find
> anything on OUR William. There are plenty of William van den Heuvels out
> there. I'd love to hear how William met Bohm, how all this ties in with his
> life work, his interests, etc. I'd love to have a fuller picture of him,
> actually all of us, as live people.
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 3:58 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > will i am is so full of ..it ...
> > no, wait,.... so empti ;-)
> >
> > )(
> >
> >
> > w@net:
> > No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me ....
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/4e839560/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:34:41 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:41:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] com&passio
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211332v7290c238x7f8e47c6ad7fc33f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <26785.21433.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Go for it, Ka
Might as well get of you fat-ooops, (no, letsnotgothere)
You big, wellbuilt rearse (while you can)
And off those key&boards
And sniff in some whirld
Ps: Herr W not in the bayerischen landes haupt stadt any longr
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Just might do that. Did I mention I may be in Dresden in June, hop on a train to Totnes, then why not back on a train to Munich. One of our Dalcroze people is buried in Perlmutter Forest. He was a member of the German Resistance to Hitler. The SS caught and executed him the last day of the war. And beheaded his nephew.
shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live'
just hopp over the ocean
i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you
On Dec 21, 2007 4:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
<tag>
>>passion , >>compassion, >>william
</tag>
this one is a "keeper":
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope with
the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" suspension
(resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You see,
at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always
suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore. Usually
the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a response
This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt
you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and they
want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always in
suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no
reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing
because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there
is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be
regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. If
you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are
effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to
communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. The
point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is
invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually your
intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode, which
however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you
reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of
compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would you
like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is
leading up to.
herr will-i-am, annos demzbros eightos twentyzerozerosevenos
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
ka, you 'see' (not):
ii is really not into william
ii means, against coomon dobelief here
that ii 'hates' or dislikes or whatever him:
s'he is just a(nother)voice in this
primordial soup of dialogue
--- she 's a bit of a control'freak'out, tho ;--)
but hey, whatever turns his crank &
pushis but tons
he is, after all, a creature of (2nd generation)
pass i on
wait, will clip & plug that in here
&&&, of course that didoes answer your re:quest not
shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live'
just hopp over the ocean
i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Hi Pit!
btw - speaking of Googling people, I Googled William, but I can't find anything on OUR William. There are plenty of William van den Heuvels out there. I'd love to hear how William met Bohm, how all this ties in with his life work, his interests, etc. I'd love to have a fuller picture of him, actually all of us, as live people.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:58 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
will i am is so full of ..it ...
no, wait,.... so empti ;-)
)(
w@net:
No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me ....
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/513b713f/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:37:14 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:44:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W1626620817EC2C370945B9DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <968744.90867.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
hey rob, cannut a'mount to much {problems}
if you can sorthemout {"handle"} them alllllaugh
by yourselves
ps: dont be so stingy, stinky, stinkgy
cant share a bit/e??
its the feast o lov, afterall, aintit?
)(
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } would you like to hear some of my problems? No, wait, i sort those out myself.
---------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:07:15 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm on instinct question
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Yesyes, thanksthanks. Ernte&Dank&Fest:
We went to the feed store yesterday - wheat a year ago was $7 for
a 50 lb bag, then up to $9.50 recently, then $12.50 a month ago, now
$19.50. My friend in the pig industry regularily sends me stuff about
how the pork, chicken, beaf industries are worried as they don't think
they will be able to pass on all their increases in costs to consumers
who will stop buying meat if it gets too high. No, wait, mistake,
can you, could you, all of you, kindly, replace feed with fuel w thought
w thinkgs. Danke, Danke againgaingain
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Thanks for the answer. It does seem that a theory should take into consideration the most valid scientific research available.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:09 PM, william < w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
>K: William, have you studied any of this research? If so, it would be most helpful to hear where and why you disagree.
No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me from answering the second part of your question.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/dcc025d2/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:40:20 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:47:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W194E502531B431F78E77B4DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <113377.12323.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
btw, Ka, would you say {"go so far"} that "instincts" are {take place with'in} your, quote, "i am personally in control"-stuff(ing)??
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } the Jungian, fairly obviously.
---------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:24 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
I: What definition of 'instinct' are you using. Check out the article on it:
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/I27_INV/INSTINCT.html
On Dec 21, 2007 3:38 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved
> in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to
> breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when
> startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very
> > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex
> > situations, but even thought is not very subtle.
> > ~
> > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based
> > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together,
> > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.
> > ~
> > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by
> > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history
> > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a
> > crucial point.
> > ~
> > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self
> > - preservation.
> > ~
> > Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> > ~
> > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
> > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive
> > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of
> > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep
> > initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates
> > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward
> > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another
> > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the
> > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is
> > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and
> > consequences, after which it may remain stable until further
> > discrepancies occur.
> > ~
> > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for
> > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
> > ~
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
---------------------------------
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/3aebbea7/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 22:41:39 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:48:36 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] com&passi
In-Reply-To: <26785.21433.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712211332v7290c238x7f8e47c6ad7fc33f@mail.gmail.com>
<26785.21433.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211341p23737e7cq692330e018f049c9@mail.gmail.com>
Ps: Herr W not in the bayerischen landes haupt stadt any longr
K: You do make me laugh. Really, I mean truly funny. That aside, how do
you know where Herr W is, and if he's not there where is he?
Oh yes, got hold of jit finally. Horse died.
On Dec 21, 2007 4:34 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Go for it, Ka
> Might as well get of you fat-ooops, (no, letsnotgothere)
> You big, wellbuilt rearse (while you can)
> And off those key&boards
> And sniff in some whirld
> Ps: Herr W not in the bayerischen landes haupt stadt any longr
>
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> K: Just might do that. Did I mention I may be in Dresden in June, hop on
> a train to Totnes, then why not back on a train to Munich. One of our
> Dalcroze people is buried in Perlmutter Forest. He was a member of the
> German Resistance to Hitler. The SS caught and executed him the last day of
> the war. And beheaded his nephew.
>
> shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live'
> just hopp over the ocean
> i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 4:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <tag>
> > >>passion , >>compassion, >>william
> > </tag>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > this one is a "keeper":
> >
> > *I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope
> > with
> > the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered"
> > suspension
> > (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You
> > see,
> > at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always
> > suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore.
> > Usually
> > the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a
> > response
> > This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt
> > you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and
> > they
> > want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always
> > in
> > suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no
> > reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing
> > because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However,
> > there
> > is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be
> > regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something.
> > If
> > you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are
> > effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to
> >
> > communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways.
> > The
> > point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is
> > invited. *
> > *
> > So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually
> > your
> > intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode,
> > which
> > however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you
> > reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of
> > compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would
> > you
> > like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this
> > is
> > leading up to.*
> >
> > herr will-i-am, annos demzbros eightos twentyzerozerosevenos
> >
> >
> > *"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com>* wrote:
> >
> > ka, you 'see' (not):
> > ii is really not into william
> > ii means, against coomon dobelief here
> > that ii 'hates' or dislikes or whatever him:
> > s'he is just a(nother)voice in this
> > primordial soup of dialogue
> > --- she 's a bit of a control'freak'out, tho ;--)
> >
> > but hey, whatever turns his crank &
> > pushis but tons
> >
> > he is, after all, a creature of *(2nd generation)*
> > *pass i on*
> >
> >
> >
> > wait, will clip & plug that in here
> >
> >
> > &&&, of course that didoes answer your re:quest not
> > shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live'
> > just hopp over the ocean
> > i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > I: Hi Pit!
> >
> > btw - speaking of Googling people, I Googled William, but I can't find
> > anything on OUR William. There are plenty of William van den Heuvels out
> > there. I'd love to hear how William met Bohm, how all this ties in with his
> > life work, his interests, etc. I'd love to have a fuller picture of him,
> > actually all of us, as live people.
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2007 3:58 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > will i am is so full of ..it ...
> > > no, wait,.... so empti ;-)
> > >
> > > )(
> > >
> > >
> > > w@net:
> > > No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me ....
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
> > >
> > >
> > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Irene
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> > Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/d0972d01/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 22:44:59 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:51:56 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <113377.12323.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W194E502531B431F78E77B4DC5E0@phx.gbl>
<113377.12323.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211344l3df36d9br24ef51eaf0c21c1a@mail.gmail.com>
K: Well, take the sexual instinct. I certainly can control how I express
it. Eating? Hmmm. A bit more complex, but it can be done. Nobody
promised us a rose garden.
How about you?
On Dec 21, 2007 4:40 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> btw, Ka, would you say {"go so far"} that "instincts" are {take place
> with'in} your, quote, "i am personally in control"-stuff(ing)??
>
>
>
> *rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>* wrote:
>
> the Jungian, fairly obviously.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:24 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
>
> I: What definition of 'instinct' are you using. Check out the article on
> it:
>
>
> http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/I27_INV/INSTINCT.html
>
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 3:38 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
>
> the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too
>
> > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
> > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> >
> > Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved
> > in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to
> > breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when
> > startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made.
> >
> > don
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very
> > > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex
> > > situations, but even thought is not very subtle.
> > > ~
> > > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based
> > > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together,
> > > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.
> > > ~
> > > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by
> > > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history
> > > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a
> > > crucial point.
> > > ~
> > > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self
> > > - preservation.
> > > ~
> > > Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> > > ~
> > > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
> > > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive
> > > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of
> > > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep
> > > initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates
> > > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward
> > > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another
> > > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the
> > > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is
> > > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and
> > > consequences, after which it may remain stable until further
> > > discrepancies occur.
> > > ~
> > > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for
> > > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
> > > ~
> > >
> > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> ------------------------------
> Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!<http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!<http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/96779854/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:48:14 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:55:11 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] will i am wants to be "done" (with you)
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W1251643284B6B0330D4DDDDC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <154104.52350.qm@web45808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
no&yes rob:
'worse'&'better"
(like in "bad" and "good" aaaaahrt):
toys (tas) ARE US
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } Don F = Pit? this would make some sense.
---------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:36:27 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] will i am wants to be "done" (with you)
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
you (dont)know what the beauty(beast >>beausty) of all this is, bones:
"peter" does not go 'away' just by the will-i-ammmms of this whirld unsubing them
ovr & ovr & ovr
and you (dont)know why?
for the very (no-brainer) reason: that the "peter" ARE tas, are a part of tas, are an expression (implicated order, explicated order... does/tas that ring a bell a round here :--??)
the "peters" of this, y'our, whirld 're:
SYSTEMATIC
---sometice ii seriously doubts any of the bones here have ever touch bohm, or have been touched by him, penetrated ---- what a bunch of klowns, clones ::::----))))
~
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Peter, if they do unsubscribe you, I know you will subscribe again. But think. You'll just have to keep silent or change your tone anyway or you'll get unsubbed all over again.
Creative people can find more than one way to make their points. And I know you're creative.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
a _ done with what?
b _ and how? by suppression? repression? what a feast: hey william, by any chance, ahve you read some bohm lately.... ever? what a joke. choke. jokker...
~
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
...He [will i am] would like to just unsubscribe you and be done with it.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/981f7382/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 22:50:47 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:57:45 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] will i am wants to be "done" (with you)
In-Reply-To: <154104.52350.qm@web45808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W1251643284B6B0330D4DDDDC5E0@phx.gbl>
<154104.52350.qm@web45808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211350x15c9a6a7le5996383ee11a379@mail.gmail.com>
K: Man, are you good!
On Dec 21, 2007 4:48 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> no&yes rob:
> 'worse'&'better"
> (like in "bad" and "good" aaaaahrt):
>
> *toys (tas) ARE US*
>
>
>
> *rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>* wrote:
>
> Don F = Pit? this would make some sense.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:36:27 -0800
> From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] will i am wants to be "done" (with you)
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> you (dont)know what the beauty(beast >>beausty) of all this is, bones:
>
> "peter" does not go 'away' just by the will-i-ammmms of this whirld
> unsubing them
>
> ovr & ovr & ovr
>
> and you (dont)know why?
>
> for the very (no-brainer) reason: that the "peter" ARE tas, are a part of
> tas, are an expression (implicated order, explicated order... does/tas that
> ring a bell a round here :--??)
>
> the "peters" of this, y'our, whirld 're:
>
> SYSTEMATIC
>
> ---sometice ii seriously doubts any of the bones here have ever touch
> bohm, or have been touched by him, penetrated ---- what a bunch of klowns,
> clones ::::----))))
>
> ~
>
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> K: Peter, if they do unsubscribe you, I know you will subscribe again.
> But think. You'll just have to keep silent or change your tone anyway or
> you'll get unsubbed all over again.
>
> Creative people can find more than one way to make their points. And I
> know you're creative.
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 2:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> a _ done with what?
>
> b _ and how? by suppression? repression? what a feast: hey william, by any
> chance, ahve you read some bohm lately.... ever? what a joke. choke.
> jokker...
>
> ~
>
> *donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>* wrote:
>
> ...He [will i am] would like to just unsubscribe you and be done with it.
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!<http://www.msnsearchstar.com/>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/d14786e7/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:44:25 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:58:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W2220C830036D39D9B267EADC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <857344.14464.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
kathirne is fond of changin*
her mind ("self&control")
and that a lot, much, munch
.....a bit(e) like she likes her ice-creaming
(ps: and if you dont like: "changin".... would "shiftin" be more quote-tactful ;;-?)
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } wait a minute didn't you just say you thought i was Pit too? do you want it both ways?
---------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:49:40 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
K: It's good to have you agree. Two have more influence than one.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:47 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
well said Irene. i thought i didn't care one way or the other but now i think you are right: 'patience, understanding, forgiveness and commitment'. Okay, that sounds good.
---------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:58:35 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: I would like to pose a few questions and submit comments for consideration on this topic.
Susan: Spamming and trolling are neither interesting or respectful.
ME: We don't have that now. And all lists are susceptible to it.
AllanM: We can keep this respectful while remaining challenging, right?
I: Yes, and that shouldn't require a playground supervisor.
Hmmmmmmm........well, it sounds interesting. If anyone is interested in this or has any ideas about it please email me at Susan.Joy@att.net
K: I don't think this should be done 'privately'. I think it should be openly and thoroughly discussed here on the list. Not the least of the issues is how the 'alternative list' proposes to honor Bohm's design and philosophy.
Susan, specifically how would you describe the responsibilities of a moderator, and what actions would you take to fulfill them?
William: The second list would have to be different from the current one otherwise there is no point in doing it. Each should have another emphasis.
The idea is to enrich the dialogue culture and make it more open to people with diverse interests.
K: I agree that diversity is essential, but I think we have to think really clearly about this. As an article Peter Allen posted a couple of days ago pointed out, the internet makes it easy for 'birds of a feather to flock together', isolate themselves, and insulate themselves against new and diverse ideas. I fear this can happen in this proposed 'new' group. How would the group guard against that happening? How can or does the present group guard against that?
The prime focus as I understand it, is to learn to watch thought in process so we can question our assumptions and actions in order to make this world a better place, by using Bohm's map of thinking, and updating it when necessary. Such focus doesn't exclude anyone but those who don't want to spend their time doing that. Unless, perhaps, they get the idea that we are a guru-driven worship group, and it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
W: There are probably many people interested in Bohm dialogue but find it difficult to join a what at first glance appears to be a crazy bunch.
K: What do you specifically see as constituting 'crazy' in our behavior?
People I have mentioned the list to are initially interested, and ask how often and what time the group meets online. They want to 'instant message' so it feels 'real', and they don't want to spend much time doing it. They absolutely don't want to do it every day for hours at a time like we do. Once a week is an absolute max. Some have said that it takes a very mature person to even be attracted to such a dialogue, and that there aren't many of those/mature people around. Others have said it requires an advanced level of thinking that most people just don't do.
I have also noticed that newcomers don't get much of a warm welcome, no orientation, and little encouragement to participate. A little more attention to their needs might help.
W: My suggestion is to make the new list an alternative to the old one, perhaps by being a bit more conventional with regard to use of language and style.
K: 'Conventional' in what way? What specific vocabulary would you omit? How would you prescribe 'style'? Would you give an example of what you see as 'ideal' style?
I notice that today we have some scientific input. I'm not a scientist, and equations are not my strong suite, but I shall read and try to comprehend, and ask questions because it will add to meaning.
W: The current list has developed a special jargon of its own.
K: Would you please describe the characteristics of this jargon, and give an example of how you'd like to see it change?
A: Do we all agree not (:-?) on that Don de'serves another (few) outlet(s).... to get his act of "pretenting&acting" to gether and on stagKe?
K: I'm not religious, but there are some thinkgs that came from the Bible that form part of my value system. One is the story of the prodigal son, another is the moat & beam in your eye one. Yet another is the admonition to 'bear one another's burdens'. Or how about the song "Reach Out and Touch Somebody's Hand, make this world a better place, if you can." Yes, it requires patience, understanding, forgiveness, and committment.
I hope to hear further comments.
On Dec 18, 2007 9:55 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Except this seems to be about a face to face group which leaves out the idea of an internet group where there can be spamming and trolling. Spamming and trolling are neither interesting or respectful.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Allan
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:59 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
A dialogue group must be open. It must be available to the input of all opinions and individuals from all kinds of cultural and ideational backgrounds.. Silencing
certain people and allowing others to speak....is that really how you want
to conduct affairs?? That seems to me to be closed-minded. Certainly, people can choose what they want to accept or dismiss. Accepting or rejecting a person altogether, is a different matter. Acceptance fosters understanding. Isn't that what we are here for? Peter may test the boundaries, and doesn't growth occur at the edges?
As a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, we should not censor another's ideas by banning them from the forum.
The only rule there should be is that posts containing abusive content gets deleted. We can keep this respectful while remaining
challenging, right?
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
---------------------------------
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/0a54946e/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:51:12 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:58:10 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate,
more and less and less and less and..??
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W31828FA0EE770C28D21565DC5E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <692517.52360.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
move-on.org?
arg.no
hey, btw, on another list there is a really juicy debate about "Nader" & scapecoating & the love to hate on the left, too &...... anyone interesting in that to pic..... very TASi stuff!!
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } fuckin' 'ell how many years ago was that? move on
---------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:31:52 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less and less and less and..??
I: Very simple. No putdowns. If you are really here to participate in examination of thinking, not on a vengeance mission. I know it hurt when they closed down the list, but can't you just say "It hurt." And get on with life here? I think Don was pretty clear in that he values what you COULD contribute. It's your manner that sucks.
On Dec 21, 2007 2:22 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
"tact": ... as in.... ?.... mitlaeufer?
"peopleskills":.... as in... ?..... neckmassaging?.... kissinass? ..... stickingheadinrears??
you know whats 'funny', just yesterday you asked susan to explain the new 'style' she envision for the 'new' group..... and you do the same thinkg: all abstract..... all blabla.... so lets hear, ka: how would you like for folks to behave (=THINK) in this group... and what that has to do with the essence of B-dialogue. Lets hear.
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Does insulting people make them receptive to new ideas, to change, to self examination? I know you think you're just 'telling it like it is', but you and I clashed on this when you were Zoe. Use a little tact, please.
What are 'they' waiting for? Maybe to see whether or not you've developed any people skills!
On Dec 21, 2007 1:53 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
hi ka,
few thinkgs:
a _ what's your take about williams re'flexing, as you (shyly) sketched it.... can you fine-brush some?
b _ "wait and see"... what for? for jesus christ to return? for amagedon? for the mars-landing? for immortality?
c _ & how does all that explain the group also ignoring the reflexions you have and do offere as far as whats going on|off here right now..... whats the heart (at the core) of (bohm)dialogue for you?
d _ "power"..... to (un)do what, exactly?... to, maybe, display some of their denials and phoninessmesses?
humanimal
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Mornin' peter & all. That sounds like an offer I can't refuse. I shall aim for posting it no later than tomorrow morning's coffee.
It seems significant that a proposed conference on Bohm's Legacy is ignoring dialogue. Why is that?
As for your "b" - 'all'? How many is that?! I don't like to generalize without really having facts to go on. I can't help thinking, though, it's related to past history with you. Is it coincidental that William proposes a new list the moment you declare your presence? Seems like a pattern. A reflex. I'd like to think that the silences are at least a "wait and see" attitude as far as interacting with you, if that is true.
Another cause could be a subliminal self concept as a 'follower' in a group that is supposed to be based on equality, and mutual responsibility. And THAT should be dialogged. Maybe they are waiting for the 'leaders' to accept or reject you.
It could be "I don't want to alienate the group" if they think they need to flee from you!
Frankly, I think they give you too much power.
People like us, pit, are often thought of as pariahs. Pat shouldn't get exclusive use of 'funny'. There's a 'funny club' that forms in other people's minds, and those who dare to say "The emperor is naked" are automatically elected to it.
Oh, I almost forgot. You posted a striking 'white noise' url. I had no idea how much damage it causes until I read about it in brain plasticity. Didn't even know what it was, really. Need to go back and try to see what you were saying in that post.
My respect for df continues in place. He is not only a gentleman, but (I understand you were merciless towards him) he has reached out to interact with you, as you have with him. I truly hope that develops well.
Am looking forward to your crosspost. Meanwhile Bach calls. Yesterday, I found a recording of Keith Jarrett performing the Goldberg on a harpsichord! Haven't listened yet, but Jarrett is a foremost jazz improviser. What will Jarrett see-hear that Glen Gould and I haven't?
ok - turning on the email notified, and starting Bach.
On Dec 21, 2007 9:39 AM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
Ciao Ka & all, few thinkgs
a _ neuroplastics: kath, why not just put up a little proposal on the list (where you coming from with this one, and where you might want to go with it), some meat we can bite into... instead all those abstract tit-bits (or 's that one of your in'famous annoucements you then never follow up on..... btw: how far back does that feature of yours go? teacherhood? motherhood? loverhood? childhood?)
b _ since it seems it just a few boinds @ this playground here ATM: what is your take(out), ka, why all the 'oldtimer' & 'regulars' & 'bohmfans' & 'expertialogers' -- in a moment of "crisis", as don f put is -- sticking their heads in the sssssands, ooops, of course meant: szszszzzzsssuspension
c _ will (cross)post some rather tasty stuff from another (dialog)group in a bit(e) here.... ciao bones
humanimal
Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere.
I: You are correct, Don. No response to my questions or to anyone else from William, although in a sense, he started the whole thing by saying we need new all sorts of things, including a new group. Nothing from Pat, either. Nothing from dl.
Would be nice if some of the usual silent majority were forthcoming on why BD doesn't seem to have greater participation. It's not Peter's and my fault that we are outspoken about what we think, and others aren't. It's called standing up for what you value. Or having the courage of your convictions. I guess it's my Southern upbringing. I can still hear my grandmother say contemptuously, "Brother So-and-So doesn't have the backbone of a jelly fish!" I don't see that that constitutes disruptiveness. I am happy to hear your voice, btw.
Just found an extremely interesting book, again on brain neuroplasticity. Would love to get some scientists in that field interested in TAS, and on this list, so they could critique the assumptions therein from the latest research findings. Among other important assumptions, the findings definitely dispute the notion of 'human nature'. Pit, are you listening? I'll try to post a few excerpts when I finish, but already the first few pages are so rich that excerpts can't do it justice.
Hanging out sign - Goin' reading. Have a great evening.
On Dec 20, 2007 2:52 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com > wrote:
ok, after baking bread for dinner, a few remarks
a _ you dont know how to respond? what you mean? cant be the typing-part... so, more like: you want not to 'fuck-up'.... 'strategically'..... why do i have this 'FUNNY' feeling that so many core d'rivers on this board are covered up..... lid kept on
b _ so, as you say, others might feel like you: why can they not ('at least') get into that: that they are blocked... and we could take it from there
c _ a dozn or so that usually partake: are you kidding y'ourselves.... please, give us a dozn, don.... name them.... and then, also, we could ask/invite them: why do YOU care (maybe) so little about the (b'locked) flow-o-meaning that is going on here
d _ numbers of post: a(ny) look at the archive, on average, will tell you differently.... hey, where is pete when we need him, the number cruncher of this enter prise here?
e _ "crises": please elaborate, go deeper, dive in it
cheers, ~
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
ok, lets take a(nother) look:
a_ fragementation: agreed. why you thinkg this is going on, driven on. who has an interest to fragment the "flow-o-meaning" (dialogue/group)... and why. can you be specific... or just brush-stroke
Simply referring to splitting into a separate group, Been through this before, in both live action and this virtual group. We can't each have it our own way, at least not for very long.
b_ participation: why are you so removed, so quiet, so....??.... about all this, don
Because I don't yet know how to respond. Or if my getting into the thick of it is worth doing. I am suspending.
c_ and what is your explanations for the 'silence' of the others?
I can only guess that they don't quite know how to get into it either. And the number of posts is off-putting, to say the least
d_ "everybody else".... you make it sound like there are usually dozens of people dialoguing here.... havent you noticed that its more&less allways the same guys, and that for the past... what?.... 10orsoyears?..... and, look at don lay, for example, how 'pretty'&mmmmuch says the same overnovernover
There are at least a dozen or so who have been keeping silent since your return. My guess it is that it is for the above reasons. Actually, there does appear to be about 125 subscribers. A few of them pop in from time to time. But not recently.
e_ "for the moment".... you (we) also might want to take a(nother) look at: how come, it sure lookgs like, "no-ass" can be bothered to do (bohm)dialogue... and why that might be so
This is well worth looking at but it might help to do it in a more accessible kind of prose.
f_ people who have been 'preaching' (bohm)dialogue for years cannot 'even' dialogue about what is going on|off here .... HELLOOOO, anybody HOOOOME, aniboind AAAAWAKE??
I think that every time you come back, in whatever guise it leads quickly to a kind of crisis. In itself this isn't bad but it ought to be looked at, not only by us but by you. But to inquire into this in amongst all the traffic, isn't easy.
don
donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
All of this sounds to me too much like fragmentation. Perhaps it has already begun, Notice that almost all the very numerous posts are being made by AdB and IK with the odd, piece or two from DL and SJ trying to hold the fort, plus me. Almost everybody else appears to have gone elsewhere. I hope this is only for the moment.
don
On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: I nominate you or Pat to 'moderate' this new group, if it forms. Or the two of you could share the responsibilities, together with DF. At least I know the two of you know your Bohm.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:59 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I wouldn't 'say', in terms of content, anything different. The in-person communication would contain more information, though. Everything that imaging, and tone of voice (voice music conveys more information than words, if you know what to listen for) contributes and is excluded from the printed page. A certain 'reality' that cyberspace doesn't provide. Further, I wonder why anyone would refuse to meet face to face. It raises questions and flags to me.
On Dec 20, 2007 11:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kathirene, maybe i is stupid (wellaugh, "i" certainly has it's shorts&comins), but please help to understand me [us?]: what would/could you tell susan via fone of face that you could [musnt?.... ahhh, necessities... hey pat, dont you LOV all of this here] say in 'public' (to her).
)(
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Is there any reason why we can't do both? Certainly face to face is a lot more real than writealog alone.
On Dec 20, 2007 10:43 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to spell your name wrong. I thought you wanted the group to be a part of the discussion? I was hoping we could have an actual BD type of dialogue.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
I: Susan , I think we could discuss this better by telephone. If you send me your number - offlist, if you like - I'll phone. I'd love to talk with you. Actually, I'm coming out to visit my mother in law in January. Let's talk now, and meet face to face then. You're in Tucson or Albuquerque, aren't you?
Happy Holidays. Kathirene (PS - Not Katherine, but Kathryn)
On Dec 20, 2007 9:57 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Hi Katherine. Well, it sounds like you've certainly make up your mind about me and come to some pretty strong conclusions about what I have said, what I am and am not interested in and what I have and have not read or studied. It's fine with me if those conclusions mean that you're not interested. I didn't respond the way I did to William to try to convince anyone of anything. I responded to see if there was any interest in William's idea of starting a partner group with a different style. And I have said that if there is any interest and people have ideas about what they would want then I would be willing to discuss it and see what we could come up with together. If there is anyone who is interested and we could come up with something together then I would be willing to take the time to coordinate our ideas and do the physical work of starting the partner group and setting it up and keeping it going.
As I've said, it's just an idea that's been tossed out there so far. But you seem to have responded to it as though it is a full blown plan and one that is somehow threatening to you. What is it about my posts that pushes your buttons so strongly Katherine?
Susan
--
---------------------------------
--
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
---------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/b6ac2ef1/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:55:55 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 23:02:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] com&pass i on(s)
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211341p23737e7cq692330e018f049c9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40081.31605.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
oh, thats a no-brainer:
because "i" = godog
(always, thats what i-ness-mess 's allabout)
BUT: dont tell don f that
in his book (bible): william is commandr-in-mischief here
ps: hey don, you mind if i share our little off-list ex-changes here on-list
(the stuff you write about "seances with higher powers" is just too
pants-wetting NOT to be shared with y'our lovd-ons here)
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: You do make me laugh. Really, I mean truly funny. That aside, how do you know where Herr W is, and if he's not there where is he?
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/6422013f/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 21 22:57:12 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 21 23:04:10 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211344l3df36d9br24ef51eaf0c21c1a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <654786.20203.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Ka, hand (not just) aufs herz: dont you thinkg your time (tice)
as sex&organ 're
ovr
?
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
K: Well, take the sexual instinct. I certainly can control how I express it. Eating? Hmmm. A bit more complex, but it can be done. Nobody promised us a rose garden.
How about you?
On Dec 21, 2007 4:40 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
btw, Ka, would you say {"go so far"} that "instincts" are {take place with'in} your, quote, "i am personally in control"-stuff(ing)??
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
the Jungian, fairly obviously.
---------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:24 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
I: What definition of 'instinct' are you using. Check out the article on it:
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/I27_INV/INSTINCT.html
On Dec 21, 2007 3:38 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved
> in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to
> breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when
> startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very
> > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex
> > situations, but even thought is not very subtle.
> > ~
> > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based
> > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together,
> > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them.
> > ~
> > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by
> > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history
> > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a
> > crucial point.
> > ~
> > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self
> > - preservation.
> > ~
> > Instinct is an inherited reflex.
> > ~
> > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial
> > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive
> > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of
> > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep
> > initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates
> > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward
> > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another
> > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the
> > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is
> > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and
> > consequences, after which it may remain stable until further
> > discrepancies occur.
> > ~
> > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for
> > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove.
> > ~
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
---------------------------------
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/08376754/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 23:02:18 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 21 23:09:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
In-Reply-To: <857344.14464.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W2220C830036D39D9B267EADC5E0@phx.gbl>
<857344.14464.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712211402t6f0138f0wa13390b6ff6968f9@mail.gmail.com>
K: Peter Allen, you have kept me entertained all day. Haven't done
anything with Bach. I really miss you when you're not around! Haven't told
you yet, but since Sally found out she has a blood clot in her leg that
might travel, and her cholesterol is too high, I've lost my appetite for ice
cream. Chocolate is looming on the horizon, but I'm focusing on will - my -
power.
Went to delete footers before sending, and ran into this from an Allen in
2005:
The only rule there should be is that posts containing abusive content gets
deleted. We can keep this respectful while remaining
challenging, right?
I absolutely agree. BTW, did you know him?
On Dec 21, 2007 4:44 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> kathirne is fond of changin*
> her mind ("self&control")
> and that a lot, much, munch
> .....a bit(e) like she likes her ice-creaming
>
> (ps: and if you dont like: "changin".... would "shiftin" be more
> quote-tactful ;;-?)
>
>
>
> *rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>* wrote:
>
> wait a minute didn't you just say you thought i was Pit too? do you want
> it both ways?
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:49:40 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less
>
> K: It's good to have you agree. Two have more influence than one.
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 2:47 P