From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 23 00:05:23 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 24 01:05:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
In-Reply-To: <001401c6f621$dabed150$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <000201c6f5df$fdc3d660$9e18153f@DL01>
<6FF71ECD-8029-4D0D-A182-D076216DC305@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001401c6f621$dabed150$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <79209017-509D-42AD-B046-E32EB8F52341@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 22 Oct 2006, at 22:34, Don Lay wrote:
> 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
Indeed. But it can be realised in moments of clarity - those "aha" or
Eureka moments.
BTW. have you had the chance to see any videos of Bohm speaking or
conversing? There are a few on-line and they give a very good
indication of what he was like when he was talking about these
things. He would exhibit an air of uncertainty, sometimes looking as
if he was expecting to be shot down immediately. I don't believe that
this hesitancy was a pose. He was actually, in a way that I still
don't understand, behaving as though he was formulating something had
spoken or written about previously as if was coming up with it for
the very first time. I have discussed this with Saral his widow and
she has confirmed that this was the way he was. although there were
also times, in the scientific area when someone would challenge him
he could shoot them down authoritatively and definitively. But I
never heard him do this in the psychological or philosophical realm.
don
>
>
>
>
> ----- 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061022/6a5ef153/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 00:05:00 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 01:10:20 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>
<000401c6f621$2d280930$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<71308485-07DA-4912-B11A-99F804501A97@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001001c6f626$d45de030$e20a153f@DL01>
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>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.
>
> cProprioception 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Oct 23 00:09:55 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 01:10:22 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>
<000401c6f621$2d280930$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<71308485-07DA-4912-B11A-99F804501A97@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001101c6f626$d4d9c6f0$e20a153f@DL01>
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. -- df
Sounds like you are talking religion. -- dl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Oct 23 00:22:58 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 24 01:23:06 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
In-Reply-To: <001101c6f626$d4d9c6f0$e20a153f@DL01>
References: <OFCDAC5906.5493A311-ON8525720C.00386940-8525720C.003B6D96@dialogos.com>
<14E63EFF-4ECD-498A-B3D9-168D5A9B7842@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<000401c6f621$2d280930$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<71308485-07DA-4912-B11A-99F804501A97@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001101c6f626$d4d9c6f0$e20a153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <F606D74F-C6BD-46D0-9BD3-5FA41CA73C38@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 22 Oct 2006, at 23:09, Don Lay wrote:
> We are gifted with imagination and the ability to use it to test
> our ability to navigate through the complexities of "what is", at
> least some of the time. -- df
>
> Sounds like you are talking religion. -- dl
How so?
don
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 01:22:01 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 02:27:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
References: <000201c6f5df$fdc3d660$9e18153f@DL01>
<6FF71ECD-8029-4D0D-A182-D076216DC305@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001401c6f621$dabed150$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<79209017-509D-42AD-B046-E32EB8F52341@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000301c6f631$9bf0ae70$0702a8c0@your0548c161e1>
df:: Indeed. But it can be realised in moments of clarity - those "aha" or Eureka moments. -- df
dbl: Seems to me those moments of clarity are moments when insight peeks through the cracks between words/imagery of the repetitive, mechanical persona identity loop.
df:. BTW. have you had the chance to see any videos of Bohm speaking or conversing? [dbl: I saw one in which he appeared as an older man whose dentures clicked when he spoke. He appeared to be loveable. ] There are a few on-line and they give a very good indication of what he was like when he was talking about these things. He would exhibit an air of uncertainty, sometimes looking as if he was expecting to be shot down immediately. [dbl: It has seemed to me that he knew where-of he spoke, knew that he could not be shot down, and was only being humble. Is that possible? ] I don't believe that this hesitancy was a pose. He was actually, in a way that I still don't understand, behaving as though he was formulating something had spoken or written about previously as if was coming up with it for the very first time. [dbl: I believe I understand what you say. However, again, is it possible that he really knew his arguments were solid and earnestly sought criticism? ] I have discussed this with Saral his widow and she has confirmed that this was the way he was. although there were also times, in the scientific area when someone would challenge him he could shoot them down authoritatively and definitively. But I never heard him do this in the psychological or philosophical realm.
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
On 22 Oct 2006, at 22:34, Don Lay wrote:
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
Indeed. But it can be realised in moments of clarity - those "aha" or Eureka moments.
BTW. have you had the chance to see any videos of Bohm speaking or conversing? There are a few on-line and they give a very good indication of what he was like when he was talking about these things. He would exhibit an air of uncertainty, sometimes looking as if he was expecting to be shot down immediately. I don't believe that this hesitancy was a pose. He was actually, in a way that I still don't understand, behaving as though he was formulating something had spoken or written about previously as if was coming up with it for the very first time. I have discussed this with Saral his widow and she has confirmed that this was the way he was. although there were also times, in the scientific area when someone would challenge him he could shoot them down authoritatively and definitively. But I never heard him do this in the psychological or philosophical realm.c
don
----- 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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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/ab69ab2d/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 01:22:15 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 02:27:49 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>
<000401c6f621$2d280930$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<71308485-07DA-4912-B11A-99F804501A97@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001101c6f626$d4d9c6f0$e20a153f@DL01>
<F606D74F-C6BD-46D0-9BD3-5FA41CA73C38@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000401c6f631$9d7552a0$0702a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Seems to me we are an indivisible part of the whole, and it is the whole
that has the "imagination and ability", etc. I believe it is the Roman
religion, Roman Christianity that demands the persona: 1st, 2nd, 3rd. --
dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>
> On 22 Oct 2006, at 23:09, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> 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. -- df
>>
>> Sounds like you are talking religion. -- dl
>
> How so?
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 01:13:43 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 02:31:18 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>
<000401c6f621$2d280930$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<71308485-07DA-4912-B11A-99F804501A97@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000401c6f632$251d6940$b931153f@DL01>
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. -- df
Lately I have been considering that the logos of being, the Greek logos,
presents imagery, imagination. I get this notion from what Bohm says re
Coleridge's ideas re primary perception. that is, maybe the logos becomes
known via imagery, imagination. The process seems to be shut down thought
by the repetitive, mechanical identity loops. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Ultimate, non ultimate
>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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Oct 23 02:24:45 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 03:25:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
If we ask what, exactly, is fragmented, i.e., broken it seems to me we are hard pressed to know what is broken. By what epistemology do we know 1, if something is broken; and 2, how to explain the knowing.
It seems contrary to depth experience to say that the whole is broken. If, therefore, we then say a part is broken, fragmented, we surely must ask how it came to be fragmented, broken. Was it made that way, or did we, homo-sap break it.
Some folks say that everything that actually is is exactly how it should be, that nothing could be other than how it is.
Maybe nothing is broken except it is thought, tas, that says something is wrong.
If you look at the atoms, waves, particles, etc., how could we say they are fragmented, broken? -- ?? Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061022/bbbde6e9/attachment.html
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 02:49:36 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Tue Oct 24 03:50:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Reason-ance, Logos-ance
In-Reply-To: <A5830F19-1C99-48E0-B8DD-C9081D1F7CF0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20061023004936.38538.qmail@web62403.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
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
I think fixed images of us are deceptions and
ultimately lead to more blocks and more images seeing
as fixed truth or realities build up through constant
search for security and stability inwardly.
Experience is attached to such image building all the
time. I am experiencing the world around me as well
the experience of myself. I think that imagination
would not solve or let me perceive such fallacy.
There is a need for some different instrument or
energy in ability to have perception into this
constant sustaining of any images being seen as fixed
truths or realities.
First of all nothing is static or constant even if it
seems to be. To start from proposal that everything in
our known or unknown world is always moving and ever
changing would be a start. Then, as my perception of
my own image being fixed can be perceive as always
changing. This constant change requires some kind of
energy or power to move or change. I can call it
willpower, desire, choice among many others. Again, it
is some form of becoming from one stage to another. To
act or to be in a state without any image what so ever
is hard to talk about because I am creating an image
of such state. To start from what is, is important.
I think we have this ability by nature to look at
things or even ourselves as for the first time without
the background of the past. It happens occasionally in
situation when I learn something knew about another or
myself and the world. It is for the thought process to
store it in memory for the future use. Therefore, the
images I have aiming at the psyche are always present
only because there is a disorder in the process
itself. Then, to try to bring in order within is
causing more distortion and chaos.
This process is less then perfect and it requires
constant or sustain attention without the noise of the
background in the form of the past aimed to the
psyche. Like the mind is ever moving and ever changing
in all directions. To try to bring in reason, believe,
rational, calculations and so call prove or evidence
among many is valid up to the point and beyond it is
irreverent. Again, I am talking about the distortion
in the psyche itself. Where there is disorder inwardly
then what ever I will do will bring some sort of
contradictions. What would be such buildings blocks
that I can stand firmly and then move forward? Would
it be through my own assumptions and believes? Would
it be my own experiences and the theories, which I am
able to prove or disprove? There must be some state
from, which I can move forward or is it an illusion,
and therefore every step in my life I am talking is
govern by insecurity and instability? Is there no such
ground psychologically I can stand strongly, which
will allow me to proceed in my own investigation what
ever I am searching for?
I am living in constant denial without my own
perception of it? If, psychological time doesn?t
exist, why is it that there is this constant need or
interaction with this energy? Again, I think that the
one of the difficulties lies within this false
imagination of such psychological movement. I am
constantly searching for something that doesn?t exist
maybe in my own imagination, which was and is created
through this disorder primarly.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 23 12:27:31 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 24 13:27:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
References: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <D05B0169-CB94-4C94-A6B1-94160EFFBF5A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 23 Oct 2006, at 01:24, Don Lay wrote:
> If we ask what, exactly, is fragmented, i.e., broken it seems to me
> we are hard pressed to know what is broken. By what epistemology
> do we know 1, if something is broken; and 2, how to explain the
> knowing.
>
> It seems contrary to depth experience to say that the whole is
> broken. If, therefore, we then say a part is broken, fragmented,
> we surely must ask how it came to be fragmented, broken. Was it
> made that way, or did we, homo-sap break it.
>
> Some folks say that everything that actually is is exactly how it
> should be, that nothing could be other than how it is.
>
> Maybe nothing is broken except it is thought, tas, that says
> something is wrong.
>
> If you look at the atoms, waves, particles, etc., how could we say
> they are fragmented, broken? -- ?? Don L
I would say that you are making what's called a category error here.
In this context fragmentation involves the breaking up, by human
thought, of things that were once whole. Nation states that defend
themselves against each other is an example of fragmentation. It may
be that those who say that everything is exactly as it should be and
couldn't be otherwise are also adding to that fragmentation. These
people tend to see themselves as different, smarter and more
spiritual than those who don't feel that way. Ecology arose as a
kind of antidote to some of this, but even the ecology movement has
fragmented with various interest group and experts battling against
each other. It is this sort of fragmentation that Bohm cited as
evidence of the need for dialogue. And yes, it is all a product of
human thought.
don
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061023/e36bbdd2/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 12:54:16 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 13:56:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
<D05B0169-CB94-4C94-A6B1-94160EFFBF5A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001e01c6f691$ca6a1b00$cb69153f@DL01>
I would say that you are making what's called a category error here. -- df
Could you elaborate re category error? Just what is it? Its error?
Is a category some THIKNGK fragmented, somehow separated from the whole of THIS THAT IS?
Is it actually separated from the whole to which it belongs -- or is only viewed that way, viewed as being separated -- as is the imaginary personal mask of identity? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
On 23 Oct 2006, at 01:24, Don Lay wrote:
If we ask what, exactly, is fragmented, i.e., broken it seems to me we are hard pressed to know what is broken. By what epistemology do we know 1, if something is broken; and 2, how to explain the knowing.
It seems contrary to depth experience to say that the whole is broken. If, therefore, we then say a part is broken, fragmented, we surely must ask how it came to be fragmented, broken. Was it made that way, or did we, homo-sap break it.
Some folks say that everything that actually is is exactly how it should be, that nothing could be other than how it is.
Maybe nothing is broken except it is thought, tas, that says something is wrong.
If you look at the atoms, waves, particles, etc., how could we say they are fragmented, broken? -- ?? Don L
I would say that you are making what's called a category error here. In this context fragmentation involves the breaking up, by human thought, of things that were once whole. Nation states that defend themselves against each other is an example of fragmentation. It may be that those who say that everything is exactly as it should be and couldn't be otherwise are also adding to that fragmentation. These people tend to see themselves as different, smarter and more spiritual than those who don't feel that way. Ecology arose as a kind of antidote to some of this, but even the ecology movement has fragmented with various interest group and experts battling against each other. It is this sort of fragmentation that Bohm cited as evidence of the need for dialogue. And yes, it is all a product of human thought.
don
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
_______________________________________________
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/20061023/afbeee37/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 23 13:25:26 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 24 14:25:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <001e01c6f691$ca6a1b00$cb69153f@DL01>
References: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
<D05B0169-CB94-4C94-A6B1-94160EFFBF5A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001e01c6f691$ca6a1b00$cb69153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <916E135A-8E84-4445-8952-1598A9911469@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
This doesn't require literal thinking. Just think of the smashed
watch analogy. A smashed watch might be able to be repaired in the
way that ancient artifacts can be stitched together, but nation
states are a more difficult problem because they became fragmented as
a result of human intervention.
"category error" can be Googled. It is a sort of error that is often
made in a whole range of categories.
There are, so far as I can see only two alternatives. One would be to
address the problem of fragmentation or to accept it as the way
things are. If we chose the first we have to look to its source -
standing on the shore to push back the waves is probably not a good
idea. And if the second, well we can just sit back and enjoy the show
until it runs down. Or as Eliot put it, "This is the way the world
ends/ not with a bang but a whimper"
don
On 23 Oct 2006, at 11:54, Don Lay wrote:
> I would say that you are making what's called a category error
> here. -- df
>
> Could you elaborate re category error? Just what is it? Its error?
>
> Is a category some THIKNGK fragmented, somehow separated from the
> whole of THIS THAT IS?
>
> Is it actually separated from the whole to which it belongs -- or
> is only viewed that way, viewed as being separated -- as is the
> imaginary personal mask of identity? -- dbl
>
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>
>
> On 23 Oct 2006, at 01:24, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> If we ask what, exactly, is fragmented, i.e., broken it seems to
>> me we are hard pressed to know what is broken. By what
>> epistemology do we know 1, if something is broken; and 2, how to
>> explain the knowing.
>>
>> It seems contrary to depth experience to say that the whole is
>> broken. If, therefore, we then say a part is broken, fragmented,
>> we surely must ask how it came to be fragmented, broken. Was it
>> made that way, or did we, homo-sap break it.
>>
>> Some folks say that everything that actually is is exactly how it
>> should be, that nothing could be other than how it is.
>>
>> Maybe nothing is broken except it is thought, tas, that says
>> something is wrong.
>>
>> If you look at the atoms, waves, particles, etc., how could we say
>> they are fragmented, broken? -- ?? Don L
>
> I would say that you are making what's called a category error
> here. In this context fragmentation involves the breaking up, by
> human thought, of things that were once whole. Nation states that
> defend themselves against each other is an example of
> fragmentation. It may be that those who say that everything is
> exactly as it should be and couldn't be otherwise are also adding
> to that fragmentation. These people tend to see themselves as
> different, smarter and more spiritual than those who don't feel
> that way. Ecology arose as a kind of antidote to some of this, but
> even the ecology movement has fragmented with various interest
> group and experts battling against each other. It is this sort of
> fragmentation that Bohm cited as evidence of the need for dialogue.
> And yes, it is all a product of human thought.
>
> don
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061023/3e10e46f/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 15:12:25 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 16:13:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
<D05B0169-CB94-4C94-A6B1-94160EFFBF5A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001e01c6f691$ca6a1b00$cb69153f@DL01>
<916E135A-8E84-4445-8952-1598A9911469@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001b01c6f6a4$f438a420$846e153f@DL01>
There are, so far as I can see only two alternatives. -- df
Deja vu!
Is this "only two alternatives" also known as the horns of dilemma, two equally undesirable choices?
How can we be certain there are no other alternatives? Seems to me Bohm, Korzybski and others suggests a better view. If the two alternatives are part of language or language structure, then it appears the language expressing the propositions needs to be looked at for meaning.
At times two propositions are equally correct, but not equally meaningful.
When meaning is in question, it may be more important to address that instead of correctness.
For example, What's the meaning that there are only two choices? what's the meaning of the judgments in the first place? What are the effects of the judgments, etc? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
This doesn't require literal thinking. Just think of the smashed watch analogy. A smashed watch might be able to be repaired in the way that ancient artifacts can be stitched together, but nation states are a more difficult problem because they became fragmented as a result of human intervention.
"category error" can be Googled. It is a sort of error that is often made in a whole range of categories.
There are, so far as I can see only two alternatives. One would be to address the problem of fragmentation or to accept it as the way things are. If we chose the first we have to look to its source - standing on the shore to push back the waves is probably not a good idea. And if the second, well we can just sit back and enjoy the show until it runs down. Or as Eliot put it, "This is the way the world ends/ not with a bang but a whimper"
don
On 23 Oct 2006, at 11:54, Don Lay wrote:
I would say that you are making what's called a category error here. -- df
Could you elaborate re category error? Just what is it? Its error?
Is a category some THIKNGK fragmented, somehow separated from the whole of THIS THAT IS?
Is it actually separated from the whole to which it belongs -- or is only viewed that way, viewed as being separated -- as is the imaginary personal mask of identity? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
On 23 Oct 2006, at 01:24, Don Lay wrote:
If we ask what, exactly, is fragmented, i.e., broken it seems to me we are hard pressed to know what is broken. By what epistemology do we know 1, if something is broken; and 2, how to explain the knowing.
It seems contrary to depth experience to say that the whole is broken. If, therefore, we then say a part is broken, fragmented, we surely must ask how it came to be fragmented, broken. Was it made that way, or did we, homo-sap break it.
Some folks say that everything that actually is is exactly how it should be, that nothing could be other than how it is.
Maybe nothing is broken except it is thought, tas, that says something is wrong.
If you look at the atoms, waves, particles, etc., how could we say they are fragmented, broken? -- ?? Don L
I would say that you are making what's called a category error here. In this context fragmentation involves the breaking up, by human thought, of things that were once whole. Nation states that defend themselves against each other is an example of fragmentation. It may be that those who say that everything is exactly as it should be and couldn't be otherwise are also adding to that fragmentation. These people tend to see themselves as different, smarter and more spiritual than those who don't feel that way. Ecology arose as a kind of antidote to some of this, but even the ecology movement has fragmented with various interest group and experts battling against each other. It is this sort of fragmentation that Bohm cited as evidence of the need for dialogue. And yes, it is all a product of human thought.
don
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061023/c636fde3/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 15:43:27 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 16:44:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
<D05B0169-CB94-4C94-A6B1-94160EFFBF5A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001e01c6f691$ca6a1b00$cb69153f@DL01>
<916E135A-8E84-4445-8952-1598A9911469@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001b01c6f6a4$f438a420$846e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <002f01c6f6a9$4d32ab30$846e153f@DL01>
Again, what if nothing is actually broken, that it is only tas "telling us" something is broken. That is, what if the only thing broken has to do with homo-saps? What if homo-sap is confused, all of us?
Bohm, who writes of fragmentation as brokenness also writes of being confused and confusion, implying the fusing of orders that do not mesh, do not cohere.
Looking at this, we might suspect that those orders comprising that which is BEING are what they are, but some kind of problem occurs when Homo-sap talks of that which is. -- dbl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061023/a1483f0b/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 15:59:46 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 17:00:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation as Broken HOMO-SAPO
References: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
<D05B0169-CB94-4C94-A6B1-94160EFFBF5A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001e01c6f691$ca6a1b00$cb69153f@DL01>
<916E135A-8E84-4445-8952-1598A9911469@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001b01c6f6a4$f438a420$846e153f@DL01>
<002f01c6f6a9$4d32ab30$846e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <003e01c6f6ab$8219d790$846e153f@DL01>
What about the idea that the only thing actually broken is HOMO-SAPO? Maybe then we are back where we were three plus millennia ago ... maybe starting over.
K and B ask, Where did civilization take a wrong turn? Where did we go wrong, where are we wrong now so that we may write the wrong, stop suffering, etc.
Bohm, via dia logos suggests (to me) taking a serious look at the Greek logos -- not just acting and pretending egoistic nonsense regarding personal identity. Maybe dialogue only means sitting in a circle talking shit with the likes of Krissy-Peety, or maybe it means asking some serious questions. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Again, what if nothing is actually broken, that it is only tas "telling us" something is broken. That is, what if the only thing broken has to do with homo-saps? What if homo-sap is confused, all of us?
Bohm, who writes of fragmentation as brokenness also writes of being confused and confusion, implying the fusing of orders that do not mesh, do not cohere.
Looking at this, we might suspect that those orders comprising that which is BEING are what they are, but some kind of problem occurs when Homo-sap talks of that which is. -- dbl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061023/3611a297/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 16:06:05 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 17:06:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation as Broken HOMO-SAPO
References: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
<D05B0169-CB94-4C94-A6B1-94160EFFBF5A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001e01c6f691$ca6a1b00$cb69153f@DL01>
<916E135A-8E84-4445-8952-1598A9911469@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001b01c6f6a4$f438a420$846e153f@DL01> <002f01c6f6a9$4d32ab30$846e153f@DL01>
<003e01c6f6ab$8219d790$846e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <005601c6f6ac$640efef0$846e153f@DL01>
Is that highlighted below a Freudian slip or creeping senility? -- dbl
What about the idea that the only thing actually broken is HOMO-SAPO? Maybe then we are back where we were three plus millennia ago ... maybe starting over.
K and B ask, Where did civilization take a wrong turn? Where did we go wrong, where are we wrong now so that we may write the wrong, stop suffering, etc.
Bohm, via dia logos suggests (to me) taking a serious look at the Greek logos -- not just acting and pretending egoistic nonsense regarding personal identity. Maybe dialogue only means sitting in a circle talking shit with the likes of Krissy-Peety, or maybe it means asking some serious questions. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Again, what if nothing is actually broken, that it is only tas "telling us" something is broken. That is, what if the only thing broken has to do with homo-saps? What if homo-sap is confused, all of us?
Bohm, who writes of fragmentation as brokenness also writes of being confused and confusion, implying the fusing of orders that do not mesh, do not cohere.
Looking at this, we might suspect that those orders comprising that which is BEING are what they are, but some kind of problem occurs when Homo-sap talks of that which is. -- dbl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061023/87b426a2/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 23 16:06:33 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 24 17:07:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <001b01c6f6a4$f438a420$846e153f@DL01>
References: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
<D05B0169-CB94-4C94-A6B1-94160EFFBF5A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001e01c6f691$ca6a1b00$cb69153f@DL01>
<916E135A-8E84-4445-8952-1598A9911469@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001b01c6f6a4$f438a420$846e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <215CCC3A-0B92-476D-97F0-879934D58B3C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 23 Oct 2006, at 14:12, Don Lay wrote:
> There are, so far as I can see only two alternatives. -- df
>
> Deja vu!
all over again.
>
> Is this "only two alternatives" also known as the horns of dilemma,
> two equally undesirable choices?
yes - possibly
>
> How can we be certain there are no other alternatives?
Can't
> Seems to me Bohm, Korzybski and others suggests a better view. If
> the two alternatives are part of language or language structure,
> then it appears the language expressing the propositions needs to
> be looked at for meaning.
It may be the language that conceals other choices but I don't think
its only that. I am aware of the fact that there are many languages
spoken on this planet, many of them structured differently from
English, but the problem of fragmentation and incoherence, primary
and secondary, are universal.
>
> At times two propositions are equally correct, but not equally
> meaningful.
True
>
> When meaning is in question, it may be more important to address
> that instead of correctness.
Definitely. So for me the more meaningful (valuable) of the two is to
address it as if it is real.
>
> For example, What's the meaning that there are only two choices?
> what's the meaning of the judgments in the first place? What are
> the effects of the judgments, etc?
These are good questions, worth asking, but they will yield, at best,
only context specific answers. Nothing definite.
It reminds me of an event where, I can't recall whether it was Bohm
or K who actually said it, but they made the point that they had been
asking themselves about all these people who kept coming back to
their talks and never seemed to get beyond the level where they had
always been. They asked themselves if they had been doing something
wrong, or the teachings weren't getting through. What they came up
with was that it couldn't be helped, they were simply doing what they
had to do. Results were another matter.
After all these years, I know what they mean. I am doing what I have
to do, and if it helps, great and if not, well, maybe it can't be
helped.
don
>
>
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 7:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>
> This doesn't require literal thinking. Just think of the smashed
> watch analogy. A smashed watch might be able to be repaired in the
> way that ancient artifacts can be stitched together, but nation
> states are a more difficult problem because they became fragmented
> as a result of human intervention.
>
> "category error" can be Googled. It is a sort of error that is
> often made in a whole range of categories.
>
> There are, so far as I can see only two alternatives. One would be
> to address the problem of fragmentation or to accept it as the way
> things are. If we chose the first we have to look to its source -
> standing on the shore to push back the waves is probably not a good
> idea. And if the second, well we can just sit back and enjoy the
> show until it runs down. Or as Eliot put it, "This is the way the
> world ends/ not with a bang but a whimper"
> don
>
> On 23 Oct 2006, at 11:54, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> I would say that you are making what's called a category error
>> here. -- df
>>
>> Could you elaborate re category error? Just what is it? Its error?
>>
>> Is a category some THIKNGK fragmented, somehow separated from the
>> whole of THIS THAT IS?
>>
>> Is it actually separated from the whole to which it belongs -- or
>> is only viewed that way, viewed as being separated -- as is the
>> imaginary personal mask of identity? -- dbl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Factor
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>>
>>
>> On 23 Oct 2006, at 01:24, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>> If we ask what, exactly, is fragmented, i.e., broken it seems to
>>> me we are hard pressed to know what is broken. By what
>>> epistemology do we know 1, if something is broken; and 2, how to
>>> explain the knowing.
>>>
>>> It seems contrary to depth experience to say that the whole is
>>> broken. If, therefore, we then say a part is broken, fragmented,
>>> we surely must ask how it came to be fragmented, broken. Was it
>>> made that way, or did we, homo-sap break it.
>>>
>>> Some folks say that everything that actually is is exactly how it
>>> should be, that nothing could be other than how it is.
>>>
>>> Maybe nothing is broken except it is thought, tas, that says
>>> something is wrong.
>>>
>>> If you look at the atoms, waves, particles, etc., how could we
>>> say they are fragmented, broken? -- ?? Don L
>>
>> I would say that you are making what's called a category error
>> here. In this context fragmentation involves the breaking up, by
>> human thought, of things that were once whole. Nation states that
>> defend themselves against each other is an example of
>> fragmentation. It may be that those who say that everything is
>> exactly as it should be and couldn't be otherwise are also adding
>> to that fragmentation. These people tend to see themselves as
>> different, smarter and more spiritual than those who don't feel
>> that way. Ecology arose as a kind of antidote to some of this,
>> but even the ecology movement has fragmented with various interest
>> group and experts battling against each other. It is this sort of
>> fragmentation that Bohm cited as evidence of the need for
>> dialogue. And yes, it is all a product of human thought.
>>
>> don
>>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061023/a9c86c88/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 23 17:04:30 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 24 18:06:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation as Broken HOMO-SAPO
In-Reply-To: <005601c6f6ac$640efef0$846e153f@DL01>
References: <000c01c6f639$add19480$ec59153f@DL01>
<D05B0169-CB94-4C94-A6B1-94160EFFBF5A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001e01c6f691$ca6a1b00$cb69153f@DL01>
<916E135A-8E84-4445-8952-1598A9911469@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001b01c6f6a4$f438a420$846e153f@DL01> <002f01c6f6a9$4d32ab30$846e153f@DL01>
<003e01c6f6ab$8219d790$846e153f@DL01>
<005601c6f6ac$640efef0$846e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <50287BE1-F272-45C4-BA6A-32C4FE5B48B8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 23 Oct 2006, at 15:06, Don Lay wrote:
> K and B ask, Where did civilization take a wrong turn? Where did
> we go wrong, where are we wrong now so that we may write the wrong,
> stop suffering, etc.
Did you write this or did I? When I hear the word senility these days
I go straight to the denial corner.
Having thought about it for thirty seconds the idea of writing wrongs
could open the door to a whole new era of literature.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061023/42b39777/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Oct 23 18:06:35 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Oct 24 19:08:18 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061023.120637.2116.25.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Thought goes astray when it applies the "right" thought to the "wrong"
situation. Every thought is appropriate to "its" set of circumstances but
inappropriate to another set of circumstances.
For this reason, reflexive [set] values need to be questioned. Set values
will apply themselves automatically. This is a guarantee of
inappropriateness and irrelevance.
Irrelevant responses are examples of fragmentation.
Where does a thought come from that is appropriate to its set of
circumstances? It would have to come from something that is
aware of what is.
Where does a thought come from that is irrelevant?
Where does a "misapplied" response come from?
To what does a "misapplied" thought "apply?"
What is its function? What does it do?
What does a fragment [of the whole]
"accomplish?"
Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
of thought [as a system] comes into play?
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Oct 23 18:32:01 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Oct 24 19:51:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061023.125058.2116.29.ae.dropper@juno.com>
When speaking with one another where there is no understanding
regarding the function of words, there will be fragmented speaking.
Words will be relating strictly to words. Kind of like static
electricity.
Superficial. But stirring suffering none the less.
But words can serve as well. They can be as useful [and even as lovely]
as lighthouse beacons. They can point a way "back" to that which is
not superficial, that which is not "figured out" but "sensed."
pat
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:43:27 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
Again, what if nothing is actually broken, that it is only tas "telling
us" something is broken. That is, what if the only thing broken has to
do with homo-saps? What if homo-sap is confused, all of us?
Bohm, who writes of fragmentation as brokenness also writes of being
confused and confusion, implying the fusing of orders that do not mesh,
do not cohere.
Looking at this, we might suspect that those orders comprising that which
is BEING are what they are, but some kind of problem occurs when Homo-sap
talks of that which is. -- dbl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061023/900462d3/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Oct 23 18:22:06 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Oct 24 19:51:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061023.125058.2116.28.ae.dropper@juno.com>
For example, What's the meaning that there are only two choices? what's
the meaning of the judgments in the first place? What are the effects of
the judgments, etc? -- dbl
Part of the "trinity" explorations was the observation of the nature of
"the third choice,"
which is from 'among the infinite'. It is the 'two choice' situation
(illusion) that traps us every time.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061023/dbabea60/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 23 19:17:19 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 24 20:17:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <20061023.120637.2116.25.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061023.120637.2116.25.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <32F2C0B5-BBD7-463A-9622-B9257FE3C8AC@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 23 Oct 2006, at 17:06, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
> how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
> of thought [as a system] comes into play?
This last question is the most intriguing, There is an
obvious answer - that thought is a material system.
This approach would avoid the reflexive need to
defend or excuse the "mistakes". A person wouldn't
have to take it personally.
But that's not enough. We know that there is a way
to override the "programmes" of the material or
reflexive level. So we each may still be at least
partially responsible for any fragmentation or
incoherence. We are not automatons. We can't
just blame it all on a system that is totally
self-sufficient or non-responsive to anything
other than itself.
But I don't know if this is an answer to the
question.
don
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Oct 23 19:40:03 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Oct 24 20:42:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061023.134102.2116.31.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Seems to me Bohm, Korzybski and others suggests a better view. If the
two alternatives are part of language or language structure, then it
appears the language expressing the propositions needs to be looked at
for meaning. (dbl)
It may be the language that conceals other choices but I don't think its
only that. I am aware of the fact that there are many languages spoken on
this planet, many of them structured differently from English, but the
problem of fragmentation and incoherence, primary and secondary, are
universal. (df)
DBL wasn't addressing "English." He was addressing "Language." (pat)
...the problem of fragmentation and incoherence, primary and secondary,
are universal. (df)
Just a clarification [that is often necessary], there is no "problem"
with "primary incoherence." In fact, seeing "primary incoherence" or
"simple confusion [not knowing]" AS a problem IS "Secondary Incoherence."
(pat)
For example, What's the meaning that there are only two choices? what's
the meaning of the judgments in the first place? What are the effects of
the judgments, etc? (dbl)
These are good questions, worth asking, but they will yield, at best,
only context specific answers. Nothing definite. (df)
This indicates that words are to be the [direct] carriers of "the
answer." What makes questions "worth asking?" Do we not often leave out
the step of "looking" or "suspending" or "pondering" when a question is
asked? And before that, do we not often leave out the step[s] of
"clarifying the question?" (pat)
It reminds me of an event where, I can't recall whether it was Bohm or K
who actually said it, but they made the point that they had been asking
themselves about all these people who kept coming back to their talks and
never seemed to get beyond the level where they had always been. They
asked themselves if they had been doing something wrong, or the teachings
weren't getting through. What they came up with was that it couldn't be
helped, they were simply doing what they had to do. Results were another
matter.
After all these years, I know what they mean. I am doing what I have to
do, and if it helps, great and if not, well, maybe it can't be helped.
(df)
This doesn't require literal thinking. Just think of the smashed watch
analogy. A smashed watch might be able to be repaired in the way that
ancient artifacts can be stitched together, but nation states are a more
difficult problem because they became fragmented as a result of human
intervention. (df)
The very fact of nation states. is an example of fragmentation. (pat)
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061023/f8f4d8de/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 20:12:19 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 21:13:27 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <20061023.125058.2116.29.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <002d01c6f6ce$ce89a1a0$b046153f@DL01>
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
When speaking with one another where there is no understanding [dbl: and awareness. Could we say that understanding means standing under awareness? ]
regarding the function of words, there will be fragmented speaking.
Words will be relating strictly to words. Kind of like static electricity. [ dbl: Nice metaphor. ]
Superficial. But stirring suffering none the less. [ dbl: Yes. ]
But words can serve as well. They can be as useful [and even as lovely]
as lighthouse beacons. [dbl: Great metaphor, because words can literally save us from the shoals. ] They can point a way "back" to that which is not superficial, that which is not "figured out" but "sensed." [ dbl: Yes. Do we say the figuring out is usually a self-serving ego trip? -- dbl ]
pat
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:43:27 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
Again, what if nothing is actually broken, that it is only tas "telling us" something is broken. That is, what if the only thing broken has to do with homo-saps? What if homo-sap is confused, all of us?
Bohm, who writes of fragmentation as brokenness also writes of being confused and confusion, implying the fusing of orders that do not mesh, do not cohere.
Looking at this, we might suspect that those orders comprising that which is BEING are what they are, but some kind of problem occurs when Homo-sap talks of that which is. -- dbl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061023/4b3190e8/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 23 20:20:19 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 21:23:27 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] fragmentation
References: <20061023.120637.2116.25.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <003501c6f6cf$e7ce7bd0$b046153f@DL01>
Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
of thought [as a system] comes into play? -- pat
Seems to me he wanted to talk about what actually is without having to talk
about the imaginary persona which may 'goop things up'. In _On Dialogue_ he
says, "There ought to be a way to talk about it without bringing the self
in."
It seems the problem with the English word self is that it has conflated,
e.g., the Latin words, _ipse_ and (_person idem_) as if the _persona idem_
is not a synthetic, man-made concept. Note when this has been pointed, it
is either completely ignored or people refuse to look at it. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] fragmentation
> Thought goes astray when it applies the "right" thought to the "wrong"
> situation. Every thought is appropriate to "its" set of circumstances but
> inappropriate to another set of circumstances.
>
> For this reason, reflexive [set] values need to be questioned. Set values
> will apply themselves automatically. This is a guarantee of
> inappropriateness and irrelevance.
>
> Irrelevant responses are examples of fragmentation.
>
> Where does a thought come from that is appropriate to its set of
> circumstances? It would have to come from something that is
> aware of what is.
>
> Where does a thought come from that is irrelevant?
> Where does a "misapplied" response come from?
> To what does a "misapplied" thought "apply?"
> What is its function? What does it do?
> What does a fragment [of the whole]
> "accomplish?"
>
> Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
> how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
> of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Oct 23 20:30:10 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Tue Oct 24 21:30:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <20061023.125058.2116.28.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <004401c6f6d1$487fa340$b046153f@DL01>
Are you saying the third choice was the _logos_? I have difficulty relating the idea of three to the Greek _logos_.
I have, in the past, wondered if the idea two millennia ago was that the 'holy' spirit was a combinatory property, maybe like emergent property of attention to power and logos, i.e., g-d and son. Philo, with expertise in the Greek, taught that the universal logos was the son of the power. Maybe they added the universal reason to man's reason and ... who knows? Your thoughts? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
For example, What's the meaning that there are only two choices? what's the meaning of the judgments in the first place? What are the effects of the judgments, etc? -- dbl
Part of the "trinity" explorations was the observation of the nature of "the third choice,"
which is from 'among the infinite'. It is the 'two choice' situation (illusion) that traps us every time.
pat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061023/f80e3ce8/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 23 21:07:10 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Tue Oct 24 22:07:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <004401c6f6d1$487fa340$b046153f@DL01>
References: <20061023.125058.2116.28.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<004401c6f6d1$487fa340$b046153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <7FC3FF91-C742-4CEF-9EE7-5678D16CB24B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Don't know why but this seemed pertinent to the present inquiry.
don
There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success,
nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For
the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the
preservation of the old system and merely lukewarm defenders in those
who would gain by the new one.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513
On 23 Oct 2006, at 19:30, Don Lay wrote:
> Are you saying the third choice was the _logos_? I have difficulty
> relating the idea of three to the Greek _logos_.
>
> I have, in the past, wondered if the idea two millennia ago was
> that the 'holy' spirit was a combinatory property, maybe like
> emergent property of attention to power and logos, i.e., g-d and
> son. Philo, with expertise in the Greek, taught that the universal
> logos was the son of the power. Maybe they added the universal
> reason to man's reason and ... who knows? Your thoughts? -- dbl
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>
> For example, What's the meaning that there are only two choices?
> what's the meaning of the judgments in the first place? What are
> the effects of the judgments, etc? -- dbl
>
> Part of the "trinity" explorations was the observation of the
> nature of "the third choice,"
> which is from 'among the infinite'. It is the 'two choice'
> situation (illusion) that traps us every time.
>
> pat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061023/0050c8d3/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 23 21:41:24 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Oct 24 22:42:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <7FC3FF91-C742-4CEF-9EE7-5678D16CB24B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1A7D0C1EBCE55551632FEA5000@phx.gbl>
Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
of thought [as a system] comes into play?
We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what we do
with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only tools? How
do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The executive function of
the brain is part of the system, too. How do we get around that? Do we
need to? Are those moments of insight a breaking free of such tyranny? Is
it that we simply don't have enough "scientific" information to go on? Is
intuition free of the tyranny? k
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:07:10 +0100
>
>Don't know why but this seemed pertinent to the present inquiry.
>don
>
>There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor
>more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the
>initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of
>the old system and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by
>the new one.
>
> Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513
>
>
>
>On 23 Oct 2006, at 19:30, Don Lay wrote:
>
>>Are you saying the third choice was the _logos_? I have difficulty
>>relating the idea of three to the Greek _logos_.
>>
>>I have, in the past, wondered if the idea two millennia ago was that the
>>'holy' spirit was a combinatory property, maybe like emergent property of
>>attention to power and logos, i.e., g-d and son. Philo, with expertise
>>in the Greek, taught that the universal logos was the son of the power.
>>Maybe they added the universal reason to man's reason and ... who knows?
>>Your thoughts? -- dbl
>>
>>
>>
>>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:22 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>>
>>For example, What's the meaning that there are only two choices? what's
>>the meaning of the judgments in the first place? What are the effects of
>>the judgments, etc? -- dbl
>>
>>Part of the "trinity" explorations was the observation of the nature of
>>"the third choice,"
>>which is from 'among the infinite'. It is the 'two choice' situation
>>(illusion) that traps us every time.
>>
>>pat
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx