From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Oct 25 00:06:37 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct 26 01:07:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <453E71C3.000003.03760@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <1B5D8BAE-599B-451A-B6C1-14A6335A4E59@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<453E71C3.000003.03760@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <07B213AA-8D20-4B81-8F17-03D92D3E404C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
exactly my point.
don
On 24 Oct 2006, at 21:04, william wrote:
>
>
> From: Don Factor
> >We do attribute meanings to various objects of our perception but
> >without an implicit meaning there would be nothing to attribute these
> >meaning to.
>
> Why not? You can attribute a meaning to something that is already
> meaningful in some other way. In fact, this would be inevitable. If
> it exists then it is already meaningful, otherwise it wouldn't
> exist. When you assign additional meanings then it would exist even
> more. You could think of an order of meaning...
>
> william
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061024/5fc81887/attachment.html
From dirk at mu6.com Wed Oct 25 03:07:29 2006
From: dirk at mu6.com (Dirk Laureyssens)
Date: Thu Oct 26 04:09:17 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
In-Reply-To: <000201c6ec71$c5f53980$7501a8c0@your0548c161e1>
References: <c29.46c7193.324fd2b1@aol.com>
<000201c6ec71$c5f53980$7501a8c0@your0548c161e1>
Message-ID: <6BFCCF17-3307-4EA5-A23B-EE3707DE8E2B@mu6.com>
The persona - being the explicate element - is energetically
connected with the implicate order/structure. These zillions of
connections make the fundamental, constant process through which we
are constantly interacting with the deeper structure. That is
hierarchy, not quantum anarchy. The way we are able to resonate
harmonically with the deeper energy structure will determinate if we
will be creative. If we are disharmonic we close/block the gates to
receive that energy/information. Creativity is related to the
possibility to open such gates. Then we translate these deeper
energies in our personal values/language/actions, like making music,
a painting, etc.
Dirk
On 10 Oct 2006, at 14:45, Don Lay wrote:
> When a musician writes,performs music ... do we say they explicate;
> i.e., the music unfolds from the implicate?
>
> The graphic artist often says although he is present at the easel,
> somehow 'he' does not do the painting. Rather, it unfolds; i.e.,
> art becomes explicated. Writers sometimes say "they" did not do
> the work .... Hemingway reread an earlier work, said: did I do
> that? Ed White (NY Times sports writer) said he went to the
> typewriter, pecked a bit and thirty minutes later the job was done.
>
> Where does art come from? We say it comes from the person ..., but
> often they deny it. Maybe it is like the beating heart, breathing
> lungs and like Bohm says of tas: it's happening right here "in
> there", but I ain't doing it.
>
> I'm trying to point to all the sub-systems, quantum systems ...
> neuronal and biological activity that must occur before I even know
> that I am, before self-consciousness occurs -- quite before persona
> reference is applicable. It seems to me that so long as we
> continue talking about the persona instead of instead of the
> processes, we continue to pollute experience. Reason-ance, logos-
> ance, ratio-ance? -- Don L
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
>
> Interesting idea! And to me it agrees with my earlier thought:
> surely solo improvisation, recorded (presumably) on ones own, is
> not dialogue, it's monologue. Unless one's perhaps exploring the
> dialogue between different elements of one's personality perhaps...
> - hence why I said group dialogue as opposed to dialogue.
> When the musician makes meaning, does she participate and interpret
> the meaning of the whole for homo-sap -- a partial meaning for a
> part of the whole?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061025/b7e38865/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 25 03:55:45 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 26 04:57:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061024.215545.2116.47.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I see you as a big part of that hope.
Ok. You can't get "those people" to come to a dialogue.
It just does not happen. (I'll tell you of a bit of an exception
at the end). However, the "good news" is that any group of people
can stir up sufficient "hatred" among themselves. In fact,
Bohm indicated (correctly perhaps, and in a significant way) that the
closer people are in world views, the more difficulty they have
in their disagreements (unless of course, dialogue is THE major feature
of their world views). I used to describe group dialogue to
new people as "like a marriage" to a whole bunch of people.
That the thing is "sustained" [through great difficulties*
is one of its primary qualities].
So, it's not about "getting 'those' people to do dialogue."
It's about finding enough people within a reasonable piece of
geography, who are looking for others to do bohm dialogue with.
And after this near impossibility is accomplished, the group
begins something new on the face of the earth (new and ancient,
and entirely taboo). The thing is: for something [verbal group dialogue]
to occur 'on the planet', it has to begin somewhere.
Oh, and as I promised (the slight "exception"). My brother is one of
"those people."
The last thing he would want to do is dialogue. A family crisis occurred
a year or so after I had started the local dialogue group. For a
shortcut, I wrote an invitation to
everyone in the family to meet with me around the table for an hour the
next day
to have a dialogue with a talking stick. The person holding the stick
would talk and pass it to their right after they had said all that they
wanted to say. Then the next person holding the stick could have their
turn, or pass. Etc..
My brother would not want to dialogue (he does not
know how to listen - he dominates), but he was willing
to follow the rules of a "game."
You could see how difficult it was for him not
to speak while another was speaking but he
held himself back because of the "rule."
*Great Difficulties. Just seeing that sitting in a circle
talking and listening with people who have no power over us
(like family or roommates or coworkers or bosses) poses no real
threat (and meanwhile feeling quite threatened on occasion), is
potentially educational. ("Potentially" is always the key term isn't it?)
pat
yes, that's consonant with the ideas in "On Dialog and Its Application",
and
I can see its necessity. But I also found the following (Pat, from
several
different pages) in the same "On Dialog" excerpt:
If people could stay with power, violence, hate, or whatever it is, all
the
way to the end, then it would sort of collapse...I think this new
approach
could open the way to changing the whole world situation...and the
further
this attitude could spread, the more I think it could hepl to bring
order...this notion of dialog and common consciousness suggests there is
some way out of our collective difficulties...we should keep in mind,
nonetheless, that the dialog..is not only directed at solving the ills of
society...
I'm suggesting that there is the possibility for a transformation of the
nature of consciousness, both individually and collectively, and that
whether this can be solved culturally and socially depends on dialog.
That's what we're exploring.
It would be rare for anyone of the people I grew up with to participate
in a
group with our purposes. The only one who comes to mind is former
governor
Leron Collins who was considered a trator in many circles. How would one
deal with that? I see dialog as our only hope. k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/0746fd9b/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Oct 25 15:19:37 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 26 16:23:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061025.092004.692.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Given what has been said and seen about the "collectiveness" of thought
so far. a "thought experiment" can be done where it is imagined (and
felt)
that the system "objects" to the idea of "collectiveness" of thought and
says "No! this is MY thought!" Then imagination can hover around this
point, go "in" and "out" of the attitude, and note differences
in the system. Note sensations. What are the characteristics of the
sensations? Do they build? What are the thoughts? Can "suspension"
(near the pivotal point, i.e., collective thought/my thought) occur?
pat
That's really beautiful, Don. In music, we call it "theme and
variations".
And of course each composer inherits the collective thought of all who
went
before him/er plus contemporaries. But each composer put together these
elements in a new way. Even when the musical composition is not called
"theme and variations", those strategies are employed.
I love Bohms' pov that we are all creative. I always worked and taught
from
that assumption. 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: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:10:35 +0100
>
>Think collective thought. Then consider that all thought or its content
>unfolds from the collective. Hang on to that idea for a bit. And think:
>the language itself is the medium for most of our thought as are all
the
>rules, truths, and necessities that were drummed into us almost from
>birth, if not earlier. So you might have to say that there is only
>collective thought.
>
>What I know or what I think, is an arrangement drawn from all of the
>above. And even the arrangement iis probably is not unique. Starting
from
>this point of view, the ownership of ideas becomes more like an
obstacle
>because, if there is only collective thought, then all our different
>thoughts display a variety of arrangements that can be made out of the
>initial bits of information and with this in mind it becomes easier to
>work together to create even better arrangements. And, on rare
occasions
>these arrangements fall into a shape that may never have appeared
before,
>and we can call them creativity. But it belongs to us all.
>
>It is largely as a result of the fact that thoughts have become like
>commodities in our culture that we want to protect our ownership of
them.
>If we gave our teachers he right answers we were rewarded, and punished
>for giving the wrong ones or, worse. not knowing. It not a very long
jumb
>to the place where we now have laws that protect intellectual property
>even though most of it is made up initially of 26 letters or 12 tones
or
>three primary colours and even larger blocks of these can be found
>elsewhere.
>
>Of course, there are also other ways of looking at this.
>
>don
>
>
>
>On 24 Oct 2006, at 17:09, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>>, along with an awareness that thoughts are not "mine
>>
>>I really have trouble with this. How can thoughts I think not be
mine?
>>At
>>this moment, for me, that would be a rationalization that could lead
to
>>my
>>not taking responsibility for my actions. k
>>
>>I was lying in bed last night remembering having said the above and
saw
>>the response:
>>"Of course these thoughts are mine, if someone else were in the room
they
>>would be thinking different thoughts, "theirs," and they most likely
>>wouldn't know the
>>content of what I am thinking."
>>
>>... and remembering
>>as well, the kind of back door [after having passed down the
meandering
>>garden path] process that leads to the understanding of bohm's
>>"collective thought."
>>
>>There are several steps/questions suitable to this process.
>>
>>Are there any thoughts that pass through awareness (like the
highlighted
>>one above for instance, the one 'you' may be thinking of as "mine")
that
>>are not, either a common thought, or, one that cannot be reduced to a
>>common thought [based on a common assumption]?
>>
>>enough for now
>>
>>pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061025/2e93d10f/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 25 16:31:00 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Oct 26 17:31:46 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
In-Reply-To: <6BFCCF17-3307-4EA5-A23B-EE3707DE8E2B@mu6.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1EC14AC940C361342AE2BA5060@phx.gbl>
This, plus Don F's statement feel so right to me. Thanks k
>From: Dirk Laureyssens <dirk@mu6.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:07:29 +0200
>
>The persona - being the explicate element - is energetically connected
>with the implicate order/structure. These zillions of connections make the
>fundamental, constant process through which we are constantly interacting
>with the deeper structure. That is hierarchy, not quantum anarchy. The
>way we are able to resonate harmonically with the deeper energy structure
>will determinate if we will be creative. If we are disharmonic we
>close/block the gates to receive that energy/information. Creativity is
>related to the possibility to open such gates. Then we translate these
>deeper energies in our personal values/language/actions, like making
>music, a painting, etc.
>
>Dirk
>
>On 10 Oct 2006, at 14:45, Don Lay wrote:
>
>>When a musician writes,performs music ... do we say they explicate; i.e.,
>>the music unfolds from the implicate?
>>
>>The graphic artist often says although he is present at the easel,
>>somehow 'he' does not do the painting. Rather, it unfolds; i.e., art
>>becomes explicated. Writers sometimes say "they" did not do the work
>>.... Hemingway reread an earlier work, said: did I do that? Ed White
>>(NY Times sports writer) said he went to the typewriter, pecked a bit and
>>thirty minutes later the job was done.
>>
>>Where does art come from? We say it comes from the person ..., but often
>>they deny it. Maybe it is like the beating heart, breathing lungs and
>>like Bohm says of tas: it's happening right here "in there", but I ain't
>>doing it.
>>
>>I'm trying to point to all the sub-systems, quantum systems ... neuronal
>>and biological activity that must occur before I even know that I am,
>>before self-consciousness occurs -- quite before persona reference is
>>applicable. It seems to me that so long as we continue talking about the
>>persona instead of instead of the processes, we continue to pollute
>>experience. Reason-ance, logos- ance, ratio-ance? -- Don L
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:01 AM
>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
>>
>>Interesting idea! And to me it agrees with my earlier thought: surely
>>solo improvisation, recorded (presumably) on ones own, is not dialogue,
>>it's monologue. Unless one's perhaps exploring the dialogue between
>>different elements of one's personality perhaps... - hence why I said
>>group dialogue as opposed to dialogue.
>>When the musician makes meaning, does she participate and interpret the
>>meaning of the whole for homo-sap -- a partial meaning for a part of the
>>whole?
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 25 16:28:48 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Oct 26 17:31:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <20061024.215545.2116.47.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F10460EAF2B8A9C09386B4EA5060@phx.gbl>
You know, Pat - I never did because I did not consider myself one of "them".
My every effort was to get as far away as possible, and I did - physically
as well as emotionally and mentally. I'm just now at the stage where I can
look for the good things they gave me.
As for Dialog - to gain more experience with groups, I attended a small
gathering of Socrates Cafe last night. The topic - can word language be
used as effectively/precisely as mathematical language. None of them had
ever heard of Bohm, much less dialog, but I applied the principles to the
best of my ability, simply as my own pov. It lent a whole new light to the
topic, and the participants were all quite comfortable with its inclusion.
There are many similarities between Socrates Cafe and Bohm. Until my own
group gets going, I will slowly infuse the principles in this one. Who
knows what the outcome can be. At the very least, it will give me practice.
There are several public spaces in midtown where people can gather without
paying for the space. We gathered in one of those. Incidentally, my friend
and I were the only women in the group. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:55:45 -0400
>
>I see you as a big part of that hope.
>
>Ok. You can't get "those people" to come to a dialogue.
>It just does not happen. (I'll tell you of a bit of an exception
>at the end). However, the "good news" is that any group of people
>can stir up sufficient "hatred" among themselves. In fact,
>Bohm indicated (correctly perhaps, and in a significant way) that the
>closer people are in world views, the more difficulty they have
>in their disagreements (unless of course, dialogue is THE major feature
>of their world views). I used to describe group dialogue to
>new people as "like a marriage" to a whole bunch of people.
>That the thing is "sustained" [through great difficulties*
>is one of its primary qualities].
>
>So, it's not about "getting 'those' people to do dialogue."
>It's about finding enough people within a reasonable piece of
>geography, who are looking for others to do bohm dialogue with.
>
>And after this near impossibility is accomplished, the group
>begins something new on the face of the earth (new and ancient,
>and entirely taboo). The thing is: for something [verbal group dialogue]
> to occur 'on the planet', it has to begin somewhere.
>
>Oh, and as I promised (the slight "exception"). My brother is one of
>"those people."
>The last thing he would want to do is dialogue. A family crisis occurred
>a year or so after I had started the local dialogue group. For a
>shortcut, I wrote an invitation to
>everyone in the family to meet with me around the table for an hour the
>next day
>to have a dialogue with a talking stick. The person holding the stick
>would talk and pass it to their right after they had said all that they
>wanted to say. Then the next person holding the stick could have their
>turn, or pass. Etc..
>
>My brother would not want to dialogue (he does not
>know how to listen - he dominates), but he was willing
>to follow the rules of a "game."
>
>You could see how difficult it was for him not
>to speak while another was speaking but he
>held himself back because of the "rule."
>
>*Great Difficulties. Just seeing that sitting in a circle
>talking and listening with people who have no power over us
>(like family or roommates or coworkers or bosses) poses no real
>threat (and meanwhile feeling quite threatened on occasion), is
>potentially educational. ("Potentially" is always the key term isn't it?)
>
>
>pat
>
>
>yes, that's consonant with the ideas in "On Dialog and Its Application",
>and
>I can see its necessity. But I also found the following (Pat, from
>several
>different pages) in the same "On Dialog" excerpt:
>
>If people could stay with power, violence, hate, or whatever it is, all
>the
>way to the end, then it would sort of collapse...I think this new
>approach
>could open the way to changing the whole world situation...and the
>further
>this attitude could spread, the more I think it could hepl to bring
>order...this notion of dialog and common consciousness suggests there is
>some way out of our collective difficulties...we should keep in mind,
>nonetheless, that the dialog..is not only directed at solving the ills of
>
>society...
>I'm suggesting that there is the possibility for a transformation of the
>nature of consciousness, both individually and collectively, and that
>whether this can be solved culturally and socially depends on dialog.
>That's what we're exploring.
>
>It would be rare for anyone of the people I grew up with to participate
>in a
>group with our purposes. The only one who comes to mind is former
>governor
>Leron Collins who was considered a trator in many circles. How would one
>
>deal with that? I see dialog as our only hope. k
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Wed Oct 25 16:53:02 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Thu Oct 26 17:53:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F10460EAF2B8A9C09386B4EA5060@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F10460EAF2B8A9C09386B4EA5060@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <13790537-4DE3-4A9F-8FAA-522222F1863C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Sounds very interesting, especially the last bit. The idea that a lot
of men are interested enough to do this sort of stuff regularly,
especially in NYC, is interesting. Usually they do it in hopes of
getting a date but with no women.....wow! There is hope.
Please keep us in the loop.
don
On 25 Oct 2006, at 15:28, Morgan Jett wrote:
> You know, Pat - I never did because I did not consider myself one
> of "them". My every effort was to get as far away as possible, and
> I did - physically as well as emotionally and mentally. I'm just
> now at the stage where I can look for the good things they gave me.
>
> As for Dialog - to gain more experience with groups, I attended a
> small gathering of Socrates Cafe last night. The topic - can word
> language be used as effectively/precisely as mathematical language.
> None of them had ever heard of Bohm, much less dialog, but I
> applied the principles to the best of my ability, simply as my own
> pov. It lent a whole new light to the topic, and the participants
> were all quite comfortable with its inclusion. There are many
> similarities between Socrates Cafe and Bohm. Until my own group
> gets going, I will slowly infuse the principles in this one. Who
> knows what the outcome can be. At the very least, it will give me
> practice. There are several public spaces in midtown where people
> can gather without paying for the space. We gathered in one of
> those. Incidentally, my friend and I were the only women in the
> group. k
>
>
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:55:45 -0400
>>
>> I see you as a big part of that hope.
>>
>> Ok. You can't get "those people" to come to a dialogue.
>> It just does not happen. (I'll tell you of a bit of an exception
>> at the end). However, the "good news" is that any group of people
>> can stir up sufficient "hatred" among themselves. In fact,
>> Bohm indicated (correctly perhaps, and in a significant way) that the
>> closer people are in world views, the more difficulty they have
>> in their disagreements (unless of course, dialogue is THE major
>> feature
>> of their world views). I used to describe group dialogue to
>> new people as "like a marriage" to a whole bunch of people.
>> That the thing is "sustained" [through great difficulties*
>> is one of its primary qualities].
>>
>> So, it's not about "getting 'those' people to do dialogue."
>> It's about finding enough people within a reasonable piece of
>> geography, who are looking for others to do bohm dialogue with.
>>
>> And after this near impossibility is accomplished, the group
>> begins something new on the face of the earth (new and ancient,
>> and entirely taboo). The thing is: for something [verbal group
>> dialogue]
>> to occur 'on the planet', it has to begin somewhere.
>>
>> Oh, and as I promised (the slight "exception"). My brother is one of
>> "those people."
>> The last thing he would want to do is dialogue. A family crisis
>> occurred
>> a year or so after I had started the local dialogue group. For a
>> shortcut, I wrote an invitation to
>> everyone in the family to meet with me around the table for an
>> hour the
>> next day
>> to have a dialogue with a talking stick. The person holding the stick
>> would talk and pass it to their right after they had said all that
>> they
>> wanted to say. Then the next person holding the stick could have
>> their
>> turn, or pass. Etc..
>>
>> My brother would not want to dialogue (he does not
>> know how to listen - he dominates), but he was willing
>> to follow the rules of a "game."
>>
>> You could see how difficult it was for him not
>> to speak while another was speaking but he
>> held himself back because of the "rule."
>>
>> *Great Difficulties. Just seeing that sitting in a circle
>> talking and listening with people who have no power over us
>> (like family or roommates or coworkers or bosses) poses no real
>> threat (and meanwhile feeling quite threatened on occasion), is
>> potentially educational. ("Potentially" is always the key term
>> isn't it?)
>>
>>
>> pat
>>
>>
>> yes, that's consonant with the ideas in "On Dialog and Its
>> Application",
>> and
>> I can see its necessity. But I also found the following (Pat, from
>> several
>> different pages) in the same "On Dialog" excerpt:
>>
>> If people could stay with power, violence, hate, or whatever it
>> is, all
>> the
>> way to the end, then it would sort of collapse...I think this new
>> approach
>> could open the way to changing the whole world situation...and the
>> further
>> this attitude could spread, the more I think it could hepl to bring
>> order...this notion of dialog and common consciousness suggests
>> there is
>> some way out of our collective difficulties...we should keep in mind,
>> nonetheless, that the dialog..is not only directed at solving the
>> ills of
>>
>> society...
>> I'm suggesting that there is the possibility for a transformation
>> of the
>> nature of consciousness, both individually and collectively, and that
>> whether this can be solved culturally and socially depends on dialog.
>> That's what we're exploring.
>>
>> It would be rare for anyone of the people I grew up with to
>> participate
>> in a
>> group with our purposes. The only one who comes to mind is former
>> governor
>> Leron Collins who was considered a trator in many circles. How
>> would one
>>
>> deal with that? I see dialog as our only hope. k
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win
> a free trip! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/
> default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 25 16:59:22 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Oct 26 18:00:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <13790537-4DE3-4A9F-8FAA-522222F1863C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F14A1BA887FB007699E0ED5A5060@phx.gbl>
Don - Imagine me, all smiles and chuckling while reading your comment. Will
definitely keep you in the loop. Group meets weekly, and has for several
years. There's another Socrates Cafe at Ethical Culture, and a couple of
World Cafes, too.
You can find anything in NYC. You just have to be persistent. 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: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:53:02 +0100
>
>Sounds very interesting, especially the last bit. The idea that a lot of
>men are interested enough to do this sort of stuff regularly, especially
>in NYC, is interesting. Usually they do it in hopes of getting a date but
>with no women.....wow! There is hope.
>Please keep us in the loop.
>don
>On 25 Oct 2006, at 15:28, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>You know, Pat - I never did because I did not consider myself one of
>>"them". My every effort was to get as far away as possible, and I did -
>>physically as well as emotionally and mentally. I'm just now at the
>>stage where I can look for the good things they gave me.
>>
>>As for Dialog - to gain more experience with groups, I attended a small
>>gathering of Socrates Cafe last night. The topic - can word language be
>>used as effectively/precisely as mathematical language. None of them had
>>ever heard of Bohm, much less dialog, but I applied the principles to
>>the best of my ability, simply as my own pov. It lent a whole new light
>>to the topic, and the participants were all quite comfortable with its
>>inclusion. There are many similarities between Socrates Cafe and Bohm.
>>Until my own group gets going, I will slowly infuse the principles in
>>this one. Who knows what the outcome can be. At the very least, it will
>>give me practice. There are several public spaces in midtown where
>>people can gather without paying for the space. We gathered in one of
>>those. Incidentally, my friend and I were the only women in the group.
>> k
>>
>>
>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>>>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:55:45 -0400
>>>
>>>I see you as a big part of that hope.
>>>
>>>Ok. You can't get "those people" to come to a dialogue.
>>>It just does not happen. (I'll tell you of a bit of an exception
>>>at the end). However, the "good news" is that any group of people
>>>can stir up sufficient "hatred" among themselves. In fact,
>>>Bohm indicated (correctly perhaps, and in a significant way) that the
>>>closer people are in world views, the more difficulty they have
>>>in their disagreements (unless of course, dialogue is THE major feature
>>>of their world views). I used to describe group dialogue to
>>>new people as "like a marriage" to a whole bunch of people.
>>>That the thing is "sustained" [through great difficulties*
>>>is one of its primary qualities].
>>>
>>>So, it's not about "getting 'those' people to do dialogue."
>>>It's about finding enough people within a reasonable piece of
>>>geography, who are looking for others to do bohm dialogue with.
>>>
>>>And after this near impossibility is accomplished, the group
>>>begins something new on the face of the earth (new and ancient,
>>>and entirely taboo). The thing is: for something [verbal group dialogue]
>>> to occur 'on the planet', it has to begin somewhere.
>>>
>>>Oh, and as I promised (the slight "exception"). My brother is one of
>>>"those people."
>>>The last thing he would want to do is dialogue. A family crisis occurred
>>>a year or so after I had started the local dialogue group. For a
>>>shortcut, I wrote an invitation to
>>>everyone in the family to meet with me around the table for an hour the
>>>next day
>>>to have a dialogue with a talking stick. The person holding the stick
>>>would talk and pass it to their right after they had said all that they
>>>wanted to say. Then the next person holding the stick could have their
>>>turn, or pass. Etc..
>>>
>>>My brother would not want to dialogue (he does not
>>>know how to listen - he dominates), but he was willing
>>>to follow the rules of a "game."
>>>
>>>You could see how difficult it was for him not
>>>to speak while another was speaking but he
>>>held himself back because of the "rule."
>>>
>>>*Great Difficulties. Just seeing that sitting in a circle
>>>talking and listening with people who have no power over us
>>>(like family or roommates or coworkers or bosses) poses no real
>>>threat (and meanwhile feeling quite threatened on occasion), is
>>>potentially educational. ("Potentially" is always the key term isn't
>>>it?)
>>>
>>>
>>>pat
>>>
>>>
>>>yes, that's consonant with the ideas in "On Dialog and Its Application",
>>>and
>>>I can see its necessity. But I also found the following (Pat, from
>>>several
>>>different pages) in the same "On Dialog" excerpt:
>>>
>>>If people could stay with power, violence, hate, or whatever it is, all
>>>the
>>>way to the end, then it would sort of collapse...I think this new
>>>approach
>>>could open the way to changing the whole world situation...and the
>>>further
>>>this attitude could spread, the more I think it could hepl to bring
>>>order...this notion of dialog and common consciousness suggests there is
>>>some way out of our collective difficulties...we should keep in mind,
>>>nonetheless, that the dialog..is not only directed at solving the ills
>>>of
>>>
>>>society...
>>>I'm suggesting that there is the possibility for a transformation of the
>>>nature of consciousness, both individually and collectively, and that
>>>whether this can be solved culturally and socially depends on dialog.
>>>That's what we're exploring.
>>>
>>>It would be rare for anyone of the people I grew up with to participate
>>>in a
>>>group with our purposes. The only one who comes to mind is former
>>>governor
>>>Leron Collins who was considered a trator in many circles. How would
>>>one
>>>
>>>deal with that? I see dialog as our only hope. k
>>
>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
>>trip! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/
>>default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
From donlay at gte.net Wed Oct 25 17:25:01 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct 26 18:28:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)
Message-ID: <002301c6f849$c1ee5180$c543153f@DL01>
Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 10 25 06 00 SOS, Mait Edey Amness.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 38400 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061025/24ff3cfd/10250600SOSMaitEdeyAmness.doc
From donlay at gte.net Wed Oct 25 17:28:45 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Oct 26 18:30:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Mait Edey Essay
Message-ID: <002e01c6f84a$46cd8420$c543153f@DL01>
The thought occurs that the listserve may not do attachments. If anyone's interested, I can email it off list.
There's a very interesting Mait Edey essay on JCS ONLINE this morning re Existence, Being, Cartesian dualism, Subjectivity, Subject, Object, identity, etc. I fine it persuasive.
I'm seeing it as linking Bohm not only to Parmenides/Heraclitean line of thought but also to the very sensitive early Greek thought re Existence and Being. Maybe it is ground for Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum physics.
See attachment. I've highlighted for later work/discussion; also added notes.
Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061025/fab93d24/attachment.html