From donlay at gte.net Sun Oct 22 15:32:07 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Oct 23 16:43:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
Message-ID: <000201c6f5df$fdc3d660$9e18153f@DL01>
Pat: "You have to see that your will is entirely created out of the thought of what is necessary and possible." -- Bohm
Don F: worth parsing this sentence ...
dbl: Yes. Seems to me Bohm is saying here that the imagined personal identity is not necessary, that the personal identity occurs after awareness. That is, seems to me Bohm is saying that we are part of the indivisible whole, infinity; that we are not simply separated observers, separated subjects.
What both Bohm and Krishnamurti seem unaware of is that using the personal pronouns keeps in mind the scenario of separated subjects and objects. Is seems they are unaware of what those words do, what the meaning of the persona pronouns do. -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
On 20 Oct 2006, at 02:27, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
You have to see that your will is entirely created out of the thought of what is necessary and possible. Bohm
It is worth parsing this sentence to get its real meaning. Otherwise it seems to say that any act of will or choice is caused by something called a thought of necessity which does not emerge because of some will or choice, but rather from something unnamed.
Now any act that you or anyone performs is obviously the result of a process that includes a thought about what needs to be done and the necessity - felt or conceived - of actually doing it which would involve obviously the possibility of doing it.
I cannot imagine anyone imagining that their choices come to them on the wings of some angel of meaning, or of some independent force of necessity, separate from their thoughts of necessity and possibility.
The question that must be asked here is, Is a thought of necessity, necessarily mistaken or is the mistake (for those of us who are able to admit to making mistakes) not to inquire deeply enough into the meaning of the necessity?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061022/9626096c/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sun Oct 22 15:34:37 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Oct 23 16:43:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Reason-ance, Logos-ance
Message-ID: <000301c6f5df$fec567e0$9e18153f@DL01>
DonF: Okay, but lets see if it also might work if we eliminate a few terms such as fictive, and pretended. [dbl: Culture, minus awareness of what is fictive, pretended is what now obtains -- and it appears to be deficient -- that is: Culture without differentiating that which is from that which is not is what now obtains. What's wrong with the notion of investigating that which is, what actually is? ] Doesn't that bring us to the recognition of necessity? [dbl: Are you unable to see that the meaning of we directs awareness to a separated object/observed as if there is a separated subject/observer? ] If we are "but players" and it is our duty to act on our obligation to the content of the situation, why not be satisfied with that? [dbl: The question is like asking why not be satisfied with imagery? ] What does it add to say, "but of course its all a fiction"? Does that make it any less necessary, or more? [dbl: Are you suggesting the image identity system is necessity, that that is all that could have evolved -- that there is no better way -- that seeking is not needed? ] Any less essential, or of the essence? -- don
Maybe what is needed is attention to differentiating true and false, being and non being -- maybe between essence and existence. I find persuasive the Greek notions of existence as what emerges, stands out -- images, imagination.
Essence then is the whole, the ground of all that is such that any THINGK may emerge and stand out. Maybe then se say that essence is prior in homo-sap experience to existence as what emerges and stands out in imagination. This idea then raises the question of how -- and the answer is the via logos, not via the imaginary mask of personal identity. -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
Okay, but lets see if it also might work if we eliminate a few terms such as fictive, and pretended. Doesn't that bring us to the recognition of necessity? If we are "but players" and it is our duty to act on our obligation to the content of the situation, why not be satisfied with that? What does it add to say, "but of course its all a fiction"? Does that make it any less necessary, or more? Any less essential, or of the essence?
don
On 18 Oct 2006, at 18:39, Don Lay wrote:
If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts, then where is personal responsibility? don F
Here is some thought: Maybe the answer lies in examining the question for meaning and greater awareness. First, there is the confused situation of persona without awareness of what it is. Maybe when it becomes clear that person, from the Greek and Latin proserpone and persona meaning actor's mask, actor's role, we can clearly see the actor has some duty or obligation to respond to the context of the fictive situation, the stage play or drama.
The first duty or responsability of the actor or persona is to respond to the whole situation, the meaning of the writer, the intention. If he does not, the unity of the play will be lost. Think of unity in literary or graphic art where every element meaningfully relates to the whole.
That's what the persona does in culture: It provides something like laser-like unity to culture -- so long as everyone responds to the fictive idea of the culture (whole). You can see the efficacy of the laser-like unity of the Roman legions (originally only the Greek hoplite had the kind of status the Romans afforded to the persona). The Romans applied this notion to the whole of culture, even in conquered lands. Those who acted and pretended the actuality of persona idem were given legal status, rights, protection, etc. This is no secret! Anyone who can read can see this.
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
If we say, along with Bohm, that the whole organises the parts, then where is personal responsibility? I raised that question directly in a conversation with him. We were walking at night and he stopped cold. He was silent for while. Then he came up with an answer that satisfied me. That was maybe fifteen years ago. The trouble is that I can't remember the answer. Can you? Or anybody?
don
On 17 Oct 2006, at 20:53, Don Lay wrote:
d: separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
don F: Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
dbl: We say we are separated from each other, but as Don F indicates, we are never separated from the whole that we are part of. We say that in time, yesterday is separated from tomorrow, and today, etc. Then we may say that ultimately we are not separated from each other and ultimately it has little meaning to say the past is separated from the future, etc.
Maybe we say it has little meaning that we are separated from other homo-saps, from trees and stones, etc: so what! If I should get knocked off by a bus, there might be at least a billion Chinese that would never know; might be far more than that, world wide. How many people die daily that we know nothing of?
The imaginary scenario of getting knocked off by a bus may make us want to be careful so that we don't get knocked off, but it is not proof of actual separation -- is it? Is it possible that separation refers only to imaginary being but not to that which is? After all, being careful is reasonable as in that Reason that is said to derive from the logos. Maybe it is the actuality of the logos which determines whether or not we are careful, whether or not we get knocked off by a bus.
Very often while driving, the idea of being careful so as to not have an accident repeats. Is that me repeating that, causing that repetition which keeps in mind the importance of being careful? I certainly understand the logic of saying it's me, but since it is a use of reason and that word derives from the Greek logos, is it not more meaningful to say that ultimately, the logos is the cause?
I've been working on this for a long time. I will appreciate feed back. Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] reason-ance, logos-ance
On 17 Oct 2006, at 18:22, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
Could the sense of separation be more than language and culture but that there is a normal (real-real) separation--and that some times we need to take responsibility for our acts made separately by us/ i.e. i made a huge mistake today, feeling really bad about it, not anyone else was responsible. That is more than a "sense" of separation.
Believe me, I understand that my acts affect others so in that sense we are not separate but, here I go again, thanking separateness is a part of the whole. Make any sense? d.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. We are separate regardless of what the language might tell us or how our the culture might condition us. If I make a mistake it is my mistake. If I get run over by a bus, it is me that gets run over and, so far as I know, that is the end of me.
However, there is another perspective from which I can see that I am an inseparable part of the whole. From this perspective there is no such thing as a separate individual human being. To be human is to be part the whole of humanity. Everything I know or think or or feel or believe comes from this whole which in turn is an inseparable part of its world. There is no such thing in nature as an isolated system.
So how do we accommodate both of these perspectives? That is the interesting question for me/
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061022/a45b47a6/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Oct 22 21:17:00 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Oct 23 22:17:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
In-Reply-To: <000201c6f5df$fdc3d660$9e18153f@DL01>
References: <000201c6f5df$fdc3d660$9e18153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <6FF71ECD-8029-4D0D-A182-D076216DC305@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 22 Oct 2006, at 14:32, Don Lay wrote:
>
> Pat: "You have to see that your will is entirely created out of
> the thought of what is necessary and possible." -- Bohm
>
> Don F: worth parsing this sentence ...
>
> dbl: Yes. Seems to me Bohm is saying here that the imagined
> personal identity is not necessary, that the personal identity
> occurs after awareness. That is, seems to me Bohm is saying that
> we are part of the indivisible whole, infinity; that we are not
> simply separated observers, separated subjects.
My reading of that sentence gives it that meaning that will is a
product of a thought which is not an awareness of actuality. That is,
that will is nothing but an activity of thought with no essential
relevance to any actual situation. I don't accept this view at least
not without a lot more evidence. But then maybe its not what he meant.
>
> What both Bohm and Krishnamurti seem unaware of is that using the
> personal pronouns keeps in mind the scenario of separated subjects
> and objects. Is seems they are unaware of what those words do, what
> the meaning of the persona pronouns do. -- dbl
I don't know about Krishnamurti but Bohm certainly gave a lot of
consideration to the question of the personal pronoun. He deals
with this at some length in the chapter headed, Sunday Morning Final
Session, of Unfolding Meaning. In it he wanted to explore why it
seems that all the religious conflict in the world along with most
other conflict boils down to people wanting to protect their own egos
- both individually and collectively. He coined the word, "wego" to
call attention to the collective ego. This session started out to be
a presentation of a paper entitled Wholeness and the Problem of
Fragmentation. But, as he says at the beginning, the previous
sessions led him to some new insights into the subject.
I think it is important to remember that Bohm always made it very
clear that his remarks were intended as proposals to be inquired
into, not statements of truth or actuality. He was always ready to
inquire into other people's proposals. Of course he had been working
with these ideas for longer than the rest of us, so he was better at
it. Participation was what he wanted. He considered himself as simply
a participant in these seminars. Not as one who professes the
truth. HIs aim was to encourage the rest of us to participate with
him creatively.
don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 5:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
>
>
> On 20 Oct 2006, at 02:27, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> You have to see that your will is entirely created out of the
>> thought of what is necessary and possible. Bohm
>
> It is worth parsing this sentence to get its real meaning.
> Otherwise it seems to say that any act of will or choice is caused
> by something called a thought of necessity which does not emerge
> because of some will or choice, but rather from something unnamed.
>
> Now any act that you or anyone performs is obviously the result of
> a process that includes a thought about what needs to be done and
> the necessity - felt or conceived - of actually doing it which
> would involve obviously the possibility of doing it.
>
> I cannot imagine anyone imagining that their choices come to them
> on the wings of some angel of meaning, or of some independent force
> of necessity, separate from their thoughts of necessity and
> possibility.
>
> The question that must be asked here is, Is a thought of necessity,
> necessarily mistaken or is the mistake (for those of us who are
> able to admit to making mistakes) not to inquire deeply enough into
> the meaning of the necessity?
>
> don
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061022/7e643d4e/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Oct 22 22:20:40 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Oct 23 23:20:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Reason-ance, Logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <000301c6f5df$fec567e0$9e18153f@DL01>
References: <000301c6f5df$fec567e0$9e18153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <A5830F19-1C99-48E0-B8DD-C9081D1F7CF0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 22 Oct 2006, at 14:34, Don Lay wrote:
> Maybe what is needed is attention to differentiating true and
> false, being and non being -- maybe between essence and existence.
Essence = necessity and existence + what is. Where is being in all
this? Of course, attention is necessary (needed).
But I don't know how one maintains that. The problem is that any
attempt to zero in on such distinctions leads the thought process to
lock the results in so that they become fixed. So then, knowing what
we know, we have to keep finding ways to change our minds - through
attention, certainlys, but something more is needed.
> I find persuasive the Greek notions of existence as what emerges,
> stands out -- images, imagination.
I haven't as yet given it much thought, but I just saw something:
"images": implies something static. fixed, while "imagination" flows
and changes. Can we humans find a way to allow our imaginations to
keep a process alive rather than be required to make it struggle to
sustain our fixed images of self, world and whatever? Attention alone
doesn't seem enough amidst all the flux.
don
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061022/6f274edf/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Oct 22 22:25:59 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Oct 23 23:26:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Reason-ance, Logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <A5830F19-1C99-48E0-B8DD-C9081D1F7CF0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <000301c6f5df$fec567e0$9e18153f@DL01>
<A5830F19-1C99-48E0-B8DD-C9081D1F7CF0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <493AB0EE-3ADE-4E5A-A0D3-2F27952B6683@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>
> Essence = necessity and existence + what is.
I meant to type: essence=necessity and existence=what is.
sorry
dn
From donlay at gte.net Sun Oct 22 23:24:40 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 00:29:51 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
References: <OFCDAC5906.5493A311-ON8525720C.00386940-8525720C.003B6D96@dialogos.com>
<14E63EFF-4ECD-498A-B3D9-168D5A9B7842@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000301c6f621$2d01e390$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
just about everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a
synthesis. You are a synthesis -- don F
I believe I see your POV. However, it does not consider the idea how, in
homo-sap affairs, there's the notion of image-identity and the personal mask
of identity.
Are you suggesting it is not useful or important to differentiate what is
only man-made or synthetic imagery, e.g., the unicorn or one's purely
imaginary identity -- and what actually is? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>I am also concerned about the word "synthetic" because just about
>everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a synthesis. You are
>a synthesis that can be described as one of body-mind-spirit, or DNA from
>two different parents, or a myriad of other combinations. Bohm was a fan
>of Hegel's logic based on the progression, thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
>This last being a higher order than the first two. The synthesis then
>becomes a thesis, etc. in an ongoing chain. It was known as a dialectic.
>Dialogue is a higher order synthesis of dialectic and something else - I'm
>not sure what to call it - logos, maybe. The idea is that a synthesis of,
>say, guilty and innocent does not lie between the thesis and antithesis
>but beyond them. "Complex" comes to mind but that's too general .... And
>then there is perspective. Jean Gebser wrote about a state of mind that
>would be aperspectival. This doesn\t mean just a blending of various
>perspectives but something beyond that, a way of perceiving that is beyond
>perspective. Of course, he put this in the category of a mutation in human
>consciousness that was just beginning to emerge - something like Bohm's
>insight that would change all the brains cells once and for all.
>
> Sorry about the digression here, but its where the word took me.
> don
>
> On 19 Oct 2006, at 11:49, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>
>> Rodger __I agree with your defining of synthetic and natural. Coherent.
>> Unfortunately the definition is usually loaded with views of separation
>> and moral preference.
>>
>> Distinction, for the purpose of coherence, rather than looking-for-
>> truth; in this case, recognizing differences between synthetic and
>> natural without being influenced by emotional bais or investment based
>> on fear of change, or death -- re: that awesom, unstoppable,
>> evolutionary process!
>>
>> Did Atlantis ever exist or sink? Did the ending of previous
>> civilizations, end-the-world? Or simply end the world; as it was known
>> back then?
>>
>> The difference between natural and synthetic reminds me of Pats poem. In
>> this case the loudest voice tends to shout about how
>> unnatural -synthetics- are.
>> While the quiet voice whispers of the minor and temporary part
>> synthetics have in the grandeur of Nature.._R
>> .
>> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:35 -0400
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> .
>> Might there be some valid reasons for distinguishing between "Natural"
>> and "Synthetic?" (Not looking for "truth" in thought, just coherence).
>> .
>> .
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Sun Oct 22 23:24:51 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 00:29:52 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
References: <OFCDAC5906.5493A311-ON8525720C.00386940-8525720C.003B6D96@dialogos.com>
<14E63EFF-4ECD-498A-B3D9-168D5A9B7842@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000401c6f621$2d280930$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
You are a synthesis that can be described as one of body-mind-spirit, or DNA
from two different parents, or a myriad of other combinations. d f
Is it possible to see the second personal pronoun as a synthesis of
imaginary identity, imaginary sameness, and a "region of the universe" as
does Bohm -- in which case, when there is little or no proprioception
regarding that which is only imagery ... self deception occurs. Also in
which case, the imagined reality has equal footing with what actually is.
Does it not seem important to distinguish between that imagery based upon
imagery and imagery based on actual experience? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>I am also concerned about the word "synthetic" because just about
>everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a synthesis. You are
>a synthesis that can be described as one of body-mind-spirit, or DNA from
>two different parents, or a myriad of other combinations. Bohm was a fan
>of Hegel's logic based on the progression, thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
>This last being a higher order than the first two. The synthesis then
>becomes a thesis, etc. in an ongoing chain. It was known as a dialectic.
>Dialogue is a higher order synthesis of dialectic and something else - I'm
>not sure what to call it - logos, maybe. The idea is that a synthesis of,
>say, guilty and innocent does not lie between the thesis and antithesis
>but beyond them. "Complex" comes to mind but that's too general .... And
>then there is perspective. Jean Gebser wrote about a state of mind that
>would be aperspectival. This doesn\t mean just a blending of various
>perspectives but something beyond that, a way of perceiving that is beyond
>perspective. Of course, he put this in the category of a mutation in human
>consciousness that was just beginning to emerge - something like Bohm's
>insight that would change all the brains cells once and for all.
>
> Sorry about the digression here, but its where the word took me.
> don
>
> On 19 Oct 2006, at 11:49, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>
>> Rodger __I agree with your defining of synthetic and natural. Coherent.
>> Unfortunately the definition is usually loaded with views of separation
>> and moral preference.
>>
>> Distinction, for the purpose of coherence, rather than looking-for-
>> truth; in this case, recognizing differences between synthetic and
>> natural without being influenced by emotional bais or investment based
>> on fear of change, or death -- re: that awesom, unstoppable,
>> evolutionary process!
>>
>> Did Atlantis ever exist or sink? Did the ending of previous
>> civilizations, end-the-world? Or simply end the world; as it was known
>> back then?
>>
>> The difference between natural and synthetic reminds me of Pats poem. In
>> this case the loudest voice tends to shout about how
>> unnatural -synthetics- are.
>> While the quiet voice whispers of the minor and temporary part
>> synthetics have in the grandeur of Nature.._R
>> .
>> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:35 -0400
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> .
>> Might there be some valid reasons for distinguishing between "Natural"
>> and "Synthetic?" (Not looking for "truth" in thought, just coherence).
>> .
>> .
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Sun Oct 22 23:26:37 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 00:29:54 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
References: <OFCDAC5906.5493A311-ON8525720C.00386940-8525720C.003B6D96@dialogos.com>
<14E63EFF-4ECD-498A-B3D9-168D5A9B7842@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000501c6f621$2d52e9c0$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
just about everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a
synthesis. You are a synthesis -- don F
I believe I see your POV. However, it does not consider the idea how, in
homo-sap affairs, there's the notion of image-identity and the personal mask
of identity.
Are you suggesting it is not useful or important to differentiate what is
only man-made or synthetic imagery, e.g., the unicorn or one's purely
imaginary identity -- and what actually is? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>I am also concerned about the word "synthetic" because just about
>everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a synthesis. You are
>a synthesis that can be described as one of body-mind-spirit, or DNA from
>two different parents, or a myriad of other combinations. Bohm was a fan
>of Hegel's logic based on the progression, thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
>This last being a higher order than the first two. The synthesis then
>becomes a thesis, etc. in an ongoing chain. It was known as a dialectic.
>Dialogue is a higher order synthesis of dialectic and something else - I'm
>not sure what to call it - logos, maybe. The idea is that a synthesis of,
>say, guilty and innocent does not lie between the thesis and antithesis
>but beyond them. "Complex" comes to mind but that's too general .... And
>then there is perspective. Jean Gebser wrote about a state of mind that
>would be aperspectival. This doesn\t mean just a blending of various
>perspectives but something beyond that, a way of perceiving that is beyond
>perspective. Of course, he put this in the category of a mutation in human
>consciousness that was just beginning to emerge - something like Bohm's
>insight that would change all the brains cells once and for all.
>
> Sorry about the digression here, but its where the word took me.
> don
>
> On 19 Oct 2006, at 11:49, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>
>> Rodger __I agree with your defining of synthetic and natural. Coherent.
>> Unfortunately the definition is usually loaded with views of separation
>> and moral preference.
>>
>> Distinction, for the purpose of coherence, rather than looking-for-
>> truth; in this case, recognizing differences between synthetic and
>> natural without being influenced by emotional bais or investment based
>> on fear of change, or death -- re: that awesom, unstoppable,
>> evolutionary process!
>>
>> Did Atlantis ever exist or sink? Did the ending of previous
>> civilizations, end-the-world? Or simply end the world; as it was known
>> back then?
>>
>> The difference between natural and synthetic reminds me of Pats poem. In
>> this case the loudest voice tends to shout about how
>> unnatural -synthetics- are.
>> While the quiet voice whispers of the minor and temporary part
>> synthetics have in the grandeur of Nature.._R
>> .
>> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:35 -0400
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> .
>> Might there be some valid reasons for distinguishing between "Natural"
>> and "Synthetic?" (Not looking for "truth" in thought, just coherence).
>> .
>> .
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Sun Oct 22 23:34:28 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 00:34:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
References: <000201c6f5df$fdc3d660$9e18153f@DL01>
<6FF71ECD-8029-4D0D-A182-D076216DC305@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001401c6f621$dabed150$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
I think it is important to remember that Bohm always made it very clear that his remarks were intended as proposals to be inquired into, not statements of truth or actuality. -- df
Yes. Evidently because he knew, accepted that that which is, TRUTH, cannot be known/said. -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
On 22 Oct 2006, at 14:32, Don Lay wrote:
Pat: "You have to see that your will is entirely created out of the thought of what is necessary and possible." -- Bohm
Don F: worth parsing this sentence ...
dbl: Yes. Seems to me Bohm is saying here that the imagined personal identity is not necessary, that the personal identity occurs after awareness. That is, seems to me Bohm is saying that we are part of the indivisible whole, infinity; that we are not simply separated observers, separated subjects.
My reading of that sentence gives it that meaning that will is a product of a thought which is not an awareness of actuality. That is, that will is nothing but an activity of thought with no essential relevance to any actual situation. I don't accept this view at least not without a lot more evidence. But then maybe its not what he meant.
What both Bohm and Krishnamurti seem unaware of is that using the personal pronouns keeps in mind the scenario of separated subjects and objects. Is seems they are unaware of what those words do, what the meaning of the persona pronouns do. -- dbl
I don't know about Krishnamurti but Bohm certainly gave a lot of consideration to the question of the personal pronoun. He deals with this at some length in the chapter headed, Sunday Morning Final Session, of Unfolding Meaning. In it he wanted to explore why it seems that all the religious conflict in the world along with most other conflict boils down to people wanting to protect their own egos - both individually and collectively. He coined the word, "wego" to call attention to the collective ego. This session started out to be a presentation of a paper entitled Wholeness and the Problem of Fragmentation. But, as he says at the beginning, the previous sessions led him to some new insights into the subject.
I think it is important to remember that Bohm always made it very clear that his remarks were intended as proposals to be inquired into, not statements of truth or actuality. He was always ready to inquire into other people's proposals. Of course he had been working with these ideas for longer than the rest of us, so he was better at it. Participation was what he wanted. He considered himself as simply a participant in these seminars. Not as one who professes the truth. HIs aim was to encourage the rest of us to participate with him creatively.
don
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
On 20 Oct 2006, at 02:27, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
You have to see that your will is entirely created out of the thought of what is necessary and possible. Bohm
It is worth parsing this sentence to get its real meaning. Otherwise it seems to say that any act of will or choice is caused by something called a thought of necessity which does not emerge because of some will or choice, but rather from something unnamed.
Now any act that you or anyone performs is obviously the result of a process that includes a thought about what needs to be done and the necessity - felt or conceived - of actually doing it which would involve obviously the possibility of doing it.
I cannot imagine anyone imagining that their choices come to them on the wings of some angel of meaning, or of some independent force of necessity, separate from their thoughts of necessity and possibility.
The question that must be asked here is, Is a thought of necessity, necessarily mistaken or is the mistake (for those of us who are able to admit to making mistakes) not to inquire deeply enough into the meaning of the necessity?
don
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061022/9447a794/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sun Oct 22 23:46:15 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 00:46:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Reason-ance, Logos-ance
References: <000301c6f5df$fec567e0$9e18153f@DL01>
<A5830F19-1C99-48E0-B8DD-C9081D1F7CF0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002301c6f623$803011c0$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Being = that which is
Existence = that which emerges, stands out. maybe this understands presumes (ASSUMES?) the Greek notion of logos as reason. That is, it is reasoned that Being is the whole, is this that is, and here in this that is, imagery emerges, stands out. Imager is not that which is perhaps since it may be imagery of images (Plato, The Cave, Korzybski, General Semantics).
With this schema, Being cannot be known (SAID), and what is known (SAID) is imagery. All that is participates in the whole, in being, evidence of this is that the logos produces imagery of that which is actual. -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Reason-ance, Logos-ance
On 22 Oct 2006, at 14:34, Don Lay wrote:
Maybe what is needed is attention to differentiating true and false, being and non being -- maybe between essence and existence.
Essence = necessity and existence + what is. Where is being in all this? Of course, attention is necessary (needed).
But I don't know how one maintains that. The problem is that any attempt to zero in on such distinctions leads the thought process to lock the results in so that they become fixed. So then, knowing what we know, we have to keep finding ways to change our minds - through attention, certainlys, but something more is needed.
I find persuasive the Greek notions of existence as what emerges, stands out -- images, imagination.
I haven't as yet given it much thought, but I just saw something: "images": implies something static. fixed, while "imagination" flows and changes. Can we humans find a way to allow our imaginations to keep a process alive rather than be required to make it struggle to sustain our fixed images of self, world and whatever? Attention alone doesn't seem enough amidst all the flux.
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061022/af76b361/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Oct 22 23:46:17 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 24 00:46:26 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
In-Reply-To: <000301c6f621$2d01e390$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <OFCDAC5906.5493A311-ON8525720C.00386940-8525720C.003B6D96@dialogos.com>
<14E63EFF-4ECD-498A-B3D9-168D5A9B7842@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<000301c6f621$2d01e390$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <1D7BFC06-813F-4114-BDBB-74D6D8E4C725@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I have never met anyone who believed himself to be a unicorn. But
somebody once wrote that if you believe there are unicorns at the
bottom of your garden, you will eventually see unicorns at the bottom
of your garden.
On 22 Oct 2006, at 22:24, Don Lay wrote:
> just about everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a
> synthesis. You are a synthesis -- don F
>
> I believe I see your POV. However, it does not consider the idea
> how, in
> homo-sap affairs, there's the notion of image-identity and the
> personal mask
> of identity.
>
> Are you suggesting it is not useful or important to differentiate
> what is
> only man-made or synthetic imagery, e.g., the unicorn or one's purely
> imaginary identity -- and what actually is? -- Don L
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Factor"
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>
>
>> I am also concerned about the word "synthetic" because just about
>> everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a
>> synthesis. You are
>> a synthesis that can be described as one of body-mind-spirit, or
>> DNA from
>> two different parents, or a myriad of other combinations. Bohm
>> was a fan
>> of Hegel's logic based on the progression, thesis, antithesis,
>> synthesis.
>> This last being a higher order than the first two. The synthesis
>> then
>> becomes a thesis, etc. in an ongoing chain. It was known as a
>> dialectic.
>> Dialogue is a higher order synthesis of dialectic and something
>> else - I'm
>> not sure what to call it - logos, maybe. The idea is that a
>> synthesis of,
>> say, guilty and innocent does not lie between the thesis and
>> antithesis
>> but beyond them. "Complex" comes to mind but that's too
>> general .... And
>> then there is perspective. Jean Gebser wrote about a state of
>> mind that
>> would be aperspectival. This doesn\t mean just a blending of various
>> perspectives but something beyond that, a way of perceiving that
>> is beyond
>> perspective. Of course, he put this in the category of a mutation
>> in human
>> consciousness that was just beginning to emerge - something like
>> Bohm's
>> insight that would change all the brains cells once and for all.
>>
>> Sorry about the digression here, but its where the word took me.
>> don
>>
>> On 19 Oct 2006, at 11:49, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>
>>> Rodger __I agree with your defining of synthetic and natural.
>>> Coherent.
>>> Unfortunately the definition is usually loaded with views of
>>> separation
>>> and moral preference.
>>>
>>> Distinction, for the purpose of coherence, rather than looking-for-
>>> truth; in this case, recognizing differences between synthetic and
>>> natural without being influenced by emotional bais or investment
>>> based
>>> on fear of change, or death -- re: that awesom, unstoppable,
>>> evolutionary process!
>>>
>>> Did Atlantis ever exist or sink? Did the ending of previous
>>> civilizations, end-the-world? Or simply end the world; as it was
>>> known
>>> back then?
>>>
>>> The difference between natural and synthetic reminds me of Pats
>>> poem. In
>>> this case the loudest voice tends to shout about how
>>> unnatural -synthetics- are.
>>> While the quiet voice whispers of the minor and temporary part
>>> synthetics have in the grandeur of Nature.._R
>>> .
>>> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:35 -0400
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> .
>>> Might there be some valid reasons for distinguishing between
>>> "Natural"
>>> and "Synthetic?" (Not looking for "truth" in thought, just
>>> coherence).
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Sun Oct 22 23:51:56 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 00:52:14 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
References: <OFCDAC5906.5493A311-ON8525720C.00386940-8525720C.003B6D96@dialogos.com>
<14E63EFF-4ECD-498A-B3D9-168D5A9B7842@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<000301c6f621$2d01e390$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<1D7BFC06-813F-4114-BDBB-74D6D8E4C725@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002c01c6f624$4b6e1940$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
>I have never met anyone who believed himself to be a unicorn. -- d f
Neither have I. I have seen many though who thought they were some THINGK
simply because they knew someone important. Wasn't that imaginary?
Maybe the point is that we can imagine almost anything, fantasize almost
anything -- however, there's a serious difference between imagery based upon
actual experience and imagery based only upon other images. -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>I have never met anyone who believed himself to be a unicorn. But somebody
>once wrote that if you believe there are unicorns at the bottom of your
>garden, you will eventually see unicorns at the bottom of your garden.
> On 22 Oct 2006, at 22:24, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> just about everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a
>> synthesis. You are a synthesis -- don F
>>
>> I believe I see your POV. However, it does not consider the idea how,
>> in
>> homo-sap affairs, there's the notion of image-identity and the personal
>> mask
>> of identity.
>>
>> Are you suggesting it is not useful or important to differentiate what
>> is
>> only man-made or synthetic imagery, e.g., the unicorn or one's purely
>> imaginary identity -- and what actually is? -- Don L
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Factor"
>> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:21 AM
>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>>
>>
>>> I am also concerned about the word "synthetic" because just about
>>> everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a synthesis. You
>>> are
>>> a synthesis that can be described as one of body-mind-spirit, or DNA
>>> from
>>> two different parents, or a myriad of other combinations. Bohm was a
>>> fan
>>> of Hegel's logic based on the progression, thesis, antithesis,
>>> synthesis.
>>> This last being a higher order than the first two. The synthesis then
>>> becomes a thesis, etc. in an ongoing chain. It was known as a
>>> dialectic.
>>> Dialogue is a higher order synthesis of dialectic and something else -
>>> I'm
>>> not sure what to call it - logos, maybe. The idea is that a synthesis
>>> of,
>>> say, guilty and innocent does not lie between the thesis and
>>> antithesis
>>> but beyond them. "Complex" comes to mind but that's too general ....
>>> And
>>> then there is perspective. Jean Gebser wrote about a state of mind
>>> that
>>> would be aperspectival. This doesn\t mean just a blending of various
>>> perspectives but something beyond that, a way of perceiving that is
>>> beyond
>>> perspective. Of course, he put this in the category of a mutation in
>>> human
>>> consciousness that was just beginning to emerge - something like
>>> Bohm's
>>> insight that would change all the brains cells once and for all.
>>>
>>> Sorry about the digression here, but its where the word took me.
>>> don
>>>
>>> On 19 Oct 2006, at 11:49, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rodger __I agree with your defining of synthetic and natural.
>>>> Coherent.
>>>> Unfortunately the definition is usually loaded with views of
>>>> separation
>>>> and moral preference.
>>>>
>>>> Distinction, for the purpose of coherence, rather than looking-for-
>>>> truth; in this case, recognizing differences between synthetic and
>>>> natural without being influenced by emotional bais or investment
>>>> based
>>>> on fear of change, or death -- re: that awesom, unstoppable,
>>>> evolutionary process!
>>>>
>>>> Did Atlantis ever exist or sink? Did the ending of previous
>>>> civilizations, end-the-world? Or simply end the world; as it was
>>>> known
>>>> back then?
>>>>
>>>> The difference between natural and synthetic reminds me of Pats poem.
>>>> In
>>>> this case the loudest voice tends to shout about how
>>>> unnatural -synthetics- are.
>>>> While the quiet voice whispers of the minor and temporary part
>>>> synthetics have in the grandeur of Nature.._R
>>>> .
>>>> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:35 -0400
>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> .
>>>> Might there be some valid reasons for distinguishing between
>>>> "Natural"
>>>> and "Synthetic?" (Not looking for "truth" in thought, just
>>>> coherence).
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Oct 22 23:54:28 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 24 00:54:36 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
In-Reply-To: <000401c6f621$2d280930$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <OFCDAC5906.5493A311-ON8525720C.00386940-8525720C.003B6D96@dialogos.com>
<14E63EFF-4ECD-498A-B3D9-168D5A9B7842@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<000401c6f621$2d280930$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <71308485-07DA-4912-B11A-99F804501A97@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I would have to say that the only way one can tell the difference
between their imagination and what actually is, by its consequences.
After which course correction may be possible.
To expect to see what actually is, in the normal course of events
would be a very rare phenomenon if it could occur at all.
We are gifted with imagination and the ability to use it to test our
ability to navigate through the complexities of "what is", at least
some of the time. Proprioception of thought in the sense that we can
notice when thought is telling us what is out there and when an
awareness that transcends the thought process is telling us, that may
be genius. But from time to time I think we all have found that such
state is available. How to sustain it, is the tricky bit.
don
On 22 Oct 2006, at 22:24, Don Lay wrote:
> You are a synthesis that can be described as one of body-mind-
> spirit, or DNA
> from two different parents, or a myriad of other combinations. d f
>
> Is it possible to see the second personal pronoun as a synthesis of
> imaginary identity, imaginary sameness, and a "region of the
> universe" as
> does Bohm -- in which case, when there is little or no proprioception
> regarding that which is only imagery ... self deception occurs.
> Also in
> which case, the imagined reality has equal footing with what
> actually is.
> Does it not seem important to distinguish between that imagery
> based upon
> imagery and imagery based on actual experience? -- Don L
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Factor"
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>
>
>> I am also concerned about the word "synthetic" because just about
>> everything, in and beyond nature, is synthetic. It is a
>> synthesis. You are
>> a synthesis that can be described as one of body-mind-spirit, or
>> DNA from
>> two different parents, or a myriad of other combinations. Bohm
>> was a fan
>> of Hegel's logic based on the progression, thesis, antithesis,
>> synthesis.
>> This last being a higher order than the first two. The synthesis
>> then
>> becomes a thesis, etc. in an ongoing chain. It was known as a
>> dialectic.
>> Dialogue is a higher order synthesis of dialectic and something
>> else - I'm
>> not sure what to call it - logos, maybe. The idea is that a
>> synthesis of,
>> say, guilty and innocent does not lie between the thesis and
>> antithesis
>> but beyond them. "Complex" comes to mind but that's too
>> general .... And
>> then there is perspective. Jean Gebser wrote about a state of
>> mind that
>> would be aperspectival. This doesn\t mean just a blending of various
>> perspectives but something beyond that, a way of perceiving that
>> is beyond
>> perspective. Of course, he put this in the category of a mutation
>> in human
>> consciousness that was just beginning to emerge - something like
>> Bohm's
>> insight that would change all the brains cells once and for all.
>>
>> Sorry about the digression here, but its where the word took me.
>> don
>>
>> On 19 Oct 2006, at 11:49, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>
>>> Rodger __I agree with your defining of synthetic and natural.
>>> Coherent.
>>> Unfortunately the definition is usually loaded with views of
>>> separation
>>> and moral preference.
>>>
>>> Distinction, for the purpose of coherence, rather than looking-for-
>>> truth; in this case, recognizing differences between synthetic and
>>> natural without being influenced by emotional bais or investment
>>> based
>>> on fear of change, or death -- re: that awesom, unstoppable,
>>> evolutionary process!
>>>
>>> Did Atlantis ever exist or sink? Did the ending of previous
>>> civilizations, end-the-world? Or simply end the world; as it was
>>> known
>>> back then?
>>>
>>> The difference between natural and synthetic reminds me of Pats
>>> poem. In
>>> this case the loudest voice tends to shout about how
>>> unnatural -synthetics- are.
>>> While the quiet voice whispers of the minor and temporary part
>>> synthetics have in the grandeur of Nature.._R
>>> .
>>> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:35 -0400
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate statements
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> .
>>> Might there be some valid reasons for distinguishing between
>>> "Natural"
>>> and "Synthetic?" (Not looking for "truth" in thought, just
>>> coherence).
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>