Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] System(atic) Failure(s)

guten abend don

godog putting you on

ice?

leash?

stand-by?

waitingtong list?

sick leave?

duty?

guard?

....

"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:46:07 -0800 (PST)
From: "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
Subject: dialogers, facilitators, administrators, godogs, mothers, humanimals.....
To: donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>

guten morgen don factor,

so what is (your) mo(u?)ther tell inginging you

?

(to say & not to say)

((to do & not to do))

((( to dobe & not to dobe)))

??

pit

        ,,,.,.,..,....,., &(some) traces ..,..,..,.,.,.,., :

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:33:29 -0800 (PST)
From: "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: technicalities
To: "donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>


how ever you see
'fit'
i see (a lot) of : pathetictictic thinkgs
going on|off
@ bd

maybe you are just too deep in it
(too deeply, heavily 'invested', as the call it over at the 'street')
to see (through) this

tschuess

and have fun w/ god
and say high

           * * *

"donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: technicalities
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:29:18 -0800
To: "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com>

No such animal in the diauninverse.

Will get back to you after the seance

don

          * * *

On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: I have put it on hold while conferring with a higher being.

godogdon, you are not george w from the oval(office), are you ;-)

i thought you are 'the man'

           * * *

From: "donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: technicalities
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:14:45 -0800
To: "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com>

I have put it on hold while conferring with a higher being.
Back soon

don

         * * *

On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:

no need, don
one-strawl = nuff for me to participate in our big pool of mmmmeaning

up to you...
if you reject humanimal@.net , so be it

          * * *

donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:

Do you intend to keep AEDB on line too? If so, I am not sure I can handle the increased traffic.

don

          * * *

On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:

guten morgen sir... hey don, bood to see you havent kicket-the-bucket yet, and rather youre still kicking about outhere in the whirld of whirds n all -- ii means: soon nuff we all do'be dust, so might as well dust a'bout a bit moss while we are (one)"piece". quick off-list-message: i will put in a subscription-request at the listserv(er) for another email-address, most likely i will call it humanimal@.net.... because yahoo sucks, and i wouldnt mind consolidating a bit/e.... that said: mittagessen. ok, cheers, & bis bald, tschuess, pit

http://www.granitegrok.com/pix/see%20no%20evil.jpg http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/48/40/23404048.jpg ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: humanature From: kitkat22@rcn.com Date: Sun, December 23, 2007 9:23 To: <k> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's the only place I can be sure of being in touch with you when you "disappear" as you did before. Plus, I can sometimes get a good conversation there, whereas I can't most other places. What did you think of Albert's post to Kari? That story is interesting in the light of what you call human 'nature'. If you include what society has taught and ingrained in us, I guess I can accept the term. But with effort, because anything that's not food, sex, etc isn't 'nature'. I particularly disagree with those who say we all have 'animal' nature i.e. aggressive, predatory et al. and blame their behavior on "animals" as 'natural'. And Bohm agrees with me. On 12/23/07 8:59 AM, ".ß" <....> wrote: > > snip: > > "pit, you atenuts whoops are nuts to bother(with) these iiiiidiotts" > > > > > > > ok, so wherwhen does 'one' bother to > start|end > bothering a'bout groups&dynamics > > humanaturexplorer pit > > > "unreal" (quote:records...)?: > http://www.rainydayrecords.net/images/homelandsecurity.jpg > > "real" (quote:army.mil)? > http://www.smdc.army.mil/SMDCPhoto_Gallery/Eagle/Dec04/homeland%20security-pri ddy0603.jpg > > ps: hey phonirene, how does it > (make you) > feel > to be > on > to be > part of > "the team" > > > > > > > * * * > > > > Subject: Re: humanature > From: "J > Date: Sun, December 23, 2007 8:28 > To: .ß <....> > > > On 23 Dec 2007, at 03:16, .ß wrote: > >> >> >> godog, bones, >> >> what a feast >> >> __ and just in tice for the "fest der liebe {{leibe??}} __ >> >> whoof whoof pet pit >> >> >> >> >> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote, DEC 22: >> I am informed that pit is still subscribed here under yet another name, possibly more than one. He has written to Irene and quoted something she >> wrote to the list after he was unsubscribed. So, keep your eyes open for >> any hints. Susan has a very keen eye for such things. She was the first to >> spot that AEB was pit. >> >> don >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Don Lay wrote: >> >> Will-i-am: >> Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as >> a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own server as humanimal@... I suggest you update your spam filter. -- >> admin >> >> Don L: >> Under the circumstances, I believe it is not inappropriate to pass on >> the following which I thought was sent to the Bohm list but was >> actually >> directed to one of Peter's addresses: >> >> [was something about Failure] >> >> If dialogue, from the Greek dia logos indicates reason, is it >> reasonable >> to expect a dialogue to be the use of reason and to eliminate the ignoring >> of or distortion of reason and meaning? >> >> It seems entirely reasonable, rational, and perhaps more to the point -- >> meaningful -- to not allow the lack of, or distortion of reason and meaning, to occur in place of dialogue. >> >> Some questions occur: >> >> May meaningful communication occur without reason, ratio, meaning? Does communication occur absent reason, ratio, and meaning? >> >> When reason, ration, meaning is distorted or absent, is communication possible? Is meaningful communication possible? >> >> My view is that the moderator's present actions are reasonable, rational >> and meaningful and are therefore, dialogical. -dl >> >> > > which all begs the qqqq of whow decides what is reason&able.... > > pit, you atenuts whoops are nuts to bother(with) these iiiiidiotts > > ciao jit > > >> >> >> bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org wrote: >> You are now unsubscribed from Bohm_Dialogue >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >

From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 00:18:54 2007 From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy) Date: Sat Dec 22 00:25:59 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random ......SEXXXX In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211445xa575fcdsc2bca2b8f655f69b@mail.gmail.com> References: <c47283890712211437q11ef2cffnbdfed9d08320cf24@mail.gmail.com> <42476.5176.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <c47283890712211445xa575fcdsc2bca2b8f655f69b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <c47283890712211518q209de459y577b397ac5e00867@mail.gmail.com> OK, I'll give it a shot. First of all, it's VERY personal. Second, in a group like ours, one doesn't know who is and isn't ready to hang his intimate secrets up on the suspension-clothesline. It's VERY necessary to adopt some kind of neutral, objective position and tone if it is to be discussed. There are so many taboos involved that one can hardly breathe without stepping on somebody's sore toe. The chapter in my book on Acquiring Tastes and Loves is most interesting. I'll continue this thread once I've read the whole thing and thought about it some more. I will say, I believe porn is a commercialized enterprise that exploits fantasy and spotlights society's thinking in a way nothing else can. For instance, bondage & s&m. And spanking. other degrading fetishes. To me, that is an extreme expression of very sick cultural practices that exist in the non-sexual arena, and of things that exist in peoples' unconscious and is expressed only where many people won't investigate, so they never know how sick the culture is. One can come to understand why a pro-life enthusiast might embrace that path as a way, consciously or subconsciously, to 'save the children', especially he himself who was hurt. On Dec 21, 2007 5:45 PM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: > K: I'll think about that over coconut lemongrass chicken and dry sherry, > and get back to you. > > > On Dec 21, 2007 5:43 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > ok, lets talk about why people dont-like-to (talk).... (as you > > say/claim) > > > > why is that? > > > > what might that have to do with (b)dialogue, too? > > > > humanimal > > > > > > *Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > > K: Yeah. I don't think people like to talk about their sex lives > > online. And while I might be willing to talk to you privately, and not in > > writing, exhibitionism doesn't thrill me. > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 5:34 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > dont follow...... wellaugh... not out of spitedisobediencetc... can > > > you flsuhflseh that out some? > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > )( > > > > > > ps: "sex" might be a bood one to..... 'losn' thinkgs up a bit a'round > > > here, no?..... to get that (dialogical) "flow of meaning" back on track/tap, > > > no?? > > > > > > > > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > > > > K: Oops, Peter. Maybe these topics are why some people use nom de > > > plumes. I suspect we should really approach this from the pov of myths > > > mother and father told us. > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 5:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > ok, glad you didnt pull out > > > > and seem to been keen to purr'sue > > > > this one: > > > > > > > > so, tell yoUs, ka > > > > when was the last tice > > > > you "did it" > > > > > > > > lets talk "sex", all you 'dirty old' bones > > > > hey don, how about you > > > > and pat (some, how donot, no DO, ask me why i thinkg you didnt "get > > > > it" or "gave it" in a handful of decades) > > > > and you susan joy? what about you and sex > > > > and mister rob > > > > and, who am i living out here? > > > > oh, yes,william (he liked to pick up "little" girls via > > > > bohm-dialogue... at least thats what i was told.... and thusly janoh=jit > > > > liked to call this club/house here also some sort of dialogical > > > > dating-service ((hi jit, where are you,com on board!))... so will-man, you > > > > still "at it"? > > > > and, who else....? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com >* wrote: > > > > > > > > K: Don't tell me you believe the old myths! Is that why you're so > > > > grumpy sometimes? > > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 4:57 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ka, hand (not just) aufs herz: dont you thinkg your time (tice) > > > > > > > > > > as sex&organ 're > > > > > > > > > > ovr > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > *Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com >* wrote: > > > > > > > > > > K: Well, take the sexual instinct. I certainly can control how I > > > > > express it. Eating? Hmmm. A bit more complex, but it can be done. Nobody > > > > > promised us a rose garden. > > > > > How about you? > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 4:40 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > btw, Ka, would you say {"go so far"} that "instincts" are {take > > > > > > place with'in} your, quote, "i am personally in control"-stuff(ing)?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk >* wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > the Jungian, fairly obviously. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:24 -0500 > > > > > > From: irenedarcy@gmail.com > > > > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes > > > > > > > > > > > > I: What definition of 'instinct' are you using. Check out the > > > > > > article on it: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/I27_INV/INSTINCT.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 3:38 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800 > > > > > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is > > > > > > involved > > > > > > > in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that > > > > > > tells us to > > > > > > > breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump > > > > > > when > > > > > > > startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is > > > > > > man-made. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very > > > > > > > > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more > > > > > > complex > > > > > > > > situations, but even thought is not very subtle. > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less > > > > > > together, > > > > > > > > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them. > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be > > > > > > realized by > > > > > > > > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our > > > > > > history > > > > > > > > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > crucial point. > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct > > > > > > of self > > > > > > > > - preservation. > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > Instinct is an inherited reflex. > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an > > > > > > initial > > > > > > > > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive > > > > > > > > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a > > > > > > kind of > > > > > > > > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the > > > > > > deep > > > > > > > > initial intention to act toward an object, the action > > > > > > incorporates > > > > > > > > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is > > > > > > > > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and > > > > > > > > consequences, after which it may remain stable until further > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discrepancies occur. > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove. > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> > > > > > > > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Irene > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> > > > > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > > > -- > Irene > -- Irene -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/496ee963/attachment.html From bolinas_forever at yahoo.com Sat Dec 22 00:29:43 2007 From: bolinas_forever at yahoo.com (Franis) Date: Sat Dec 22 00:36:43 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less In-Reply-To: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1> References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1> Message-ID: <f6040a0a0712211529x2592abafka42ca0647b7a7658@mail.gmail.com> Hi all! I'm back reading and listening again with regular Internet access. Nice to see you're all still here, well, except for the perennial pit. As far as the appeal to being open as a policy: yeah, yeah, yeah. I've heard that one before. But what about addressing the bulk of us who have seen pit's trolling, etc. shenanigans before and are not so interested in reading them again, ad infinite? One answer is - I don't mind reading what you guys have to say because it's interesting as I browse here...don't like the format of gmail much, but it's better than nothing... But have to admit I'm a little disappointed that pit (perhaps short for pitiful, but probably short for pitbull) has emerged again in different sheep's clothing. Oh well. <sigh> Melekaliki Maka for those who celebrate that sort of thing... think I'll put my energy into starting an in-person Dialogue group where I happen to be now again. Love, Franis On 5/10/05, Allan <allan.mckenna@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > A dialogue group must be open. It must be available to the input of all > opinions and individuals from all kinds of cultural and ideational > backgrounds.. Silencing > certain people and allowing others to speak....is that really how you want > > to conduct affairs?? That seems to me to be closed-minded. Certainly, > people can choose what they want to accept or dismiss. Accepting or > rejecting a person altogether, is a different matter. Acceptance fosters > understanding. Isn't that what we are here for? Peter may test the > boundaries, and doesn't growth occur at the edges? > As a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, we should not > censor another's ideas by banning them from the forum. > The only rule there should be is that posts containing abusive content > gets deleted. We can keep this respectful while remaining > challenging, right? > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: > dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/b0558a96/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 01:53:54 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:00:55 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice" In-Reply-To: <675158.50469.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <675158.50469.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <AAC7CB78-CEE5-4C74-AC49-5BF448539502@dc.rr.com> This comment is what, in the trade, is called displacement. It is a skill shared by all neurotics and pysychopaths and most psychotics. You are in good company. But maybe this isn't really the place to displace, since it is well recognized for what it is. And I will ask your normal follow-on question: A: what is it? don On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote: > ka, stupid question, 'who', no: what, no:HOWHAT actually (could) > activate what you call (shophophop a round as): "proprioception" & > "suspension" ... do you have any REAL-life-examples, please, or > (just) this super&facial make&uppy pepp&talk? > > can bohm dialogue, "ever", dobe: REAListictictic? > > cheers > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/c5fb5cd8/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 01:57:12 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:04:13 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W2556969448CC65FE5B90A3DC5E0@phx.gbl> References: <016201c840e6$ded1b440$b5c16018@DL01><C38C3C99.FA94%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com><c47283890712171353j95c274bj9096a97ab64953bc@mail.gmail.com><035301c840fb$4d1463d0$b5c16018@DL01> <c47283890712171432w7e5a633ej7673469675579782@mail.gmail.com> <03a501c84114$78c7a3c0$b5c16018@DL01> <BAY123-W173CB36371D1797F0A9CCDDC5C0@phx.gbl> <3E9D0B23-6B50-42F9-9418-DE9F46921C62@dc.rr.com> <BAY123-W2556969448CC65FE5B90A3DC5E0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <2BD0F4FE-1683-4F42-8AB5-94BB13D1A372@dc.rr.com> On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:19 AM, rob mooney wrote: > there is no good or bad art. Just stuff you like and stuff you don't. No, there is art, and you do know it when you see it, or hear it. Even if you hate it. Art is not about liking or disliking it is about acting, and that don't mean play acting, which is what a lot of current so-called art actually is. don > > > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:54:23 -0800 > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > As I said, Art Acts. And there are all kinds of art. But there is > no such animal as good art or bad art. There is only art and non-art. > > don > > On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:01 PM, rob mooney wrote: > > "poems are epiphanic documents and show the writer in the process > of making their discoveries, so that the reader can re-enact and re- > live them, not merely feel their after effects or learn the poet's > wise conclusions." > > (Don patterson) > > I expect this goes for C++, painting, music, dancing, sculpture, > photography, millenery, etc. Maybe even when Don F chooses a tee > shirt... > > > From: donlay@knology.net > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:22:32 -0500 > > ISmeaningfulTM to say the answer to these questions is yes, and to > say that Bohm, talking about infinite subtlety and when he says it > is as far "in there" inside the atom as it is "out there" through > the universe substantiates the view I'm trying to learn how to > explicate. > > Where or what is the personal identity while being sensitive enough > to "hear" the direction that amounts to improv? > > Once again, my programming friend says there is no identity > movement while writing code. If there was, he would be unable to > write code because C++, he says, is not the language appropriate > for the personal identity. That is, personal identity simply has > no meaning in the Visual Basic or C++ language. > > Are you aware of Irene's personal identity movement while doing > improv? -- dl > > > \ > From: Irene Darcy > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:32 PM > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > > I: We're getting into the idea of Nada Brahma, now. And to say > more, I'd have to go get my book. > > It would have been more accurate to say one creates a time-space > line when one moves, I think. > > Why do all the good things happen at once? I'm working on Bach > Goldberg. My Eurhythmics teacher is giving a three day workshop > soon on what an improviser can learn from them, and I'm preparing > for it. I would love to have heard Bach sit down and jam with > Paquito d'Rivera; throw in Sidney Bechet for good measure on > clarinet, and Eugene Ysaye on violin. > > On Dec 17, 2007 5:22 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote: > I: Every time you move you are creating explicate time-space. > > What about the idea that every time you move, you are using time > and space? > > Is there time and space absent homo-sappo, prior to homo-sappo? > Perhaps more precisely, is there some actuality indicated by time > and space that is prior to homo-sappo? -- dl > > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Irene Darcy > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 4:53 PM > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > > I: Every time you move you are creating explicate time-space. And > imagination has its place when it's not out of balance. > > On Dec 17, 2007 4:47 PM, Lynne Tolk < > lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote: > To be or not to be? Is there a choice? Is the question the > problem? What about yes? (form is emptiness, emptiness is form; > explicate is implicate is explicate?) > > > > On 12/17/07 12:56 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> wrote: > > the old old thought occurs -- no us? -- Rob > > Maybe. I've been using the idea of imagination, thought to think > of the identity of things including us. > > I think I'm beginning to understand something like the idea of all > this that is as unknown and thought equating with the imaged known, > with the language or knowing system of imagination. > > It's a bit spooky to think that us is not. That is, the notness or > non being must be addressed. The anxiety does not go away simply > by acting and pretending it is not there. > > Maybe one way to avoid the anxiety of non being is to understand > the idea that relative being is part of the whole of Being. dl > > > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:37 PM > Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > > The thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could > there be no space? > > the old old thought occurs -- no us? > > > > From: donlay@knology.net > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500 > > if there is no space time tea cake etc aren't we wasting our... > um... breath > > The thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could > there be no space? Maybe we could say that it is only a useful > concept and use while being aware that it is limited. > > Would that be in the direction of unlimited experience? -- dl > > > > > > > > > -- > Irene > > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > -- > Irene > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > Everything in one place. All new Windows Live! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search > Charades! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/d4cce3a4/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 01:59:01 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:06:02 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] will i am wants to be "done" (with you) In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211121l4e766c6fk464eb26fcc7642e7@mail.gmail.com> References: <B6816300-8EFD-48F2-B8E2-F2325711C39A@dc.rr.com> <383124.41308.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <c47283890712211121l4e766c6fk464eb26fcc7642e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46DDA7D0-88F6-492C-9949-061B796BE76D@dc.rr.com> I think that if he wasn't creative he would be long gone. Creativity in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing. don On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Irene Darcy wrote: > K: Peter, if they do unsubscribe you, I know you will subscribe > again. But think. You'll just have to keep silent or change your > tone anyway or you'll get unsubbed all over again. > > Creative people can find more than one way to make their points. > And I know you're creative. > > On Dec 21, 2007 2:02 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > a _ done with what? > > b _ and how? by suppression? repression? what a feast: hey william, > by any chance, ahve you read some bohm lately.... ever? what a > joke. choke. jokker... > > ~ > > donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: > ...He [will i am] would like to just unsubscribe you and be done > with it. > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. > Try it now. > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > -- > Irene > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/6def41f6/attachment.html From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sat Dec 22 01:59:06 2007 From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:06:06 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less In-Reply-To: <f6040a0a0712211529x2592abafka42ca0647b7a7658@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63242.46596.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Franis <bolinas_forever@yahoo.com> wrote: I'm back reading again with regular http://tinyurl.com/23y4f4 access.... --------------------------------- 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/20071221/589d7290/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 02:01:32 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:08:33 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W14B45973CEEB90A41DDA9EDC5E0@phx.gbl> References: <439325.58372.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com><476679F0.60003@siit.tu.ac.th> <003101c840b4$1a0909b0$b5c16018@DL01> <BAY123-W316D168A86355AA8647C79DC620@phx.gbl> <00e501c840df$bb92bda0$b5c16018@DL01> <BAY123-W3205646DF39FCB075F9CE5DC620@phx.gbl> <1F7DA20A-E59A-4220-978F-3AA284BBD26C@dc.rr.com> <BAY123-W17D702155BD553E462636EDC620@phx.gbl> <8E62992E-CB4A-4FD0-B267-A050FBAE608A@dc.rr.com> <BAY123-W3142D1739711E2E101EA09DC5C0@phx.gbl> <9CE6CCB0-CC80-480A-983E-472D2D8F98D1@dc.rr.com> <BAY123-W14B45973CEEB90A41DDA9EDC5E0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <C7179A5F-C22A-423A-A0A1-CB4A18B58C1D@dc.rr.com> Probably because I don't know either. And from scrolling down through this thread it seems that Don Lay started it anyway. don On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:23 AM, rob mooney wrote: > I have heard of my space and face book. I just don't know what you > are talking about. > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:56:21 -0800 > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > What? You don't know My Space? Try Googling it. There is also Face > Book but My Space is even closer to home. > > don > > On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:08 PM, rob mooney wrote: > > and where would that be Don? over the rainbow? through the looking > glass? in a dialogue? > > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:00:22 -0800 > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > OR My Space. > > don > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:04 PM, rob mooney wrote: > > why would I single you out Don? > > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:42:14 -0800 > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > Should be me, no? > X > On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:37 AM, rob mooney wrote: > > The thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could > there be no space? > > the old old thought occurs -- no us? > > > > From: donlay@knology.net > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500 > > if there is no space time tea cake etc aren't we wasting our... > um... breath > > The thought occurs -- since we all use time, space, etc., how could > there be no space? Maybe we could say that it is only a useful > concept and use while being aware that it is limited. > > Would that be in the direction of unlimited experience? -- dl > > > > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: rob mooney > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:09 PM > Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > > if there is no space time tea cake etc aren't we wasting our... > um... breath > > From: donlay@knology.net > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:52:41 -0500 > > "is there space, time causality in the implicate order", > > If one reads something like Bohm's "wholeness and the implicate > order' I > think that it is fairly clear that things like space and time can be > explicated out of the implicate order (in which they are > implicated). -- Jeff > > Hi Jeff. > > Does the question imply space or time by using the idea expressed > by "in"? > > If so, does this imply the language we use is not adequate to > address the meaning of the question? -- dl > > > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jeff Webb > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 8:30 AM > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Implicate Order > > Hi, > > I would like to comment on the issue: is there space, time > causality in > the implicate order. > > If one reads something like Bohm's "wholeness and the implicate > order' I > think that it is fairly clear that things like space and time can be > explicated out of the implicate order (in which they are > implicated). So > the statement "in the implicate order (t)here in no space, time > causality, matter, or mind' seems to me to indicate that the maker of > this statement has completely misunderstood Bohms notion of the > implicate order. > > I'm sure that others on this list will be able to add more details. > > Jeff > > > > In the attached article, the author writes, ?in the > > 'implicate' order ere is no space, time, causality, > > matter, or mind.? (Note: I am guessing ?ere? is a > typo for > > ?there?.) > > > > In the implicate order there is no space, time, > causality, > > matter, or mind. ?? Is this statement true? > > > > Regina > > > > > > ?? > > > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star! > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > Everything in one place? All new Windows Live! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search > Charades! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search > Charades! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > Messenger on the move? Text MSN to 63463 now! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/c75d2d6b/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 02:03:39 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:10:40 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W393ABD72245773D59E828BDC5E0@phx.gbl> References: <439325.58372.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com><476679F0.60003@siit.tu.ac.th><007701c840c1$3c9f5580$b5c16018@DL01><009501c840c9$c9da9a10$b5c16018@DL01><00ae01c840cb$c07ac830$b5c16018@DL01> <BAY123-W879FB36B103BA98E4068CDC620@phx.gbl> <010801c840e1$de342e00$b5c16018@DL01> <BAY123-W350E74A4BF40EED8D77188DC620@phx.gbl> <0B6839C7-B24F-4F22-A7A3-2354F8D15B6B@dc.rr.com> <BAY123-W378C54AF712FEB739B63DEDC620@phx.gbl> <1DF60B92-466C-4F19-9BB7-3A8583D658AB@dc.rr.com> <BAY123-W211A0D57827E6DA9A95FEBDC5C0@phx.gbl> <78D0172D-690E-490C-9348-31D02D2D4545@dc.rr.com> <BAY123-W393ABD72245773D59E828BDC5E0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <5716BA90-950D-4999-9B37-5495E748E16B@dc.rr.com> True the two do go together. And like a lot of stuff, you can't have one without the other. don On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:26 AM, rob mooney wrote: > knowledge and caring seem close. you can't know much until you care > or care much until you know. > > > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:01:17 -0800 > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > I don't think it is knowledge so much as caring. > That is where the dance is > And there is only the dance. > > don > On Dec 18, 2007, at 4:15 PM, rob mooney wrote: > > i don't think it necessarily has to spoil it. with poetry anyway > Don Patterson or Ruth Padel will go into the fricatives and the > consonal rhymes and assonance and all the rest and the general > affect (usually for me) is - oh, I see. So the understanding is > furthered. I expect a grasp of geology probably adds to the > appreciation of a landscape? Dunno - what do you think? > > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:15:47 -0800 > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > But some part of you does. The question is: does looking for that > part spoil it all? > > don > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:42 PM, rob mooney wrote: > > Don Patterson the English poet says that you can think of poems as > something like a natural object, produced by us (or midwifed or > something) out of our naturalness. I'm not sure you have to > understand a hill or a spider or a waterfall to love it > > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suspension of Identity Movement > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:31:21 -0800 > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > I don't understand many of my favorite poems. I don't understand a > lot of my favorite art. > But some part of me must. The conscious part, the ego, is not the > whole thing. There is > more, always morel. > > don > > On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:59 AM, rob mooney wrote: > > dl: Surely a poem need not be understood in order to have meaning, > be meaningful? dl > > I think this is important. not just poems. many meaningful things. > > > She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/44caeeca/attachment.html From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 02:04:35 2007 From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:11:34 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less In-Reply-To: <63242.46596.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <f6040a0a0712211529x2592abafka42ca0647b7a7658@mail.gmail.com> <63242.46596.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <c47283890712211704t773690anb5b632a57325745f@mail.gmail.com> K: Franis, why in god's name would you post that? On Dec 21, 2007 7:59 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > *Franis <bolinas_forever@yahoo.com>* wrote: > I'm back reading again with regular *http://tinyurl.com/23y4f4* access.... > > > > > ------------------------------ > 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/c34d4648/attachment.html From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Sat Dec 22 02:05:35 2007 From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:12:38 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less In-Reply-To: <f6040a0a0712211529x2592abafka42ca0647b7a7658@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <C391B0EF.FCEE%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> Hi Franis, Good to hear your voice again. I?ve been too busy to get into the fray lately, and every time I think about it, I suspend and wonder if it?s worth the time and effort. Still suspending there. I still love this group. So long as I have a delete key. Nothing personal, Peter. I think you offered us a poem when you were still Alan, and I really enjoyed that. And you have made some interesting points. But more and more posts take too much to decipher, or sound like ranting. Lynne On 12/21/07 4:29 PM, "Franis" <bolinas_forever@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi all! > I'm back reading and listening again with regular Internet access. Nice to see > you're all still here, well, except for the perennial pit. > As far as the appeal to being open as a policy: yeah, yeah, yeah. I've heard > that one before. > But what about addressing the bulk of us who have seen pit's trolling, etc. > shenanigans before and are not so interested in reading them again, ad > infinite? > One answer is - I don't mind reading what you guys have to say because it's > interesting as I browse here...don't like the format of gmail much, but it's > better than nothing... But have to admit I'm a little disappointed that pit > (perhaps short for pitiful, but probably short for pitbull) has emerged again > in different sheep's clothing. Oh well. <sigh> > Melekaliki Maka for those who celebrate that sort of thing... think I'll put > my energy into starting an in-person Dialogue group where I happen to be now > again. > Love, > Franis > > On 5/10/05, Allan <allan.mckenna@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> A dialogue group must be open. It must be available to the input of all >> opinions and individuals from all kinds of cultural and ideational >> backgrounds.. Silencing >> certain people and allowing others to speak....is that really how you want >> to conduct affairs?? That seems to me to be closed-minded. Certainly, >> people can choose what they want to accept or dismiss. Accepting or >> rejecting a person altogether, is a different matter. Acceptance fosters >> understanding. Isn't that what we are here for? Peter may test the >> boundaries, and doesn't growth occur at the edges? >> As a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, we should not censor >> another's ideas by banning them from the forum. >> The only rule there should be is that posts containing abusive content gets >> deleted. We can keep this respectful while remaining >> challenging, right? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/a43e3bc7/attachment.html From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sat Dec 22 02:11:51 2007 From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:18:50 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Life, Pain, Control, Options, Opting.... In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211202w70e86e68g4a9b43a7e6132572@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <329926.37716.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> ka, by "opting out" i did and do not mean you turning your-self in to a sausage by jump your selves in front of an in com in AAAA-train etc this is where ii am eyeing to go with this one: you, more or less maintainclaim that: we, all, on an 'individualevel' are running our lifes are "in charge.... in control" that does not just go against what bohm says, btw, but also against 'common sense' thusly (to get back on to some real life example): if you feel pain about someTHINKG, like you are upset what a neighbor say to you etc why not just (self)control you OUT of this pain why not just free-will you off that "track" ...... if thinkgs are so.... easy & home-makey )( Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: Why not just: "opt out"....choose NOT to have, to BE IN PAIN.. K: Peter, shall we dialogue that? It sounds very important to me. I don't opt out because I'm having too much fun in this explicate order. I don't have everything I want, but I have more than what i need. And i can see the beauty as well as the pathos of life. I'm really not in pain. But I don't know about others. And I truly worry about you. Talk to us about pain. Your pain. Nobody will ridicule you. Susan has a website about that, I believe, that i didn't read. Did you? Between you and me, I wonder if the obesity crisis started with the appearance of AIDS. People are afraid and have turned to substitutes and sublimations. Doidge has a lot to say about pornography. On Dec 21, 2007 2:54 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: Ohhhh, do we?? Like kathiren has all way all that power over here when she 'goes through' another pint of i-i-i-i-i-i-cedream? If you have all that power, so munch power, why are you so fat, Ka? Why are you in so much pain? Why not just: "opt out"....choose NOT to have, to BE IN PAIN..... oh, its almost painful to take a break now... this is sooooo much fun... but other thinkgs to play with&in this humanimal here, too.... so, later bones, ...later, as all ways (hi will i am, you little 1/2german control-freak-out) ;--) ciao Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: And on power, we only have power over ourselves. But when we change, we affect all the other orders. --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 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/df723641/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 02:15:13 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:22:13 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] System(a tictictic)&Failure? In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W40BA65C03FB293E2197815DC5E0@phx.gbl> References: <6696F445-08DA-43FD-8295-FC478C5719EF@dc.rr.com> <159206.26581.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <BAY123-W40BA65C03FB293E2197815DC5E0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <D6739FBE-9328-40EC-9777-3855426576BD@dc.rr.com> However, what would peter say? If he considered himself one of those dialogue-big-wigs? don On Dec 21, 2007, at 12:17 PM, rob mooney wrote: > yes. quite right. you are all right. > > Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:34:57 -0800 > From: a.debakey@yahoo.com > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] System(a tictictic)&Failure? > > > Mind-blowing(?): > > Let's take a look: > > There is a group, called "Bohm_Dialogue". > > Online they (pretend to) look at David Bohm's proposals etc > regarding dialogue, communication, incoherence, blocks, reflexes... > > One Day > > One Member > > Of the group pop us his head/hand and says: I don't like THIS > dialogue. Lets open another (group). (And thus, utterly, missing > the point of what Bohm's work 's about). > > So what does the group to in response? > > More'o'less: Zip. Nada. Nix. > > All those dialogue-big-wigs who usually fill the (digital) pages > with their musings (for years and years): zip. > > Big bunkerin-down is "angesagt". > > Bigsilence (oh, ah, does ii hear some xpertzzz here szszszay: > suspension ) > > Whas a bunch of BS, or, as peter would say (and does): > > Pullpushit! > > FanFunTasTicTicTic > > > HUmanimalian > > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. > Try it now. > > Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search > Charades! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/3d36e987/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 02:16:36 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:23:36 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W420F3A26AA8C0069AA47EDDC5E0@phx.gbl> References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com> <817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com> <BAY123-W420F3A26AA8C0069AA47EDDC5E0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <04B40E12-F962-4618-9CFC-02608D4227EF@dc.rr.com> On Dec 21, 2007, at 12:38 PM, rob mooney wrote: > the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too Maybe, maybe not. What keeps it interesting is that nobody knows for sure. don -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/abc4d493/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 02:17:56 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:24:55 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice" In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W160EFAEEE9339BCAED6604DC5E0@phx.gbl> References: <c47283890712211036j5463f043q9f38100d26a87203@mail.gmail.com> <675158.50469.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <BAY123-W160EFAEEE9339BCAED6604DC5E0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <3CF3E124-AEDD-4C00-830C-B52F5229C005@dc.rr.com> I would, but I have sixty six posts to read - hope springs eternal. Then I shall don On Dec 21, 2007, at 12:50 PM, rob mooney wrote: > for fuck sake Don just give him what he's begging you for. > > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:16:00 -0800 > From: a.debakey@yahoo.com > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice" > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > ka, stupid question, 'who', no: what, no:HOWHAT actually (could) > activate what you call (shophophop a round as): "proprioception" & > "suspension" ... do you have any REAL-life-examples, please, or > (just) this super&facial make&uppy pepp&talk? > > can bohm dialogue, "ever", dobe: REAListictictic? > > cheers > > )( > > > > Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: > K: Sounds right to me. I think proprioception and suspension need > to take notice of what people believe .... > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. > > She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star! > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/eb6b50b0/attachment.html From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 02:20:18 2007 From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:27:18 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Life, Pain, Control, Options, Opting.... In-Reply-To: <329926.37716.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <c47283890712211202w70e86e68g4a9b43a7e6132572@mail.gmail.com> <329926.37716.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <c47283890712211720t40e6c52ge5446e9bd9d75287@mail.gmail.com> you are upset what a neighbor say to you etc why not just (self)control you OUT of this pain why not just free-will you off that "track" ...... if thinkgs are so.... easy & home-makey K: I never said it didn't take hard work. And intent. And desire. And motivation. But I have just finished reading an explanation of the neurobiology of a lot of stuff I'll post later tonight or tomorrow. A whole section on the neurobiology of change. It blew my mind. Meanwhile, a few days back Susan posted that she had done some work on the idea of pain and posted it on her website. I'd like to check it out, but can't find it. I just came back to try to find it. On Dec 21, 2007 8:11 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > ka, by "opting out" i did and do not mean you turning your-self in > to a sausage by jump your selves in front of an in com in AAAA-train > Whewwwwwwwwwwww. Mindless use of language creates wrong impressions. Relieved to hear the clarification. > > etc > > this is where ii am eyeing to go with this one: > you, more or less maintainclaim that: > we, all, on an 'individualevel' are running our lifes > are "in charge.... in control" > that does not just go against what bohm says, btw, > but also against 'common sense' > > thusly > > (to get back on to some real life example): > if you feel pain about someTHINKG, like > you are upset what a neighbor say to you etc > why not just (self)control you OUT of this pain > why not just free-will you off that "track" > ...... if thinkgs are so.... easy & home-makey > > )( > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote: > > Why not just: "opt out"....choose NOT to have, to BE IN PAIN.. > > K: Peter, shall we dialogue that? It sounds very important to me. I > don't opt out because I'm having too much fun in this explicate order. I > don't have everything I want, but I have more than what i need. And i can > see the beauty as well as the pathos of life. I'm really not in pain. But > I don't know about others. And I truly worry about you. Talk to us about > pain. Your pain. Nobody will ridicule you. Susan has a website about > that, I believe, that i didn't read. Did you? > > Between you and me, I wonder if the obesity crisis started with the > appearance of AIDS. People are afraid and have turned to substitutes and > sublimations. Doidge has a lot to say about pornography. > > On Dec 21, 2007 2:54 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Ohhhh, do we?? Like kathiren has all way all that power over here when > > she 'goes through' another pint of i-i-i-i-i-i-cedream? If you have all that > > power, so munch power, why are you so fat, Ka? Why are you in so much pain? > > Why not just: "opt out"....choose NOT to have, to BE IN PAIN..... oh, its > > almost painful to take a break now... this is sooooo much fun... but other > > thinkgs to play with&in this humanimal here, too.... so, later bones, > > ...later, as all ways (hi will i am, you little 1/2german control-freak-out) > > > > > > ;--) > > > > ciao > > > > > > > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> *wrote: > > > > > > > > And on power, we only have power over ourselves. But when we change, we > > affect all the other orders. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try > > it now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+> > > > > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > > > -- > Irene > 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/20071221/1382b838/attachment.html From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 02:21:55 2007 From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:28:55 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes In-Reply-To: <04B40E12-F962-4618-9CFC-02608D4227EF@dc.rr.com> References: <20071221.130056.3184.195.ae.dropper@juno.com> <817130EB-F60F-48DA-A2DE-E57B029875F3@dc.rr.com> <BAY123-W420F3A26AA8C0069AA47EDDC5E0@phx.gbl> <04B40E12-F962-4618-9CFC-02608D4227EF@dc.rr.com> Message-ID: <c47283890712211721s17100210u9d2182d489a916b0@mail.gmail.com> IK: Thank you, Don. That's what I was getting at, but Rob didn't follow up. On Dec 21, 2007 8:16 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2007, at 12:38 PM, rob mooney wrote: > > the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too > > > Maybe, maybe not. > > What keeps it interesting is that nobody knows for sure. > > don > > > > 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/20071221/539bdcc1/attachment.html From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sat Dec 22 02:24:48 2007 From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:31:48 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random ......SEXXXX In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211518q209de459y577b397ac5e00867@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <528108.91574.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> do we need to go further than: "VERY personal" what you mean?? whats personal here? you are hiding behind cliches you can talk about how you make music but you cannot talk about how you make 'love'? can we look at that "personalnessmess" ii cannot see it seriously we could talk about cooking and eating but not about how you put other stuff in you? blows my mind am ii so fucking unconditioned or are you so fucking conditioned? did you ever have analsex? did you ever have tiramisu? ..... )( Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: OK, I'll give it a shot. First of all, it's VERY personal. Second, in a group like ours, one doesn't know who is and isn't ready to hang his intimate secrets up on the suspension-clothesline. It's VERY necessary to adopt some kind of neutral, objective position and tone if it is to be discussed. There are so many taboos involved that one can hardly breathe without stepping on somebody's sore toe. The chapter in my book on Acquiring Tastes and Loves is most interesting. I'll continue this thread once I've read the whole thing and thought about it some more. I will say, I believe porn is a commercialized enterprise that exploits fantasy and spotlights society's thinking in a way nothing else can. For instance, bondage & s&m. And spanking. other degrading fetishes. To me, that is an extreme expression of very sick cultural practices that exist in the non-sexual arena, and of things that exist in peoples' unconscious and is expressed only where many people won't investigate, so they never know how sick the culture is. One can come to understand why a pro-life enthusiast might embrace that path as a way, consciously or subconsciously, to 'save the children', especially he himself who was hurt. On Dec 21, 2007 5:45 PM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: K: I'll think about that over coconut lemongrass chicken and dry sherry, and get back to you. On Dec 21, 2007 5:43 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: ok, lets talk about why people dont-like-to (talk).... (as you say/claim) why is that? what might that have to do with (b)dialogue, too? humanimal Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: K: Yeah. I don't think people like to talk about their sex lives online. And while I might be willing to talk to you privately, and not in writing, exhibitionism doesn't thrill me. On Dec 21, 2007 5:34 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: dont follow...... wellaugh... not out of spitedisobediencetc... can you flsuhflseh that out some? cheers )( ps: "sex" might be a bood one to..... 'losn' thinkgs up a bit a'round here, no?..... to get that (dialogical) "flow of meaning" back on track/tap, no?? Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: K: Oops, Peter. Maybe these topics are why some people use nom de plumes. I suspect we should really approach this from the pov of myths mother and father told us. On Dec 21, 2007 5:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: ok, glad you didnt pull out and seem to been keen to purr'sue this one: so, tell yoUs, ka when was the last tice you "did it" lets talk "sex", all you 'dirty old' bones hey don, how about you and pat (some, how donot, no DO, ask me why i thinkg you didnt "get it" or "gave it" in a handful of decades) and you susan joy? what about you and sex and mister rob and, who am i living out here? oh, yes,william (he liked to pick up "little" girls via bohm-dialogue... at least thats what i was told.... and thusly janoh=jit liked to call this club/house here also some sort of dialogical dating-service ((hi jit, where are you,com on board!))... so will-man, you still "at it"? and, who else....? Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com > wrote: K: Don't tell me you believe the old myths! Is that why you're so grumpy sometimes? On Dec 21, 2007 4:57 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: Ka, hand (not just) aufs herz: dont you thinkg your time (tice) as sex&organ 're ovr ? Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com > wrote: K: Well, take the sexual instinct. I certainly can control how I express it. Eating? Hmmm. A bit more complex, but it can be done. Nobody promised us a rose garden. How about you? On Dec 21, 2007 4:40 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: btw, Ka, would you say {"go so far"} that "instincts" are {take place with'in} your, quote, "i am personally in control"-stuff(ing)?? rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote: the Jungian, fairly obviously. --------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:24 -0500 From: irenedarcy@gmail.com To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes I: What definition of 'instinct' are you using. Check out the article on it: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/I27_INV/INSTINCT.html On Dec 21, 2007 3:38 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote: the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual too > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800 > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is involved > in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that tells us to > breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump when > startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is man-made. > > don > > On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: > > > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is very > > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more complex > > situations, but even thought is not very subtle. > > ~ > > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory based > > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less together, > > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them. > > ~ > > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be realized by > > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by our history > > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is a > > crucial point. > > ~ > > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct of self > > - preservation. > > ~ > > Instinct is an inherited reflex. > > ~ > > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an initial > > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated instinctive > > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a kind of > > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the deep > > initial intention to act toward an object, the action incorporates > > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and outward > > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is another > > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit the > > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action is > > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and > > consequences, after which it may remain stable until further > > discrepancies occur. > > ~ > > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on instinct for > > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove. > > ~ > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -- Irene -- 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/20071221/6d6d7317/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 02:25:11 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:32:11 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] com&passio In-Reply-To: <c47283890712211332v7290c238x7f8e47c6ad7fc33f@mail.gmail.com> References: <979627.36051.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <57061.57555.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <c47283890712211332v7290c238x7f8e47c6ad7fc33f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <D8867F68-E73C-4912-98F3-058C30308D76@dc.rr.com> Totnes? I used to live there. We did some interesting dialogue work at Dartington - which see. Are you going to meet up with Janoh? Say hello for me. Also ask her to introduce you to Detta, one of the greats don On Dec 21, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Irene Darcy wrote: > K: Just might do that. Did I mention I may be in Dresden in June, > hop on a train to Totnes, then why not back on a train to Munich. > One of our Dalcroze people is buried in Perlmutter Forest. He was > a member of the German Resistance to Hitler. The SS caught and > executed him the last day of the war. And beheaded his nephew. > > shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live' > just hopp over the ocean > i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 4:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > <tag> > >>passion , >>compassion, >>william > </tag> > > > > > > > > this one is a "keeper": > > I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to > cope with > the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" > suspension > (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). > You see, > at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always > suspending, people are not getting their expected responses > anymore. Usually > the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a > response > This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to > hurt > you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; > and they > want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are > always in > suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there > is no > reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing > because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. > However, there > is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be > regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say > something. If > you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you > are > effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be > willing to > communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both > ways. The > point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is > invited. > > So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not > actually your > intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion > mode, which > however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have > you > reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of > compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? > Would you > like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where > this is > leading up to. > > herr will-i-am, annos demzbros eightos twentyzerozerosevenos > > > "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > ka, you 'see' (not): > ii is really not into william > ii means, against coomon dobelief here > that ii 'hates' or dislikes or whatever him: > s'he is just a(nother)voice in this > primordial soup of dialogue > --- she 's a bit of a control'freak'out, tho ;--) > > but hey, whatever turns his crank & > pushis but tons > > he is, after all, a creature of (2nd generation) > pass i on > > > > wait, will clip & plug that in here > > > &&&, of course that didoes answer your re:quest not > shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live' > just hopp over the ocean > i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you > > > > > > Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: > I: Hi Pit! > > btw - speaking of Googling people, I Googled William, but I can't > find anything on OUR William. There are plenty of William van den > Heuvels out there. I'd love to hear how William met Bohm, how all > this ties in with his life work, his interests, etc. I'd love to > have a fuller picture of him, actually all of us, as live people. > > On Dec 21, 2007 3:58 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > will i am is so full of ..it ... > no, wait,.... so empti ;-) > > )( > > > w@net: > No, I have never studied anything. I suppose, that saves me .... > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > -- > Irene > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! > Search. > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > -- > Irene > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/d74fcce1/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 02:28:06 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:35:07 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] moderate to immoderate, more and less In-Reply-To: <f6040a0a0712211529x2592abafka42ca0647b7a7658@mail.gmail.com> References: <001d01c555bc$3ee2a2e0$0502a8c0@DESKTOP1> <f6040a0a0712211529x2592abafka42ca0647b7a7658@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <A4730449-5F2A-4E31-A7DC-4E0F45281830@dc.rr.com> Hi welcome back, where are you? don \ On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Franis wrote: > Hi all! > I'm back reading and listening again with regular Internet access. > Nice to see you're all still here, well, except for the perennial pit. > As far as the appeal to being open as a policy: yeah, yeah, yeah. > I've heard that one before. > But what about addressing the bulk of us who have seen pit's > trolling, etc. shenanigans before and are not so interested in > reading them again, ad infinite? > One answer is - I don't mind reading what you guys have to say > because it's interesting as I browse here...don't like the format > of gmail much, but it's better than nothing... But have to admit > I'm a little disappointed that pit (perhaps short for pitiful, but > probably short for pitbull) has emerged again in different sheep's > clothing. Oh well. <sigh> > Melekaliki Maka for those who celebrate that sort of thing... think > I'll put my energy into starting an in-person Dialogue group where > I happen to be now again. > Love, > Franis > > On 5/10/05, Allan <allan.mckenna@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > A dialogue group must be open. It must be available to the input > of all opinions and individuals from all kinds of cultural and > ideational backgrounds.. Silencing > certain people and allowing others to speak....is that really how > you want > to conduct affairs?? That seems to me to be closed-minded. > Certainly, people can choose what they want to accept or dismiss. > Accepting or rejecting a person altogether, is a different matter. > Acceptance fosters understanding. Isn't that what we are here > for? Peter may test the boundaries, and doesn't growth occur at > the edges? > As a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, we should > not censor another's ideas by banning them from the forum. > The only rule there should be is that posts containing abusive > content gets deleted. We can keep this respectful while remaining > challenging, right? > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: > dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/b547b7db/attachment.html From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sat Dec 22 02:28:17 2007 From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:35:16 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice" In-Reply-To: <AAC7CB78-CEE5-4C74-AC49-5BF448539502@dc.rr.com> Message-ID: <906338.46584.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> "it"? ... and why not ask, wenn-schon-denn-schon: "why"(is it) "how" (is it) "where" (is it)... what is it "it", don? " " " donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: This comment is what, in the trade, is called displacement. It is a skill shared by all neurotics and pysychopaths and most psychotics. You are in good company. But maybe this isn't really the place to displace, since it is well recognized for what it is. And I will ask your normal follow-on question: A: what is it? don On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote: ka, stupid question, 'who', no: what, no:HOWHAT actually (could) activate what you call (shophophop a round as): "proprioception" & "suspension" ... do you have any REAL-life-examples, please, or (just) this super&facial make&uppy pepp&talk? can bohm dialogue, "ever", dobe: REAListictictic? cheers 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/20071221/08564344/attachment.html From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 22 02:30:11 2007 From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:37:11 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT -.... "need to take notice" In-Reply-To: <906338.46584.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <906338.46584.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <B96E789E-E2D3-4899-9AF3-E041D4B52AA2@dc.rr.com> I think, the time has come by! On Dec 21, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote: > "it"? > > ... and why not ask, wenn-schon-denn-schon: > "why"(is it) > "how" (is it) > "where" (is it)... > > what is it "it", don? > " > " > " > > > > donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: > This comment is what, in the trade, is called displacement. It is a > skill shared by all neurotics and pysychopaths and most psychotics. > You are in good company. But maybe this isn't really the place to > displace, since it is well recognized for what it is. > > And I will ask your normal follow-on question: > > A: what is it? > > don > On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote: > >> ka, stupid question, 'who', no: what, no:HOWHAT actually (could) >> activate what you call (shophophop a round as): "proprioception" >> & "suspension" ... do you have any REAL-life-examples, please, or >> (just) this super&facial make&uppy pepp&talk? >> >> can bohm dialogue, "ever", dobe: REAListictictic? >> >> cheers >> > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. > Try it now. > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071221/9f7534ec/attachment.html From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 02:37:52 2007 From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:44:53 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random ......SEXXXX In-Reply-To: <528108.91574.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <c47283890712211518q209de459y577b397ac5e00867@mail.gmail.com> <528108.91574.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <c47283890712211737l45a9bf15lf9154e2f5c72f82a@mail.gmail.com> K: Tell you what. You start. On second thought, don't. Yes, I think you are sooo unconditioned, as you put it, in areas where conditioning is positive, that you don't know appropriateness when it stares you in the face. Start with the idea of 'consenting adults'. Well, we are all adults here, but HAVEN'T consented to what you propose. On Dec 21, 2007 8:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > do we need to go further than: > "VERY personal" > what you mean?? > whats personal here? > you are hiding behind cliches > > you can talk about how you make music > but > you cannot talk about how you make 'love'? > > can we look at that "personalnessmess" > ii cannot see it > seriously > > we could talk about cooking and eating > but not about how you put other stuff in you? > > blows my mind > am ii so fucking *unconditioned* > or > are you so fucking *conditioned*? > > did you ever have analsex? > did you ever have tiramisu? > ..... > > )( > > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote: > > OK, I'll give it a shot. First of all, it's VERY personal. Second, in a > group like ours, one doesn't know who is and isn't ready to hang his > intimate secrets up on the suspension-clothesline. It's VERY necessary to > adopt some kind of neutral, objective position and tone if it is to be > discussed. There are so many taboos involved that one can hardly breathe > without stepping on somebody's sore toe. The chapter in my book on > Acquiring Tastes and Loves is most interesting. I'll continue this thread > once I've read the whole thing and thought about it some more. I will say, > I believe porn is a commercialized enterprise that exploits fantasy and > spotlights society's thinking in a way nothing else can. For instance, > bondage & s&m. And spanking. other degrading fetishes. To me, that is an > extreme expression of very sick cultural practices that exist in the > non-sexual arena, and of things that exist in peoples' unconscious and is > expressed only where many people won't investigate, so they never know how > sick the culture is. One can come to understand why a pro-life enthusiast > might embrace that path as a way, consciously or subconsciously, to 'save > the children', especially he himself who was hurt. > > On Dec 21, 2007 5:45 PM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: > > > K: I'll think about that over coconut lemongrass chicken and dry > > sherry, and get back to you. > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 5:43 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > ok, lets talk about why people dont-like-to (talk).... (as you > > > say/claim) > > > > > > why is that? > > > > > > what might that have to do with (b)dialogue, too? > > > > > > humanimal > > > > > > > > > *Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > > > > K: Yeah. I don't think people like to talk about their sex lives > > > online. And while I might be willing to talk to you privately, and not in > > > writing, exhibitionism doesn't thrill me. > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 5:34 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > dont follow...... wellaugh... not out of spitedisobediencetc... can > > > > you flsuhflseh that out some? > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > )( > > > > > > > > ps: "sex" might be a bood one to..... 'losn' thinkgs up a bit > > > > a'round here, no?..... to get that (dialogical) "flow of meaning" back on > > > > track/tap, no?? > > > > > > > > > > > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > > > > > > K: Oops, Peter. Maybe these topics are why some people use nom de > > > > plumes. I suspect we should really approach this from the pov of myths > > > > mother and father told us. > > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 5:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > ok, glad you didnt pull out > > > > > and seem to been keen to purr'sue > > > > > this one: > > > > > > > > > > so, tell yoUs, ka > > > > > when was the last tice > > > > > you "did it" > > > > > > > > > > lets talk "sex", all you 'dirty old' bones > > > > > hey don, how about you > > > > > and pat (some, how donot, no DO, ask me why i thinkg you didnt > > > > > "get it" or "gave it" in a handful of decades) > > > > > and you susan joy? what about you and sex > > > > > and mister rob > > > > > and, who am i living out here? > > > > > oh, yes,william (he liked to pick up "little" girls via > > > > > bohm-dialogue... at least thats what i was told.... and thusly janoh=jit > > > > > liked to call this club/house here also some sort of dialogical > > > > > dating-service ((hi jit, where are you,com on board!))... so will-man, you > > > > > still "at it"? > > > > > and, who else....? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com >* wrote: > > > > > > > > > > K: Don't tell me you believe the old myths! Is that why you're > > > > > so grumpy sometimes? > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 4:57 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ka, hand (not just) aufs herz: dont you thinkg your time (tice) > > > > > > > > > > > > as sex&organ 're > > > > > > > > > > > > ovr > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > *Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com >* wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > K: Well, take the sexual instinct. I certainly can control how > > > > > > I express it. Eating? Hmmm. A bit more complex, but it can be done. > > > > > > Nobody promised us a rose garden. > > > > > > How about you? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 4:40 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > btw, Ka, would you say {"go so far"} that "instincts" are > > > > > > > {take place with'in} your, quote, "i am personally in control"-stuff(ing)?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk >* wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Jungian, fairly obviously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:49:24 -0500 > > > > > > > From: irenedarcy@gmail.com > > > > > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I: What definition of 'instinct' are you using. Check out > > > > > > > the article on it: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/I27_INV/INSTINCT.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 3:38 PM, rob mooney < rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the archetypes that constellate our thinking are instinctual > > > > > > > too > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] INSTINCT - Random Bohm Quotes > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:24:36 -0800 > > > > > > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps to simplify all this. One could say that instinct is > > > > > > > involved > > > > > > > > in everything we do, think, say or feel. The process that > > > > > > > tells us to > > > > > > > > breathe and that makes us get sleepy and that makes us jump > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > startled are all instinctual. The rest, we might say, is > > > > > > > man-made. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instinct can be thought of as a racial memory. This is > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > limited. We have then developed thought to deal with more > > > > > > > complex > > > > > > > > > situations, but even thought is not very subtle. > > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > The whole process of memory, including thought, the memory > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > feelings, and the instincts, could be put more or less > > > > > > > together, > > > > > > > > > and the intelligence goes beyond all of them. > > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > There is an infinitely subtle possibility that can be > > > > > > > realized by > > > > > > > > > our total being. This is not bound by the instincts, by > > > > > > > our history > > > > > > > > > or by our thought. It is really open and creative. This is > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > crucial point. > > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > Absolute Necessity overrides everything, even the instinct > > > > > > > of self > > > > > > > > > - preservation. > > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > Instinct is an inherited reflex. > > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > The initial intention is to find meaning. There may be an > > > > > > > initial > > > > > > > > > significance, grounded in the whole accumulated > > > > > > > instinctive > > > > > > > > > response to the experience of the species, and partly on a > > > > > > > kind of > > > > > > > > > significance that is grounded in past experience. From the > > > > > > > deep > > > > > > > > > initial intention to act toward an object, the action > > > > > > > incorporates > > > > > > > > > or assimilates the object into a cycle of inward and > > > > > > > outward > > > > > > > > > activity. The action changes the perception, and there is > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > action, and then another perception. Does the action fit > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > intention? The intention is modified and thus the action > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > modified, until a fit is obtained between intentions and > > > > > > > > > consequences, after which it may remain stable until > > > > > > > further > > > > > > > > > discrepancies occur. > > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > As civilization grew, you could no longer count on > > > > > > > instinct for > > > > > > > > > safety; an electrical wire could hurt us, a hot stove. > > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> > > > > > > > > > > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Irene > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> > > > > > > > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Irene > > > > > > -- > Irene > 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/d0d7ed38/attachment.html From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 02:40:18 2007 From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy) Date: Sat Dec 22 02:47:18 2007 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] com&passio In-Reply-To: <D8867F68-E73C-4912-98F3-058C30308D76@dc.rr.com> References: <979627.36051.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <57061.57555.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <c47283890712211332v7290c238x7f8e47c6ad7fc33f@mail.gmail.com> <D8867F68-E73C-4912-98F3-058C30308D76@dc.rr.com> Message-ID: <c47283890712211740qae78ebew5fd16e0d0135816c@mail.gmail.com> K: Yes, I'm going to visit Janoh. I just heard from her today. I'll give her your regards. On Dec 21, 2007 8:25 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote: > Totnes? I used to live there. We did some interesting dialogue work at > Dartington - which see. Are you going to meet up with Janoh? Say hello for > me. Also ask her to introduce you to Detta, one of the greats > don > > On Dec 21, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Irene Darcy wrote: > > K: Just might do that. Did I mention I may be in Dresden in June, hop on > a train to Totnes, then why not back on a train to Munich. One of our > Dalcroze people is buried in Perlmutter Forest. He was a member of the > German Resistance to Hitler. The SS caught and executed him the last day of > the war. And beheaded his nephew. > > shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live' > just hopp over the ocean > i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you > > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 4:24 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > <tag> > > >>passion , >>compassion, >>william > > </tag> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this one is a "keeper": > > > > *I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope > > with > > the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" > > suspension > > (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You > > see, > > at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always > > suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore. > > Usually > > the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a > > response > > This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt > > you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and > > they > > want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always > > in > > suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no > > reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing > > because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, > > there > > is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be > > regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. > > If > > you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are > > effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to > > > > communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. > > The > > point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is > > invited. * > > * > > So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually > > your > > intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode, > > which > > however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you > > reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of > > compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would > > you > > like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this > > is > > leading up to.* > > > > herr will-i-am, annos demzbros eightos twentyzerozerosevenos > > > > > > *"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com>* wrote: > > > > ka, you 'see' (not): > > ii is really not into william > > ii means, against coomon dobelief here > > that ii 'hates' or dislikes or whatever him: > > s'he is just a(nother)voice in this > > primordial soup of dialogue > > --- she 's a bit of a control'freak'out, tho ;--) > > > > but hey, whatever turns his crank & > > pushis but tons > > > > he is, after all, a creature of *(2nd generation)* > > *pass i on* > > > > > > > > wait, will clip & plug that in here > > > > > > &&&, of course that didoes answer your re:quest not > > shit, ka, if you want to see him 'live' > > just hopp over the ocean > > i am positive he is, at least a bit, dying to meat you > > > > > > > > > > > > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > > I: Hi Pit! > > > > btw - speaking of Googling people, I Googled William, but I can't find > > anything on OUR William. There are plenty of William van den Heuvels out > > there. I'd love to hear how William met Bohm, how all this ties in with his > > life work, his interests, etc. I'd love to have a fuller picture of him, > > actually all of us, as live people. > > > > On Dec 21, 2007 3:58 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >

From:	k;<k>
Subject:	humanature
Date:	Sun, December 23, 2007 9:31
To:	k
http://www.granitegrok.com/pix/see%20no%20evil.jpg http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/48/40/23404048.jpg ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: humanature From: kitkat22@rcn.com Date: Sun, December 23, 2007 9:23 To: <k> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's the only place I can be sure of being in touch with you when you "disappear" as you did before. Plus, I can sometimes get a good conversation there, whereas I can't most other places. What did you think of Albert's post to Kari? That story is interesting in the light of what you call human 'nature'. If you include what society has taught and ingrained in us, I guess I can accept the term. But with effort, because anything that's not food, sex, etc isn't 'nature'. I particularly disagree with those who say we all have 'animal' nature i.e. aggressive, predatory et al. and blame their behavior on "animals" as 'natural'. And Bohm agrees with me. On 12/23/07 8:59 AM, ".ß" <....> wrote: > > snip: > > "pit, you atenuts whoops are nuts to bother(with) these iiiiidiotts" > > > > > > > ok, so wherwhen does 'one' bother to > start\|end > bothering a'bout groups&dynamics > > humanaturexplorer pit > > > "unreal" (quote:records...)?: > http://www.rainydayrecords.net/images/homelandsecurity.jpg > > "real" (quote:army.mil)? > http://www.smdc.army.mil/SMDCPhoto_Gallery/Eagle/Dec04/homeland%20security-pri ddy0603.jpg > > ps: hey phonirene, how does it > (make you) > feel > to be > on > to be > part of > "the team" > > > > > > > * * * > > > > Subject: Re: humanature > From: "J > Date: Sun, December 23, 2007 8:28 > To: .ß <....> > > > On 23 Dec 2007, at 03:16, .ß wrote: > >> >> >> godog, bones, >> >> what a feast >> >> __ and just in tice for the "fest der liebe {{leibe??}} __ >> >> whoof whoof pet pit >> >> >> >> >> donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote, DEC 22: >> I am informed that pit is still subscribed here under yet another name, possibly more than one. He has written to Irene and quoted something she >> wrote to the list after he was unsubscribed. So, keep your eyes open for >> any hints. Susan has a very keen eye for such things. She was the first to >> spot that AEB was pit. >> >> don >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Don Lay wrote: >> >> Will-i-am: >> Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as >> a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own server as humanimal@... I suggest you update your spam filter. -- >> admin >> >> Don L: >> Under the circumstances, I believe it is not inappropriate to pass on >> the following which I thought was sent to the Bohm list but was >> actually >> directed to one of Peter's addresses: >> >> [was something about Failure] >> >> If dialogue, from the Greek dia logos indicates reason, is it >> reasonable >> to expect a dialogue to be the use of reason and to eliminate the ignoring >> of or distortion of reason and meaning? >> >> It seems entirely reasonable, rational, and perhaps more to the point -- >> meaningful -- to not allow the lack of, or distortion of reason and meaning, to occur in place of dialogue. >> >> Some questions occur: >> >> May meaningful communication occur without reason, ratio, meaning? Does communication occur absent reason, ratio, and meaning? >> >> When reason, ration, meaning is distorted or absent, is communication possible? Is meaningful communication possible? >> >> My view is that the moderator's present actions are reasonable, rational >> and meaningful and are therefore, dialogical. -dl >> >> > > which all begs the qqqq of whow decides what is reason&able.... > > pit, you atenuts whoops are nuts to bother(with) these iiiiidiotts > > ciao jit > > >> >> >> bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org wrote: >> You are now unsubscribed from Bohm_Dialogue >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > Download this as a file