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 & al