From bolinas_forever at yahoo.com Wed Dec 26 11:12:32 2007
From: bolinas_forever at yahoo.com (Franis)
Date: Wed Dec 26 11:20:29 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was: message
from admin
In-Reply-To: <20071224.181924.3184.275.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071224.181924.3184.275.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <f6040a0a0712260212w5248c46am34c0b67ae5aad795@mail.gmail.com>
Someone who is a recovering alcoholic said to me how curious it was how his
life was so much more simple when he was addicted. All he had to think about
was where he was going to get the one thing he knew he always wanted.
Compared to that, having a life was so much more complicated and confusing,
because now there are priorities, etc.
I think of my students in Alexander Technique who get the experience of what
it feels like to be free of their habitual pressure pulling themselves out
of shape they are pretty much always doing without realizing it. They say
things like.."wierd feeling" "I don't know where to go..."
So this implies to me that the issue for many people would be - if freedom
is what we're after, then how to determine the freedom to do ...what? Where
does your attention and energy go when it's free to go anywhere? Perhaps the
challenge would be a lack of imagination.
This next week, I've been left alone to "do my thing" while my partner who
I've been taking care of while he's had a broken hand is gone off on a music
retreat. I had the urge to change around the entire house while he was gone
- partly because he had been complaining about it and partly because I would
just like to have a change. Then it makes cleaning up the house so much more
interesting, and the house really does get clean because you're moving
around everything. Or at least that's what I thought at the time.
Then as I thought about it, I found reasons why I shouldn't go to that much
trouble...we might be moving in a month or so, he might not prefer the
configuration I chose, etc. etc. As I sat around with the idea a little more
I realized changing the house around would also serve a few other interests
that I hadn't thought of at the time - one of which it would make more
sleeping spots available for some (homeless) overnight guests who had
stopped coming over once a week now that I was back from being gone to the
mainland, etc.
Suddenly I realized how curious it was how I had provided for that when I
designed the new furniture arrangement.
Franis
On 12/24/07, ae.dropper@juno.com <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> But then isn't your version, or Bohm's version, also a trap?
>
> don
>
> Yes. Anybody's [believed] version [concept] [of freedom for instance,
> or any psychological assumption at all] is a trap. And actually I never
> heard Bohm give a 'version' of "freedom." I haven't either. Wouldn't know
> how. It would seem ridiculous to try.
>
> Well . . . . [on second thought] - except:
>
> "the continuous and simultaneous unfolding/enfolding."
> I like that descriptive attempt a lot. It sort of repels
> 'trappiness'. And it's not just a description of "freedom."
> It's a description of everything.
>
> And then there was Janis (or Kris) - "Freedom's just another
> word for nothin left to lose." But that one is an easy one to
> get trapped in. It's beautiful but it can be trappy
> in many ways.
>
> -- funny
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:35:27 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
> writes:
>
> But then isn't your version, or Bohm's version, also a trap?
>
> don
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/2f33de7e/attachment.html
From bolinas_forever at yahoo.com Wed Dec 26 11:17:39 2007
From: bolinas_forever at yahoo.com (Franis)
Date: Wed Dec 26 11:25:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <01af01c846c1$8a3bdab0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <2D083258-2D7C-4423-B354-C2A88482D592@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712241822k7d0ce4f6mc3db813d32c1b598@mail.gmail.com>
<015101c846a0$73e46a00$b5c16018@DL01>
<280DBCFC-4E07-43E4-ABCD-650C33F6E3E9@dc.rr.com>
<018001c846ae$ab6ab4d0$b5c16018@DL01>
<14791172-9DC9-42AA-AC16-FD4A0F325D2B@dc.rr.com>
<01af01c846c1$8a3bdab0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <f6040a0a0712260217o395e340emc107fb266ae011a9@mail.gmail.com>
12:14am on the Big Island of Hawaii...that means Pacific time is
2:14am...Eastern time is 5:14am...etc.
Actually when I last checked, not everyone that is me is present at any one
time. It would be too confusing if everyone was here at once, we would fight
over who had the reins...
;o)
Franis
On 12/24/07, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>
> The o'clock or the identity?
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 25, 2007 1:17 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)
>
>
> On Dec 24, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Don Lay wrote:
>
> You're not using multiple identities are you like pk, are you?
>
> Aren't you up quite late? What o'clock is it there?
>
>
> Ah, if I told you that, I would have to kill you.
> don
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/ca512109/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Wed Dec 26 15:30:52 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Dec 26 15:38:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
References: <350444.40009.qm@web57402.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002c01c847cb$eb225c90$b5c16018@DL01>
Questions occur regarding some of the highlighted portions below.
Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the "Summons of the Ideal". Question: If the English word derives from the Greek/Latin ti to on/verum or verus indicating that which is ... whatever is. Is it meaningful to ignore the effects of using the structure of separation, the subject object structure of language and then think and speak of an absolute truth that may be expressed as an object of a separated, inquiring brain/mind?
That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into language) as indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then important to see that we act and pretend the separation of subject and object -- even when we know it does not represent actuality? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
[highlights added]
Hi Karilen Mays. Yesterday we took out the boat. It was cold. We drank hot soup and watched the birds. At home a book looked at me. Come and see. In The Wild Duck there is an "idealist," Gregers Werle, who continually talks as though he had been reading Ibsen's previous plays. He returns to his hometown after an extended exile and meddles in the affairs of a strange family, producing disastrous results. Living in a house whose closets are chock-full of skeletons. Over the course of the play the many secrets that lie behind the Ekdals' apparently happy home are revealed to Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the "Summons of the Ideal". This family has achieved a tolerable modus vivendi by ignoring the skeletons (among the secrets: Gregers' father impregnated his servant Gina then married her off to Hjalmar to legitimize the child, and Hjalmar's father has been disgraced and imprisoned for a crime the elder Werle committed.) and by permitting each member to live in a dreamworld of his own-the feckless father believing himself to be a great inventor, the grandfather dwelling on the past when he was a mighty sportsman, and little Hedvig, the child, centering her emotional life around an attic where a wounded wild duck leads a crippled existence in a make-believe forest.To the idealist all this appears intolerable; it must seem that the whole family is leading a life "based on a lie"; all sorts of evils are "growing in the dark". The remedy is obviously to face facts, to speak frankly, to let in the light. However, in this play the revelation of the truth is not a happy event because it rips up the foundation of the Ekdal family. When the skeletons are brought out of the closet, the whole dreamworld collapses; the weak husband thinks it is his duty to leave his wife, and the little girl, after trying to sacrifice her precious duck, shoots herself with the same gun. One of the famous quotes from the doctor Relling who built up and maintained the lies the family is founded on is "If you take away the lie of life from an average human, you take away his happiness at the same time." And a merry Christmas to all of you, Friends. AL
Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello, group exploring online,
There are couple things I would like to talk about. It is of course great that new people are joining in. However, I have so many messages, especially from Alan, that they are going in my spam folder and I just cant keep up. I may go on vacation mode again. I think it is awesome that Susan and Franis are here because you all just seem authentic and inspiring -- the types of people who are "good" at dialogue. It is difficult for me to find the "real" messages when so much of what is sent just reads like spam to me. So this list is actually spam right now in a sense is the first thing. What value do those messages add? (Not that mine adds more; you can judge that.)
The second thing I want to talk about it just some "food for thought" about my own experience lately. I know it is a limited snapshot, but speaking from our own experiences and feelings is a great way to have real dialogue, especially when it (our interpretations of the experiences and future experiences) is up for investigation.
Lately, I have been emotionally raw. The last few months, and even the last year have been fairly intense. Have attributed it to exhaustion some of the time, but I wonder what else is happening here. Many of us know something about human and adult development, ranging from Piaget, Maslow, Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, Kegan, Torbert, Beck and Cowan, etc. (If any of those names are not familiar, we can talk further.) There have been some intense contractions, physically and emotionally lately. So, given that development is not a straight line, or even stair steps, but let's say a dialectical spiral of patterns that is evolving, so nothing is a given...:) my "self assessment" is that I may be engaging more of my capacity than ever before and I dont know if that means I am "going to the next level of development" or hitting a pathological place, or a good place. Luckily I feel like I can be supported in this at work and through a few of my friends, whatever it is, though one aspect I will say a bit more about is being alone.
But first, some other aspects: I feel this deep, deep, tension in my stomach, and my heart area feels very raw, large, and warm. I realize in a sense I am story telling through this whole email. I did not plan to write it until a few moments ago, so maybe something interesting or provoking will be here, maybe not. (Yes, I have a bias for unplanned activities...) Back to the "symptoms" I've been noticing. There is a sense of separation, of woundedness, that I tend to wallow in. A small comment from someone can send me to a place of doubting if I really know anything, and if I am just a joke of a person. Yet I know that "my" capacity to experience and make sense of reality, in happy ecstatic places as well as dark lonely places in the psyche, is beyond what I seem to know. I can sort of trust my adaptogenic nature as a human and consciousness to take care of me. I dont know if it makes the disgust with myself and the world any easier to hold, but so far Im still here...or something is.
The realization of life lately, or maybe even oneness, for me has included a flavor of aloneness that I have always known, but when I was younger, I wanted it to go away and called it depression at times. As we are unique beings, no person can ever truly understand another. For what is there to understand, and who is doing it? The realization, I am alone...has really schocked me. I am inquiring into it and do not wish to hold on to it longer than it serves, but in a way it can be freeing. To truly realize this liberates me from the need for others to "get me." Then I am more available to be with them in a non-wanting way, except to allow them to be who they are by listening and seeing them. The fact is some people get me more than others. It is fine if some of us just dont get each other. That is why there are millions of people...so we can be seen, met, and supported by someone -- not everyone at everytime. So to play with this thought-feeling of woundedness and aloneness which is at times isolating, can provide a lot of opening. We can inquire all the way to the level of seeing that there is no one to be understood, and that we are all understanding each other together...so this is just where I am at.
On this beginning of winter, when the days begin to lengthen and the nights grow shorter, I am contemplative as I head to 15 hours of nighttime partying. What is there for me/us (yes, us) to do in the world this year? What beliefs and parts of self/psyche will I discover and welcome, or let go of? Who is letting go of them? How can I, sort of get out of the way, of my own development while taking an empowering stand for my values, knowing that they are going to change and they are not the final story? Or is this what we effortlessly do because it is our destiny if anything is? How can I have an impact in the next year? How am I fulfilling my unlimited capacity? What do I/we want to create in this next day, next year? Anyone have any answers or other useful guiding questions for us? What do we want to explore this year? Who are we?
Maybe what I have said will provoke more inquiry. If there is a goal, then that is it. And of course, I expect to be seen and understood by some of you because we are all here together, and I have certain general ideas about the capacities of this group...other than that I am sick of hearing myself talk so I will close this. Thank you all...
Love,
Kari
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/03e34d47/attachment.html
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Wed Dec 26 15:44:57 2007
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Wed Dec 26 15:52:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was: message
from admin
In-Reply-To: <f6040a0a0712260212w5248c46am34c0b67ae5aad795@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <544806.11538.qm@web62409.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Happy Holidays to All,
FandaFranis
If freedom is what we're after, then how to determine
the freedom to do ...what? Where does your attention
and energy go when it's free to go anywhere? Perhaps
the challenge would be a lack of imagination
Fanda
There is a difference between freedom from and freedom
within at least for me. There were many dialogues
about free will, willpower and this so call absolute
freedom. I perceive freedom being close to
relationship. Freedom is also very confusing word to
many and means to many things to many people. In the
ordinary way of understanding would be to have a
freedom to do what one likes, which is closely tied to
external world. I grow up in communism in the former
Czechoslovakia. When I was in my teens, I have decided
to run away, which wasn?t simple task but anyway I did
managed to escaped and arrived after two and half
years of struggle in US. You could say that this is
one form of freedom, which one looks up to.
Ultimately, this freedom is rather limited within
itself because this imaginary freedom of life really
doesn?t exist. It exist in our minds but when examine
closely there is tremendous fragmentation and
realization of falseness in such freedom. Ultimately
one is under control of such society as a whole.
Obviously such laws are made to protect individual and
the group as a whole, and every laws of any country
are made for the people even though they can be use
only so far, and are obviously inadequate. But I think
when one talks or inquires into freedom; one has
something deeper and more meaningful in mind.
There is also this inward desire to be free from these
inward feelings and notions of fear in many forms. One
wants to be free from getting hurt inwardly endlessly
or to be lonely among many others. Not being secure
and stable permanently what ever that means. Fear not
to lose love once or fear of death. Man has created
many fears, and merely by trying to avoid such fears
one is perpetuating fears endlessly. Fear has been
around us as long man can remember, and it became part
of our lives. Man has accepted fear as inevitable, and
therefore the only thing man can do is to trying
understand fear and avoid it ultimately or to come up
with solutions to fear, which one would call
prevention of fear but needless to say non of these
remedies are working.
One is afraid of tomorrow or man is afraid of the
unknown and by creating images of such possible
outcomes one is left with these inner feelings of
despair, loneliness and ultimately fear. Therefore,
relationship becomes the most important or to have the
right and true relationship right from the beginning,
and it must be right and true otherwise everything
goes to chaos. One is also train or told what is right
and true without much notion of understanding it for
oneself. To live a life full of fear what ever fear
that might be is a terrible thing, and brings about
terrible suffering in one and society as a whole. This
fear takes hold of individual completely, and one is
overwhelm by it without possible escape what so ever.
Therefore, one creates these images of possible
freedom the only question is how one goes about it,
and who to listen in first place. There have been many
people saying to do this and that in order to achieve
such freedom from a mind that is confuse, chaotic and
lives in constant fragmentary state. Therefore, such
freedom takes on foremost importance and significance
to be attained at all cost. Is man capable or able to
put such fears aside or to understand completely where
such fears dissipate?
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Wed Dec 26 16:09:44 2007
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Wed Dec 26 16:17:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
In-Reply-To: <002c01c847cb$eb225c90$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <981660.18169.qm@web62404.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Kari,
What you have said in your post is very powerful at
least for me because you are describing humanity as it
is, and as one knows it. What I sense from your post
is that you are feeling little lost or uncertain of
life as whole. Not to be placed into one category or
labeled where one should belong as one unshakable
state of mind. These notions of uneasiness not to
belong to any particular pattern of life where one is
completely secure and stable permanently. I think it
is an ideal world, which doesn?t exist except our own
minds. One wants to be secure and stable as much as
possible, and to be in place where one cannot get hurt
under any circumstances. Also, to be alone or to have
feelings of alones are different from being lonely.
It is hard to talk about alones because there have not
been ten people together as one undivided force of the
nature seeing together completely without any
fragmentary thoughts coming in. It is perhaps for this
individual way of feelings being different and unique
one from another. Feelings not being understood
completely and therefore standing alone. I think it is
wrong fundamentally to feel this way. One stands on
the same ground as another even though one doesn?t
perceive it this way. There are these deep blocks
hidden deep inside of each and one of us that one
doesn?t perceive, and to uncover them or to unearth
them takes a lot of meditation but not in the ordinary
way.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Wed Dec 26 16:12:44 2007
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Wed Dec 26 16:20:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
In-Reply-To: <002c01c847cb$eb225c90$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <548996.15776.qm@web62403.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Reply to Kari posting
Hi Kari,
What you have said in your post is very powerful at
least for me because you are describing humanity as it
is, and as one knows it. What I sense from your post
is that you are feeling little lost or uncertain of
life as whole. Not to be placed into one category or
labeled where one should belong as one unshakable
state of mind. These notions of uneasiness not to
belong to any particular pattern of life where one is
completely secure and stable permanently. I think it
is an ideal world, which doesn?t exist except our own
minds. One wants to be secure and stable as much as
possible, and to be in place where one cannot get hurt
under any circumstances. Also, to be alone or to have
feelings of alones are different from being lonely.
It is hard to talk about alones because there have not
been ten people together as one undivided force of the
nature seeing together completely without any
fragmentary thoughts coming in. It is perhaps for this
individual way of feelings being different and unique
one from another. Feelings not being understood
completely and therefore standing alone. I think it is
wrong fundamentally to feel this way. One stands on
the same ground as another even though one doesn?t
perceive it this way. There are these deep blocks
hidden deep inside of each and one of us that one
doesn?t perceive, and to uncover them or to unearth
them takes a lot of meditation but not in the ordinary
way.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 26 02:19:00 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 26 17:02:19 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different
Message-ID: <20071226.105310.3184.280.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long time,
and wanting
them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this wanting
them to change?
Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it. (funny)
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable.
But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it, (don)
Desired "change" of another "person" is the unbeknownst desire to change
an image of another person [thinking wrongly that the image is that
person in that moment]. But the image acts as a painted curtain hiding
the real flux of personhood or personality, the real movements in their
unimpeded followthrough. Remarkably unambiguous difference when "wanting
them to change" falls away.
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:05:21 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
scroll down please
On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be
different"
[or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on the
planet
than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in their
turn,
"wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right now,
suggesting
that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to check that
out. :-D
Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just
interested in looking
at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific thought
that triggers it. The
thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad, do we
find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change? Somehow, I don't
think so. And would not wanting ourselves or others to change be good or
bad or better or worse.
Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long time,
and wanting
them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this wanting
them to change?
Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable.
But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
don
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:45:57 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
KI: That's all I ever wanted him to do - be civil. Be honest and civil
at the same time. And that's what he's forced to do now that his 'arsey'
persona is unsubscribed. Make no mistake - s/he's still here. Hello,
Pit.
On Dec 23, 2007 10:38 AM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Does it make a difference if he's subscribed, so long as he isn't being
personally insulting to people and acting like an arse?
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:21:00 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
I am informed that pit is still subscribed here under yet another name,
possibly more than one. He has written to Irene and quoted something she
wrote to the list after he was unsubscribed. So, keep your eyes open for
any hints. Susan has a very keen eye for such things. She was the first
to spot that AEB was pit.
don
On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Don Lay wrote:
Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the
bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own
server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam filter. --
admin
Under the circumstances, I believe it is not inappropriate to pass on the
following which I thought was sent to the Bohm list but was actually
directed to one of Peter's addresses:
[was something about Failure]
If dialogue, from the Greek dia logos indicates reason, is it reasonable
to expect a dialogue to be the use of reason and to eliminate the
ignoring of or distortion of reason and meaning?
It seems entirely reasonable, rational, and perhaps more to the point --
meaningful -- to not allow the lack of, or distortion of reason and
meaning, to occur in place of dialogue.
Some questions occur:
May meaningful communication occur without reason, ratio, meaning?
Does communication occur absent reason, ratio, and meaning?
When reason, ration, meaning is distorted or absent, is communication
possible? Is meaningful communication possible?
My view is that the moderator's present actions are reasonable, rational
and meaningful and are therefore, dialogical. -dl
http:/// wrote:
You are now unsubscribed from Bohm_Dialogue
The 'good'/'bad' news first: Pit is out (gone, booted, unsubbed,
'taken-care-of', dedialoged...).
The 'better'/'worse' knews next: s'he is NOT. S'he is still verii much
here, among yoUs.
Once again, D-Factor could not "take it", could not "handle it"... ~ so
he "pulled the plug" (oncommunication, and thus, at --the core of--
dialogue).
Once again, B-Dialogue could not "take it", could not "handle it"... ~ so
you "pulled the plug" (on communication, and thus, at --the core of--
dialogue).
Once again, B-Dialogue=you have failed, re failing.
Once again, the "problem/s" did not and do not and will not "go away"
because of this move(away).
Once again you will talk another trillion years 'penetratingly' about
(B)Dialogue, its beauty (beast): w/o, once again, for once, just once,
being able to let it happen: (B)Dialogue, to let it takgive place, time
(tice)... dobeing touched (penetration, see above) by it. Once again you
findy that groupi strength ("coherence", cohesion) in what Don Lay likes
to title: "Acting & Pretending". Once again, you wo'managed to gather
around the camp&fire&place of vanities, and superficialities, and
phonitities, softplaying, neckmassagings, makeupping..... And if it was
not so pathetictictic, I would congratulate you.
Once again, the 'problem' pit will not go away by moving, pushing,
pullpushitting him/her/it offlist, & under the 'rug' (of
"self&awareness").
Once again, the "peters" of this world ARE a part of tas, ARE, thusly, a
part of YOU. ARE systemic, systematictictic.... And, like Bohm's story
about the woman who keeps beating herself (while) under the i'm-pressure
to be under attack: the attacked=the attacker= the attack. So, by 'any
means': go 'ahead', and keep beating yourselves, bones, while you drool
over that the-observer=the-observed=.... stuff(ing). bood luckg.
ii is still hear, and watching, and in 'awe'.... see you in a bit/pit.
Tschuess )(
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
From: dialogue-admin
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the
bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own
server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam filter.
admin
Return-Path: <humanimal@thinkg.net>
Delivery-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
Received: from host52.host52-server.com (host52.host52-server.com
[66.49.137.121])
by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu25) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
id 0MKstg-1J680E0KyC-0004k8 ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
X-ClientAddr: 127.0.0.1
Received: from www.thinkg.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by host52.host52-server.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
lBMHJ33G015778;
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:03 -0500
Received: from 70.23.253.227
(SquirrelMail authenticated user humanimal@thinkg.net )
by www.thinkg.net with HTTP;
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
Message-ID: < 50379.70.23.253.227.1198343948.squirrel@www.thinkg.net>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >
References: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Request to mailing list Bohm_D
From: humanimal@thinkg.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for
more information
X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet
E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-MailScanner-From: humanimal@thinkg.net
Envelope-To: w@david-bohm.net
Ooooooooooh,
noooooooooo
problema, senor
will just use one of the other few hand-full-full-fulls ;---))
ciao
cheers
.... later ... (wellaugh: soooon)
humanimal
> Your request to the Bohm_Dialogue mailing list
>
> Subscription request
>
> has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
> following reason for rejecting your request:
>
> "[No reason given]"
>
> Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
> at:
>
> bohm_dialogue-owner@david-bohm.org
>
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071225/67f604b0/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Dec 26 16:53:08 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 26 17:02:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam and aloneness
Message-ID: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com>
That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into
language) as indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then important to
see that we act and pretend the separation of subject and object -- even
when we know it does not represent actuality? -- dl
If it is seen [rather than "known"] that what actually is cannot be known
(cannot be put into language) as indicated by Bohm and others, it is then
seen as well that we act and pretend the
separation of subject and object -- even when we know [rather than see]
it does not represent actuality.
This "knowing" is of the intellect; is "inferential." This "seeing" is of
the entire system.
When there is a seeing of what actually is, it is perfectly obvious that
this that is cannot be put into language. Language needs to select,
abstract, and fixify flux. Can a selected abstraction of fixified flux
rightly claim to be the content of the simultaneous and continuous
unfolding/enfolding?
And what is "content" anyway if not such a selected abstraction of
fixified flux? Nothing
'wrong' with content, but content claimed/felt as truth is an absolute
blindfold regarding
perception of what is. What need is there to see what is when it is
believed that it is
what is that is being seen?
"Thought is simple telling me the way things are." DB
"Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is
affecting perception." DB
(Amazing how fast I have gotten at typing "proprioception of thought."
Well, it's not amazing really, is it).
This decade+ long intrigue with "proprioception of thought" as a concept
that has steadily refused to settle itself by means of satisfying the
conceptual understanding,
for any more than a few brief moments, seems to do its main "paying off"
in non conceptual
ways. Proprioception of thought appears to be the very nature of
satisfaction itself.
It is seeking in its perfectly satisfied form. And to give it its due
flux, we might
say "it is the continuous and simultaneous seeking/satisfying."
-- funny
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:30:52 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
Questions occur regarding some of the highlighted portions below.
Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the "Summons of
the Ideal". Question: If the English word derives from the Greek/Latin
ti to on/verum or verus indicating that which is ... whatever is. Is it
meaningful to ignore the effects of using the structure of separation,
the subject object structure of language and then think and speak of an
absolute truth that may be expressed as an object of a separated,
inquiring brain/mind?
That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into
language) as indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then important to
see that we act and pretend the separation of subject and object -- even
when we know it does not represent actuality? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
[highlights added]
Hi Karilen Mays. Yesterday we took out the boat. It was cold. We drank
hot soup and watched the birds. At home a book looked at me. Come and
see. In The Wild Duck there is an "idealist," Gregers Werle, who
continually talks as though he had been reading Ibsen's previous plays.
He returns to his hometown after an extended exile and meddles in the
affairs of a strange family, producing disastrous results. Living in a
house whose closets are chock-full of skeletons. Over the course of the
play the many secrets that lie behind the Ekdals' apparently happy home
are revealed to Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or
the "Summons of the Ideal". This family has achieved a tolerable modus
vivendi by ignoring the skeletons (among the secrets: Gregers' father
impregnated his servant Gina then married her off to Hjalmar to
legitimize the child, and Hjalmar's father has been disgraced and
imprisoned for a crime the elder Werle committed.) and by permitting each
member to live in a dreamworld of his own?the feckless father believing
himself to be a great inventor, the grandfather dwelling on the past when
he was a mighty sportsman, and little Hedvig, the child, centering her
emotional life around an attic where a wounded wild duck leads a crippled
existence in a make-believe forest.To the idealist all this appears
intolerable; it must seem that the whole family is leading a life "based
on a lie"; all sorts of evils are "growing in the dark". The remedy is
obviously to face facts, to speak frankly, to let in the light. However,
in this play the revelation of the truth is not a happy event because it
rips up the foundation of the Ekdal family. When the skeletons are
brought out of the closet, the whole dreamworld collapses; the weak
husband thinks it is his duty to leave his wife, and the little girl,
after trying to sacrifice her precious duck, shoots herself with the same
gun. One of the famous quotes from the doctor Relling who built up and
maintained the lies the family is founded on is "If you take away the lie
of life from an average human, you take away his happiness at the same
time." And a merry Christmas to all of you, Friends. AL
Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello, group exploring online,
There are couple things I would like to talk about. It is of course great
that new people are joining in. However, I have so many messages,
especially from Alan, that they are going in my spam folder and I just
cant keep up. I may go on vacation mode again. I think it is awesome that
Susan and Franis are here because you all just seem authentic and
inspiring -- the types of people who are "good" at dialogue. It is
difficult for me to find the "real" messages when so much of what is sent
just reads like spam to me. So this list is actually spam right now in a
sense is the first thing. What value do those messages add? (Not that
mine adds more; you can judge that.)
The second thing I want to talk about it just some "food for thought"
about my own experience lately. I know it is a limited snapshot, but
speaking from our own experiences and feelings is a great way to have
real dialogue, especially when it (our interpretations of the experiences
and future experiences) is up for investigation.
Lately, I have been emotionally raw. The last few months, and even the
last year have been fairly intense. Have attributed it to exhaustion some
of the time, but I wonder what else is happening here. Many of us know
something about human and adult development, ranging from Piaget, Maslow,
Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, Kegan, Torbert, Beck and Cowan, etc. (If any of
those names are not familiar, we can talk further.) There have been some
intense contractions, physically and emotionally lately. So, given that
development is not a straight line, or even stair steps, but let's say a
dialectical spiral of patterns that is evolving, so nothing is a
given...:) my "self assessment" is that I may be engaging more of my
capacity than ever before and I dont know if that means I am "going to
the next level of development" or hitting a pathological place, or a good
place. Luckily I feel like I can be supported in this at work and through
a few of my friends, whatever it is, though one aspect I will say a bit
more about is being alone.
But first, some other aspects: I feel this deep, deep, tension in my
stomach, and my heart area feels very raw, large, and warm. I realize in
a sense I am story telling through this whole email. I did not plan to
write it until a few moments ago, so maybe something interesting or
provoking will be here, maybe not. (Yes, I have a bias for unplanned
activities...) Back to the "symptoms" I've been noticing. There is a
sense of separation, of woundedness, that I tend to wallow in. A small
comment from someone can send me to a place of doubting if I really know
anything, and if I am just a joke of a person. Yet I know that "my"
capacity to experience and make sense of reality, in happy ecstatic
places as well as dark lonely places in the psyche, is beyond what I seem
to know. I can sort of trust my adaptogenic nature as a human and
consciousness to take care of me. I dont know if it makes the disgust
with myself and the world any easier to hold, but so far Im still
here...or something is.
The realization of life lately, or maybe even oneness, for me has
included a flavor of aloneness that I have always known, but when I was
younger, I wanted it to go away and called it depression at times. As we
are unique beings, no person can ever truly understand another. For what
is there to understand, and who is doing it? The realization, I am
alone...has really schocked me. I am inquiring into it and do not wish to
hold on to it longer than it serves, but in a way it can be freeing. To
truly realize this liberates me from the need for others to "get me."
Then I am more available to be with them in a non-wanting way, except to
allow them to be who they are by listening and seeing them. The fact is
some people get me more than others. It is fine if some of us just dont
get each other. That is why there are millions of people...so we can be
seen, met, and supported by someone -- not everyone at everytime. So to
play with this thought-feeling of woundedness and aloneness which is at
times isolating, can provide a lot of opening. We can inquire all the way
to the level of seeing that there is no one to be understood, and that we
are all understanding each other together...so this is just where I am
at.
On this beginning of winter, when the days begin to lengthen and the
nights grow shorter, I am contemplative as I head to 15 hours of
nighttime partying. What is there for me/us (yes, us) to do in the world
this year? What beliefs and parts of self/psyche will I discover and
welcome, or let go of? Who is letting go of them? How can I, sort of get
out of the way, of my own development while taking an empowering stand
for my values, knowing that they are going to change and they are not the
final story? Or is this what we effortlessly do because it is our destiny
if anything is? How can I have an impact in the next year? How am I
fulfilling my unlimited capacity? What do I/we want to create in this
next day, next year? Anyone have any answers or other useful guiding
questions for us? What do we want to explore this year? Who are we?
Maybe what I have said will provoke more inquiry. If there is a goal,
then that is it. And of course, I expect to be seen and understood by
some of you because we are all here together, and I have certain general
ideas about the capacities of this group...other than that I am sick of
hearing myself talk so I will close this. Thank you all...
Love,
Kari
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/409a1a6a/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 17:37:55 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Wed Dec 26 17:45:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different
In-Reply-To: <20071226.105310.3184.280.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071226.105310.3184.280.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712260837p4e18e535ye4f073f833cef9e7@mail.gmail.com>
I: Is it possible for a person to really know their 'real flux of
personhood', and relate to the rest of humanity from that place?
On Dec 25, 2007 8:19 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long time,
> and wanting
> them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this wanting
> them to change?
> Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it. (funny)
>
> Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable. But
> it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it, (don)
>
> Desired "change" of another "person" is the unbeknownst desire to change
> an image of another person [thinking wrongly that the image *is * that
> person in that moment]. But the image acts as a painted curtain hiding the
> real flux of personhood or personality, the real movements in their
> unimpeded followthrough. Remarkably unambiguous difference when "wanting
> them to change" falls away.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:05:21 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
> writes:
>
> scroll down please
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
> of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
> It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
> regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
> even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be
> different"
> [or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on the
> planet
> than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
>
>
> I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in their
> turn,
> "wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right now,
> suggesting
> that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to check that
> out. :-D
> Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just
> interested in looking
> at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific thought
> that triggers it. The
> thoughts surrounding *that* thought. etc.
>
>
> I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad, do we
> find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change? Somehow, I don't
> think so. And would not wanting ourselves or others to change be good or bad
> or better or worse.
>
>
> Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long time,
> and wanting
> them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this wanting
> them to change?
> Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
>
>
> Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable. But
> it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
>
> don
>
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:45:57 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> KI: That's all I ever wanted him to do - be civil. Be honest and civil
> at the same time. And that's what he's forced to do now that his 'arsey'
> persona is unsubscribed. Make no mistake - s/he's still here. Hello, Pit.
>
> On Dec 23, 2007 10:38 AM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Does it make a difference if he's subscribed, so long as he isn't being
> > personally insulting to people and acting like an arse?
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
> > Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:21:00 -0800
> >
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >
> > I am informed that pit is still subscribed here under yet another name,
> > possibly more than one. He has written to Irene and quoted something she
> > wrote to the list after he was unsubscribed. So, keep your eyes open for any
> > hints. Susan has a very keen eye for such things. She was the first to spot
> > that AEB was pit.
> > don
> >
> > On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Don Lay wrote:
> >
> > Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the
> > bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
> > a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own
> > server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam filter.
> > -- admin
> >
> > Under the circumstances, I believe it is not inappropriate to pass on
> > the following which I thought was sent to the Bohm list but was actually
> > directed to one of Peter's addresses:
> >
> > [was something about Failure]
> >
> > If dialogue, from the Greek *dia logos* indicates reason, is
> > it reasonable to expect a dialogue to be the use of reason and to eliminate
> > the ignoring of or distortion of reason and meaning?
> >
> > It seems entirely reasonable, rational, and perhaps more to the point
> > -- *meaningful* -- to not allow the lack of, or distortion of reason and
> > meaning, to occur in place of dialogue.
> >
> > Some questions occur:
> >
> > May *meaningful *communication occur without reason, ratio, meaning?
> > Does communication occur absent reason, ratio, and meaning?
> >
> > When reason, ration, meaning is distorted or absent, is communication
> > possible? Is *meaningful communication* possible?
> >
> > My view is that the moderator's present actions are reasonable, rational
> > and meaningful and are therefore, *dialogical.* -dl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *http:/// *wrote:
> >
> > You are now unsubscribed from Bohm_Dialogue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The 'good'/'bad' news first: Pit is out (gone, booted, unsubbed,
> > 'taken-care-of', dedialoged...).
> >
> > The 'better'/'worse' knews next: s'he is NOT. S'he is still verii much
> > here, among yoUs.
> >
> > Once again, D-Factor could not "take it", could not "handle it"... ~ so
> > he "pulled the plug" (oncommunication, and thus, at --the core of--
> > dialogue).
> >
> > Once again, B-Dialogue could not "take it", could not "handle it"... ~
> > so you "pulled the plug" (on communication, and thus, at --the core of--
> > dialogue).
> >
> > Once again, B-Dialogue=you have failed, re failing.
> >
> > Once again, the "problem/s" did not and do not and will not "go away"
> > because of this move(away).
> >
> > Once again you will talk another trillion years 'penetratingly' about
> > (B)Dialogue, its beauty (beast): w/o, once again, for once, just once, being
> > able to let it happen: (B)Dialogue, to let it takgive place, time (tice)...
> > dobeing touched (penetration, see above) by it. Once again you findy that
> > groupi strength ("coherence", cohesion) in what Don Lay likes to title:
> > "Acting & Pretending". Once again, you wo'managed to gather around the
> > camp&fire&place of vanities, and superficialities, and phonitities,
> > softplaying, neckmassagings, makeupping..... And if it was not so
> > pathetictictic, I would congratulate you.
> >
> > Once again, the 'problem' pit will not go away by moving, pushing,
> > pullpushitting him/her/it offlist, & under the 'rug' (of "self&awareness").
> >
> > Once again, the "peters" of this world ARE a part of tas, ARE, thusly, a
> > part of YOU. ARE systemic, systematictictic.... And, like Bohm's story about
> > the woman who keeps beating herself (while) under the i'm-pressure to be
> > under attack: the attacked=the attacker= the attack. So, by 'any means': go
> > 'ahead', and keep beating yourselves, bones, while you drool over that
> > the-observer=the-observed=.... stuff(ing). bood luckg.
> >
> > ii is still hear, and watching, and in 'awe'.... see you in a bit/pit.
> >
> > Tschuess )(
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
> > it now. <http:///>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* dialogue-admin <admin@david-bohm.net>
> >
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Saturday, December 22, 2007 5:01 PM
> > *Subject:* [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
> >
> > Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the
> > bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
> > a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own
> > server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam filter.
> >
> > admin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Return-Path: <humanimal@thinkg.net>
> > Delivery-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
> > Received: from host52.host52-server.com (host52.host52-server.com [
> > 66.49.137.121])
> > by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu25) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
> > id 0MKstg-1J680E0KyC-0004k8 ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
> > X-ClientAddr: 127.0.0.1
> > Received: from www.thinkg.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
> > by host52.host52-server.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
> > lBMHJ33G015778;
> > Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:03 -0500
> > Received: from 70.23.253.227
> > (SquirrelMail authenticated user humanimal@thinkg.net )
> > by www.thinkg.net with HTTP;
> > Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
> > Message-ID: < 50379.70.23.253.227.1198343948.squirrel@www.thinkg.net>
> > In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >
> > References: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> > Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
> > Subject: Re: Request to mailing list Bohm_D
> > From: humanimal@thinkg.net
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> > Importance: Normal
> > X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for
> > more information
> > X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet
> > E-Mail Service Provider for details
> > X-MailScanner-From: humanimal@thinkg.net
> > Envelope-To: w@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Ooooooooooh,
> > noooooooooo
> > problema, senor
> >
> > will just use one of the other few hand-full-full-fulls ;---))
> >
> > ciao
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > .... later ... (wellaugh: soooon)
> >
> > humanimal
> >
> >
> >
> > > Your request to the Bohm_Dialogue mailing list
> > >
> > > Subscription request
> > >
> > > has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
> > > following reason for rejecting your request:
> > >
> > > "[No reason given]"
> > >
> > > Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
> > > at:
> > >
> > > bohm_dialogue-owner@david-bohm.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/64058f16/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Wed Dec 26 17:50:38 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Dec 26 17:58:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam and
aloneness
References: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <005b01c847df$71bf4a20$b5c16018@DL01>
Blue, below
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:53 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam and aloneness
That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into language) as indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then important to see that we act and pretend the separation of subject and object -- even when we know it does not represent actuality? -- dl
If it is seen [rather than "known"] that what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into language) as indicated by Bohm and others, it is then seen as well that we act and pretend the
separation of subject and object -- even when we know [rather than see] it does not represent actuality.
dl: Yes! Well put. Maybe we should say that proprioception may mean awareness of the faultiness of seeing as a system.
This "knowing" is of the intellect; is "inferential." This "seeing" is of the entire system.
dl: Maybe we should inquire about seeing as the entire system. Maybe that indicates that image/word/identity represents the seen as if the seen is all that is.
Looking carefully, maybe we can see that language, as it developed from seen thingKs that cast a shadow are useful but that are limited in Meaning. That is, using a system of seen thingKs within an imaginary system has limited meaning. Such is the identity card. Isn't that a large part of the reason, rational that totalitarian regimes fail -- the extremely limited acting and pretending? -- dl
When there is a seeing of what actually is, it is perfectly obvious that this that is cannot be put into language. Language needs to select, abstract, and fixify flux. Can a selected abstraction of fixified flux rightly claim to be the content of the simultaneous and continuous unfolding/enfolding?
And what is "content" anyway if not such a selected abstraction of fixified flux? Nothing
'wrong' with content, but content claimed/felt as truth is an absolute blindfold regarding
perception of what is. What need is there to see what is when it is believed that it is
what is that is being seen?
"Thought is simple telling me the way things are." DB
"Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception." DB
(Amazing how fast I have gotten at typing "proprioception of thought."
Well, it's not amazing really, is it).
This decade+ long intrigue with "proprioception of thought" as a concept
that has steadily refused to settle itself by means of satisfying the conceptual understanding,
for any more than a few brief moments, seems to do its main "paying off" in non conceptual
ways. Proprioception of thought appears to be the very nature of satisfaction itself.
It is seeking in its perfectly satisfied form. And to give it its due flux, we might
say "it is the continuous and simultaneous seeking/satisfying."
-- funny
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:30:52 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
Questions occur regarding some of the highlighted portions below.
Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the "Summons of the Ideal". Question: If the English word derives from the Greek/Latin ti to on/verum or verus indicating that which is ... whatever is. Is it meaningful to ignore the effects of using the structure of separation, the subject object structure of language and then think and speak of an absolute truth that may be expressed as an object of a separated, inquiring brain/mind?
That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into language) as indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then important to see that we act and pretend the separation of subject and object -- even when we know it does not represent actuality? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
[highlights added]
Hi Karilen Mays. Yesterday we took out the boat. It was cold. We drank hot soup and watched the birds. At home a book looked at me. Come and see. In The Wild Duck there is an "idealist," Gregers Werle, who continually talks as though he had been reading Ibsen's previous plays. He returns to his hometown after an extended exile and meddles in the affairs of a strange family, producing disastrous results. Living in a house whose closets are chock-full of skeletons. Over the course of the play the many secrets that lie behind the Ekdals' apparently happy home are revealed to Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the "Summons of the Ideal". This family has achieved a tolerable modus vivendi by ignoring the skeletons (among the secrets: Gregers' father impregnated his servant Gina then married her off to Hjalmar to legitimize the child, and Hjalmar's father has been disgraced and imprisoned for a crime the elder Werle committed.) and by permitting each member to live in a dreamworld of his own-the feckless father believing himself to be a great inventor, the grandfather dwelling on the past when he was a mighty sportsman, and little Hedvig, the child, centering her emotional life around an attic where a wounded wild duck leads a crippled existence in a make-believe forest.To the idealist all this appears intolerable; it must seem that the whole family is leading a life "based on a lie"; all sorts of evils are "growing in the dark". The remedy is obviously to face facts, to speak frankly, to let in the light. However, in this play the revelation of the truth is not a happy event because it rips up the foundation of the Ekdal family. When the skeletons are brought out of the closet, the whole dreamworld collapses; the weak husband thinks it is his duty to leave his wife, and the little girl, after trying to sacrifice her precious duck, shoots herself with the same gun. One of the famous quotes from the doctor Relling who built up and maintained the lies the family is founded on is "If you take away the lie of life from an average human, you take away his happiness at the same time." And a merry Christmas to all of you, Friends. AL
Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello, group exploring online,
There are couple things I would like to talk about. It is of course great that new people are joining in. However, I have so many messages, especially from Alan, that they are going in my spam folder and I just cant keep up. I may go on vacation mode again. I think it is awesome that Susan and Franis are here because you all just seem authentic and inspiring -- the types of people who are "good" at dialogue. It is difficult for me to find the "real" messages when so much of what is sent just reads like spam to me. So this list is actually spam right now in a sense is the first thing. What value do those messages add? (Not that mine adds more; you can judge that.)
The second thing I want to talk about it just some "food for thought" about my own experience lately. I know it is a limited snapshot, but speaking from our own experiences and feelings is a great way to have real dialogue, especially when it (our interpretations of the experiences and future experiences) is up for investigation.
Lately, I have been emotionally raw. The last few months, and even the last year have been fairly intense. Have attributed it to exhaustion some of the time, but I wonder what else is happening here. Many of us know something about human and adult development, ranging from Piaget, Maslow, Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, Kegan, Torbert, Beck and Cowan, etc. (If any of those names are not familiar, we can talk further.) There have been some intense contractions, physically and emotionally lately. So, given that development is not a straight line, or even stair steps, but let's say a dialectical spiral of patterns that is evolving, so nothing is a given...:) my "self assessment" is that I may be engaging more of my capacity than ever before and I dont know if that means I am "going to the next level of development" or hitting a pathological place, or a good place. Luckily I feel like I can be supported in this at work and through a few of my friends, whatever it is, though one aspect I will say a bit more about is being alone.
But first, some other aspects: I feel this deep, deep, tension in my stomach, and my heart area feels very raw, large, and warm. I realize in a sense I am story telling through this whole email. I did not plan to write it until a few moments ago, so maybe something interesting or provoking will be here, maybe not. (Yes, I have a bias for unplanned activities...) Back to the "symptoms" I've been noticing. There is a sense of separation, of woundedness, that I tend to wallow in. A small comment from someone can send me to a place of doubting if I really know anything, and if I am just a joke of a person. Yet I know that "my" capacity to experience and make sense of reality, in happy ecstatic places as well as dark lonely places in the psyche, is beyond what I seem to know. I can sort of trust my adaptogenic nature as a human and consciousness to take care of me. I dont know if it makes the disgust with myself and the world any easier to hold, but so far Im still here...or something is.
The realization of life lately, or maybe even oneness, for me has included a flavor of aloneness that I have always known, but when I was younger, I wanted it to go away and called it depression at times. As we are unique beings, no person can ever truly understand another. For what is there to understand, and who is doing it? The realization, I am alone...has really schocked me. I am inquiring into it and do not wish to hold on to it longer than it serves, but in a way it can be freeing. To truly realize this liberates me from the need for others to "get me." Then I am more available to be with them in a non-wanting way, except to allow them to be who they are by listening and seeing them. The fact is some people get me more than others. It is fine if some of us just dont get each other. That is why there are millions of people...so we can be seen, met, and supported by someone -- not everyone at everytime. So to play with this thought-feeling of woundedness and aloneness which is at times isolating, can provide a lot of opening. We can inquire all the way to the level of seeing that there is no one to be understood, and that we are all understanding each other together...so this is just where I am at.
On this beginning of winter, when the days begin to lengthen and the nights grow shorter, I am contemplative as I head to 15 hours of nighttime partying. What is there for me/us (yes, us) to do in the world this year? What beliefs and parts of self/psyche will I discover and welcome, or let go of? Who is letting go of them? How can I, sort of get out of the way, of my own development while taking an empowering stand for my values, knowing that they are going to change and they are not the final story? Or is this what we effortlessly do because it is our destiny if anything is? How can I have an impact in the next year? How am I fulfilling my unlimited capacity? What do I/we want to create in this next day, next year? Anyone have any answers or other useful guiding questions for us? What do we want to explore this year? Who are we?
Maybe what I have said will provoke more inquiry. If there is a goal, then that is it. And of course, I expect to be seen and understood by some of you because we are all here together, and I have certain general ideas about the capacities of this group...other than that I am sick of hearing myself talk so I will close this. Thank you all...
Love,
Kari
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/7dbacee6/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Wed Dec 26 18:11:11 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Dec 26 18:19:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought, Thinking and tas
References: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00c001c847e2$5039b7c0$b5c16018@DL01>
"Philosophy did not spring from myth. It arises solely from thinking and in thinking. But thinking is the thinking of Being. Thinking does not originate: it is, when Being presences." ... Heidegger, Early Greek Thinking, P 40.
This segment in Heidegger's "The Anaximander Fragment" may suggest the idea that thinking is not simply a property of man, the personal identity. The question occurs if it can be used to develop Bohm's ideas expressed in OB regarding the brain as possibly functioning like a radio crystal.
That is, think of the brain somehow being in "conscious contact" with the indivisible whole to which it belongs such that it is sensitive to what the whole intends. This might be one way of beginning to explore meaning without having to speak of the imaginary, identified, fixed and and reified persona which is necessary for social reality but not for speaking of Spiritual actuality.
What might it be like to be in conscious contact with the whole instead of just acting and pretending the identity system limited to the socio-economic reality? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/d33a3bfe/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Wed Dec 26 18:12:58 2007
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Dec 26 18:20:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam and
aloneness
In-Reply-To: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C397D9AA.FE24%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
It is seeking in its perfectly satisfied form. And to give it its due flux,
we might
say "it is the continuous and simultaneous seeking/satisfying." (funny)
That?s a pretty good description of enlightenment, or what Genpo Roshi calls
Big Mind. I?m getting a sense of that in my life (outside meditation).
Christmas in my family is basically exhausting, if endearing, chaos. We all
end up exhausted, not just physically, but from the intensity of all the
many dissatisfactions (the turkey taking too long to cook, the little ones
getting too much and wanting more, the rest of us wanting the day to be
something special and worried it won?t measure up). I noticed this year, my
tiredness was pretty much all physical. I was very present, aware of all
the pleasures, all the disappointments (mine and others?) but from a place
of basic contentment. I noticed events and reactions come and go. The 3
year old was disappointed he only had 2 presents, then I found him another
one under the tree and he was happy, then became disappointed he only had 3.
My son got out the cranberries, his partner (from whom he is currently
separated) sliced the bread, my ex-husband carved the turkey while I made
gravy. Later they all went their separate ways. My dad (who had been
depressed, missing my mother) stayed to help me clean up. As he said when
he left, it was the best Christmas ever.
Lynne
On 12/26/07 8:53 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into language) as
> indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then important to see that we act and
> pretend the separation of subject and object -- even when we know it does not
> represent actuality? -- dl
>
> If it is seen [rather than "known"] that what actually is cannot be known
> (cannot be put into language) as indicated by Bohm and others, it is then seen
> as well that we act and pretend the
> separation of subject and object -- even when we know [rather than see] it
> does not represent actuality.
>
> This "knowing" is of the intellect; is "inferential." This "seeing" is of the
> entire system.
>
> When there is a seeing of what actually is, it is perfectly obvious that this
> that is cannot be put into language. Language needs to select, abstract, and
> fixify flux. Can a selected abstraction of fixified flux rightly claim to be
> the content of the simultaneous and continuous unfolding/enfolding?
> And what is "content" anyway if not such a selected abstraction of fixified
> flux? Nothing
> 'wrong' with content, but content claimed/felt as truth is an absolute
> blindfold regarding
> perception of what is. What need is there to see what is when it is believed
> that it is
> what is that is being seen?
>
> "Thought is simple telling me the way things are." DB
> "Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is affecting
> perception." DB
>
> (Amazing how fast I have gotten at typing "proprioception of thought."
> Well, it's not amazing really, is it).
>
> This decade+ long intrigue with "proprioception of thought" as a concept
> that has steadily refused to settle itself by means of satisfying the
> conceptual understanding,
> for any more than a few brief moments, seems to do its main "paying off" in
> non conceptual
> ways. Proprioception of thought appears to be the very nature of satisfaction
> itself.
> It is seeking in its perfectly satisfied form. And to give it its due flux, we
> might
> say "it is the continuous and simultaneous seeking/satisfying."
>
> -- funny
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:30:52 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
>> Questions occur regarding some of the highlighted portions below.
>>
>> Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the "Summons of the
>> Ideal". Question: If the English word derives from the Greek/Latin ti to
>> on/verum or verus indicating that which is ... whatever is. Is it
>> meaningful to ignore the effects of using the structure of separation, the
>> subject object structure of language and then think and speak of an absolute
>> truth that may be expressed as an object of a separated, inquiring
>> brain/mind?
>>
>> That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into language) as
>> indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then important to see that we act and
>> pretend the separation of subject and object -- even when we know it does not
>> represent actuality? -- dl
>>
>>
>> From: Alfred Landman <mailto:landmana@yahoo.com>
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:15 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
>>>
>>> [highlights added]
>>> Hi Karilen Mays. Yesterday we took out the boat. It was cold. We drank hot
>>> soup and watched the birds. At home a book looked at me. Come and see. In
>>> The Wild Duck there is an "idealist," Gregers Werle, who continually talks
>>> as though he had been reading Ibsen's previous plays. He returns to his
>>> hometown after an extended exile and meddles in the affairs of a strange
>>> family, producing disastrous results. Living in a house whose closets are
>>> chock-full of skeletons. Over the course of the play the many secrets that
>>> lie behind the Ekdals' apparently happy home are revealed to Gregers, who
>>> insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the "Summons of the Ideal". This
>>> family has achieved a tolerable modus vivendi by ignoring the skeletons
>>> (among the secrets: Gregers' father impregnated his servant Gina then
>>> married her off to Hjalmar to legitimize the child, and Hjalmar's father has
>>> been disgraced and imprisoned for a crime the elder Werle committed.) and by
>>> permitting each member to live in a dreamworld of his own?the feckless
>>> father believing himself to be a great inventor, the grandfather dwelling on
>>> the past when he was a mighty sportsman, and little Hedvig, the child,
>>> centering her emotional life around an attic where a wounded wild duck leads
>>> a crippled existence in a make-believe forest.To the idealist all this
>>> appears intolerable; it must seem that the whole family is leading a life
>>> "based on a lie"; all sorts of evils are "growing in the dark". The remedy
>>> is obviously to face facts, to speak frankly, to let in the light. However,
>>> in this play the revelation of the truth is not a happy event because it
>>> rips up the foundation of the Ekdal family. When the skeletons are brought
>>> out of the closet, the whole dreamworld collapses; the weak husband thinks
>>> it is his duty to leave his wife, and the little girl, after trying to
>>> sacrifice her precious duck, shoots herself with the same gun. One of the
>>> famous quotes from the doctor Relling who built up and maintained the lies
>>> the family is founded on is "If you take away the lie of life from an
>>> average human, you take away his happiness at the same time." And a merry
>>> Christmas to all of you, Friends. AL
>>>
>>>
>>> Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello, group exploring online,
>>>>
>>>> There are couple things I would like to talk about. It is of course great
>>>> that new people are joining in. However, I have so many messages,
>>>> especially from Alan, that they are going in my spam folder and I just cant
>>>> keep up. I may go on vacation mode again. I think it is awesome that Susan
>>>> and Franis are here because you all just seem authentic and inspiring --
>>>> the types of people who are "good" at dialogue. It is difficult for me to
>>>> find the "real" messages when so much of what is sent just reads like spam
>>>> to me. So this list is actually spam right now in a sense is the first
>>>> thing. What value do those messages add? (Not that mine adds more; you can
>>>> judge that.)
>>>>
>>>> The second thing I want to talk about it just some "food for thought" about
>>>> my own experience lately. I know it is a limited snapshot, but speaking
>>>> from our own experiences and feelings is a great way to have real dialogue,
>>>> especially when it (our interpretations of the experiences and future
>>>> experiences) is up for investigation.
>>>>
>>>> Lately, I have been emotionally raw. The last few months, and even the last
>>>> year have been fairly intense. Have attributed it to exhaustion some of the
>>>> time, but I wonder what else is happening here. Many of us know something
>>>> about human and adult development, ranging from Piaget, Maslow, Loevinger,
>>>> Cook-Greuter, Kegan, Torbert, Beck and Cowan, etc. (If any of those names
>>>> are not familiar, we can talk further.) There have been some intense
>>>> contractions, physically and emotionally lately. So, given that development
>>>> is not a straight line, or even stair steps, but let's say a dialectical
>>>> spiral of patterns that is evolving, so nothing is a given...:) my "self
>>>> assessment" is that I may be engaging more of my capacity than ever before
>>>> and I dont know if that means I am "going to the next level of development"
>>>> or hitting a pathological place, or a good place. Luckily I feel like I can
>>>> be supported in this at work and through a few of my friends, whatever it
>>>> is, though one aspect I will say a bit more about is being alone.
>>>>
>>>> But first, some other aspects: I feel this deep, deep, tension in my
>>>> stomach, and my heart area feels very raw, large, and warm. I realize in a
>>>> sense I am story telling through this whole email. I did not plan to write
>>>> it until a few moments ago, so maybe something interesting or provoking
>>>> will be here, maybe not. (Yes, I have a bias for unplanned activities...)
>>>> Back to the "symptoms" I've been noticing. There is a sense of separation,
>>>> of woundedness, that I tend to wallow in. A small comment from someone can
>>>> send me to a place of doubting if I really know anything, and if I am just
>>>> a joke of a person. Yet I know that "my" capacity to experience and make
>>>> sense of reality, in happy ecstatic places as well as dark lonely places in
>>>> the psyche, is beyond what I seem to know. I can sort of trust my
>>>> adaptogenic nature as a human and consciousness to take care of me. I dont
>>>> know if it makes the disgust with myself and the world any easier to hold,
>>>> but so far Im still here...or something is.
>>>>
>>>> The realization of life lately, or maybe even oneness, for me has included
>>>> a flavor of aloneness that I have always known, but when I was younger, I
>>>> wanted it to go away and called it depression at times. As we are unique
>>>> beings, no person can ever truly understand another. For what is there to
>>>> understand, and who is doing it? The realization, I am alone...has really
>>>> schocked me. I am inquiring into it and do not wish to hold on to it longer
>>>> than it serves, but in a way it can be freeing. To truly realize this
>>>> liberates me from the need for others to "get me." Then I am more available
>>>> to be with them in a non-wanting way, except to allow them to be who they
>>>> are by listening and seeing them. The fact is some people get me more than
>>>> others. It is fine if some of us just dont get each other. That is why
>>>> there are millions of people...so we can be seen, met, and supported by
>>>> someone -- not everyone at everytime. So to play with this thought-feeling
>>>> of woundedness and aloneness which is at times isolating, can provide a lot
>>>> of opening. We can inquire all the way to the level of seeing that there is
>>>> no one to be understood, and that we are all understanding each other
>>>> together...so this is just where I am at.
>>>>
>>>> On this beginning of winter, when the days begin to lengthen and the nights
>>>> grow shorter, I am contemplative as I head to 15 hours of nighttime
>>>> partying. What is there for me/us (yes, us) to do in the world this year?
>>>> What beliefs and parts of self/psyche will I discover and welcome, or let
>>>> go of? Who is letting go of them? How can I, sort of get out of the way, of
>>>> my own development while taking an empowering stand for my values, knowing
>>>> that they are going to change and they are not the final story? Or is this
>>>> what we effortlessly do because it is our destiny if anything is? How can I
>>>> have an impact in the next year? How am I fulfilling my unlimited capacity?
>>>> What do I/we want to create in this next day, next year? Anyone have any
>>>> answers or other useful guiding questions for us? What do we want to
>>>> explore this year? Who are we?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe what I have said will provoke more inquiry. If there is a goal, then
>>>> that is it. And of course, I expect to be seen and understood by some of
>>>> you because we are all here together, and I have certain general ideas
>>>> about the capacities of this group...other than that I am sick of hearing
>>>> myself talk so I will close this. Thank you all...
>>>>
>>>> Love,
>>>> Kari
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/5ee0e577/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Wed Dec 26 18:18:26 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Dec 26 18:26:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought, Thinking and tas
References: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<00c001c847e2$5039b7c0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <00cf01c847e3$541093e0$b5c16018@DL01>
"Philosophy did not spring from myth. It arises solely from thinking and in thinking. But thinking is the thinking of Being. Thinking does not originate: it is, when Being presences." ... Heidegger, Early Greek Thinking, P 40.
Does this not suggest, perhaps mean, the inner connection that is not based upon seen thingKs, seen images?
Still though, there is the need for putting into the everyday language system based upon seen things (TUU) just as it is necessary to put quantum formulations into every day language -- even though the quantum discoveries suggest the everyday language is faulty as is tas. -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought, Thinking and tas
"Philosophy did not spring from myth. It arises solely from thinking and in thinking. But thinking is the thinking of Being. Thinking does not originate: it is, when Being presences." ... Heidegger, Early Greek Thinking, P 40.
This segment in Heidegger's "The Anaximander Fragment" may suggest the idea that thinking is not simply a property of man, the personal identity. The question occurs if it can be used to develop Bohm's ideas expressed in OB regarding the brain as possibly functioning like a radio crystal.
That is, think of the brain somehow being in "conscious contact" with the indivisible whole to which it belongs such that it is sensitive to what the whole intends. This might be one way of beginning to explore meaning without having to speak of the imaginary, identified, fixed and and reified persona which is necessary for social reality but not for speaking of Spiritual actuality.
What might it be like to be in conscious contact with the whole instead of just acting and pretending the identity system limited to the socio-economic reality? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/5a6e4975/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Wed Dec 26 18:24:07 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Dec 26 18:32:11 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought, Thinking and tas
References: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com><00c001c847e2$5039b7c0$b5c16018@DL01>
<00cf01c847e3$541093e0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <00e301c847e4$1f49e070$b5c16018@DL01>
What might it mean, what might be the meaning that the Greek logos referenced by Bohm has been translated or interpreted as meaning?
Is it meaningless? -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought, Thinking and tas
"Philosophy did not spring from myth. It arises solely from thinking and in thinking. But thinking is the thinking of Being. Thinking does not originate: it is, when Being presences." ... Heidegger, Early Greek Thinking, P 40.
Does this not suggest, perhaps mean, the inner connection that is not based upon seen thingKs, seen images?
Still though, there is the need for putting into the everyday language system based upon seen things (TUU) just as it is necessary to put quantum formulations into every day language -- even though the quantum discoveries suggest the everyday language is faulty as is tas. -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought, Thinking and tas
"Philosophy did not spring from myth. It arises solely from thinking and in thinking. But thinking is the thinking of Being. Thinking does not originate: it is, when Being presences." ... Heidegger, Early Greek Thinking, P 40.
This segment in Heidegger's "The Anaximander Fragment" may suggest the idea that thinking is not simply a property of man, the personal identity. The question occurs if it can be used to develop Bohm's ideas expressed in OB regarding the brain as possibly functioning like a radio crystal.
That is, think of the brain somehow being in "conscious contact" with the indivisible whole to which it belongs such that it is sensitive to what the whole intends. This might be one way of beginning to explore meaning without having to speak of the imaginary, identified, fixed and and reified persona which is necessary for social reality but not for speaking of Spiritual actuality.
What might it be like to be in conscious contact with the whole instead of just acting and pretending the identity system limited to the socio-economic reality? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/96fa5952/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Wed Dec 26 18:28:19 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Dec 26 18:36:20 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought, Thinking and tas
References: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<00c001c847e2$5039b7c0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <010101c847e4$b519c660$b5c16018@DL01>
If the word thinking can be seen to reference something like quantum movement, universal movement, and thought as the past tense to reference the reification of fixity in language.
Then that might be a way to begin speaking of participation, meaning as relating to power, to the whole instead of simply a property of homo-sappo. -- dl
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought, Thinking and tas
"Philosophy did not spring from myth. It arises solely from thinking and in thinking. But thinking is the thinking of Being. Thinking does not originate: it is, when Being presences." ... Heidegger, Early Greek Thinking, P 40.
This segment in Heidegger's "The Anaximander Fragment" may suggest the idea that thinking is not simply a property of man, the personal identity. The question occurs if it can be used to develop Bohm's ideas expressed in OB regarding the brain as possibly functioning like a radio crystal.
That is, think of the brain somehow being in "conscious contact" with the indivisible whole to which it belongs such that it is sensitive to what the whole intends. This might be one way of beginning to explore meaning without having to speak of the imaginary, identified, fixed and and reified persona which is necessary for social reality but not for speaking of Spiritual actuality.
What might it be like to be in conscious contact with the whole instead of just acting and pretending the identity system limited to the socio-economic reality? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/daa45178/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Wed Dec 26 19:38:33 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Dec 26 19:46:36 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam and
aloneness
In-Reply-To: <005b01c847df$71bf4a20$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<005b01c847df$71bf4a20$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <AF42A86D-C8B2-4B91-ACB5-68CB3980E454@dc.rr.com>
I would think that what Pat is describing here is what Bohm referred
to as understanding, which to me has qualities of both knowing and
seeing, The idea that any part of what actually is not what actually
is might also be an error because, if we are using the same model we
must be aware that the whole is enfolded in the parts and vice versa.
The error comes from thinking in terms of differences rather than
similarities and forgetting that both those ideas fit together as
parts of an ever evolving but ultimately unbroken process.
At least that's my understanding, as of this moment.
don
On Dec 26, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Don Lay wrote:
> Blue, below
>
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:53 AM
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam and
> aloneness
>
> That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into
> language) as indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then important
> to see that we act and pretend the separation of subject and object
> -- even when we know it does not represent actuality? -- dl
>
> If it is seen [rather than "known"] that what actually is cannot be
> known (cannot be put into language) as indicated by Bohm and
> others, it is then seen as well that we act and pretend the
> separation of subject and object -- even when we know [rather than
> see] it does not represent actuality.
>
> dl: Yes! Well put. Maybe we should say that proprioception may
> mean awareness of the faultiness of seeing as a system.
>
> This "knowing" is of the intellect; is "inferential." This "seeing"
> is of the entire system.
>
> dl: Maybe we should inquire about seeing as the entire system.
> Maybe that indicates that image/word/identity represents the seen
> as if the seen is all that is.
>
> Looking carefully, maybe we can see that language, as it developed
> from seen thingKs that cast a shadow are useful but that are
> limited in Meaning. That is, using a system of seen thingKs within
> an imaginary system has limited meaning. Such is the identity
> card. Isn't that a large part of the reason, rational that
> totalitarian regimes fail -- the extremely limited acting and
> pretending? -- dl
>
> When there is a seeing of what actually is, it is perfectly obvious
> that this that is cannot be put into language. Language needs to
> select, abstract, and fixify flux. Can a selected abstraction of
> fixified flux rightly claim to be the content of the simultaneous
> and continuous unfolding/enfolding?
> And what is "content" anyway if not such a selected abstraction of
> fixified flux? Nothing
> 'wrong' with content, but content claimed/felt as truth is an
> absolute blindfold regarding
> perception of what is. What need is there to see what is when it is
> believed that it is
> what is that is being seen?
>
> "Thought is simple telling me the way things are." DB
> "Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is
> affecting perception." DB
>
> (Amazing how fast I have gotten at typing "proprioception of thought."
> Well, it's not amazing really, is it).
>
> This decade+ long intrigue with "proprioception of thought" as a
> concept
> that has steadily refused to settle itself by means of satisfying
> the conceptual understanding,
> for any more than a few brief moments, seems to do its main "paying
> off" in non conceptual
> ways. Proprioception of thought appears to be the very nature of
> satisfaction itself.
> It is seeking in its perfectly satisfied form. And to give it its
> due flux, we might
> say "it is the continuous and simultaneous seeking/satisfying."
>
> -- funny
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:30:52 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net>
> writes:
> Questions occur regarding some of the highlighted portions below.
>
> Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the
> "Summons of the Ideal". Question: If the English word derives
> from the Greek/Latin ti to on/verum or verus indicating that which
> is ... whatever is. Is it meaningful to ignore the effects of
> using the structure of separation, the subject object structure of
> language and then think and speak of an absolute truth that may be
> expressed as an object of a separated, inquiring brain/mind?
>
> That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into
> language) as indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then
> important to see that we act and pretend the separation of subject
> and object -- even when we know it does not represent actuality? -- dl
>
>
> From: Alfred Landman
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
>
> [highlights added]
> Hi Karilen Mays. Yesterday we took out the boat. It was cold. We
> drank hot soup and watched the birds. At home a book looked at me.
> Come and see. In The Wild Duck there is an "idealist," Gregers
> Werle, who continually talks as though he had been reading Ibsen's
> previous plays. He returns to his hometown after an extended exile
> and meddles in the affairs of a strange family, producing
> disastrous results. Living in a house whose closets are chock-full
> of skeletons. Over the course of the play the many secrets that lie
> behind the Ekdals' apparently happy home are revealed to Gregers,
> who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the "Summons of the
> Ideal". This family has achieved a tolerable modus vivendi by
> ignoring the skeletons (among the secrets: Gregers' father
> impregnated his servant Gina then married her off to Hjalmar to
> legitimize the child, and Hjalmar's father has been disgraced and
> imprisoned for a crime the elder Werle committed.) and by
> permitting each member to live in a dreamworld of his own?the
> feckless father believing himself to be a great inventor, the
> grandfather dwelling on the past when he was a mighty sportsman,
> and little Hedvig, the child, centering her emotional life around
> an attic where a wounded wild duck leads a crippled existence in a
> make-believe forest.To the idealist all this appears intolerable;
> it must seem that the whole family is leading a life "based on a
> lie"; all sorts of evils are "growing in the dark". The remedy is
> obviously to face facts, to speak frankly, to let in the light.
> However, in this play the revelation of the truth is not a happy
> event because it rips up the foundation of the Ekdal family. When
> the skeletons are brought out of the closet, the whole dreamworld
> collapses; the weak husband thinks it is his duty to leave his
> wife, and the little girl, after trying to sacrifice her precious
> duck, shoots herself with the same gun. One of the famous quotes
> from the doctor Relling who built up and maintained the lies the
> family is founded on is "If you take away the lie of life from an
> average human, you take away his happiness at the same time." And a
> merry Christmas to all of you, Friends. AL
>
>
> Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello, group exploring online,
>
> There are couple things I would like to talk about. It is of course
> great that new people are joining in. However, I have so many
> messages, especially from Alan, that they are going in my spam
> folder and I just cant keep up. I may go on vacation mode again. I
> think it is awesome that Susan and Franis are here because you all
> just seem authentic and inspiring -- the types of people who are
> "good" at dialogue. It is difficult for me to find the "real"
> messages when so much of what is sent just reads like spam to me.
> So this list is actually spam right now in a sense is the first
> thing. What value do those messages add? (Not that mine adds more;
> you can judge that.)
>
> The second thing I want to talk about it just some "food for
> thought" about my own experience lately. I know it is a limited
> snapshot, but speaking from our own experiences and feelings is a
> great way to have real dialogue, especially when it (our
> interpretations of the experiences and future experiences) is up
> for investigation.
>
> Lately, I have been emotionally raw. The last few months, and even
> the last year have been fairly intense. Have attributed it to
> exhaustion some of the time, but I wonder what else is happening
> here. Many of us know something about human and adult development,
> ranging from Piaget, Maslow, Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, Kegan,
> Torbert, Beck and Cowan, etc. (If any of those names are not
> familiar, we can talk further.) There have been some intense
> contractions, physically and emotionally lately. So, given that
> development is not a straight line, or even stair steps, but let's
> say a dialectical spiral of patterns that is evolving, so nothing
> is a given...:) my "self assessment" is that I may be engaging more
> of my capacity than ever before and I dont know if that means I am
> "going to the next level of development" or hitting a pathological
> place, or a good place. Luckily I feel like I can be supported in
> this at work and through a few of my friends, whatever it
> is, though one aspect I will say a bit more about is being alone.
>
> But first, some other aspects: I feel this deep, deep, tension in
> my stomach, and my heart area feels very raw, large, and warm. I
> realize in a sense I am story telling through this whole email. I
> did not plan to write it until a few moments ago, so maybe
> something interesting or provoking will be here, maybe not. (Yes, I
> have a bias for unplanned activities...) Back to the "symptoms"
> I've been noticing. There is a sense of separation, of woundedness,
> that I tend to wallow in. A small comment from someone can send me
> to a place of doubting if I really know anything, and if I am just
> a joke of a person. Yet I know that "my" capacity to experience and
> make sense of reality, in happy ecstatic places as well as dark
> lonely places in the psyche, is beyond what I seem to know. I can
> sort of trust my adaptogenic nature as a human and consciousness to
> take care of me. I dont know if it makes the disgust with myself
> and the world any easier to hold, but so far Im still here...or
> something is.
>
> The realization of life lately, or maybe even oneness, for me has
> included a flavor of aloneness that I have always known, but when I
> was younger, I wanted it to go away and called it depression at
> times. As we are unique beings, no person can ever truly understand
> another. For what is there to understand, and who is doing it? The
> realization, I am alone...has really schocked me. I am inquiring
> into it and do not wish to hold on to it longer than it serves, but
> in a way it can be freeing. To truly realize this liberates me from
> the need for others to "get me." Then I am more available to be
> with them in a non-wanting way, except to allow them to be who they
> are by listening and seeing them. The fact is some people get me
> more than others. It is fine if some of us just dont get each
> other. That is why there are millions of people...so we can be
> seen, met, and supported by someone -- not everyone at everytime.
> So to play with this thought-feeling of woundedness and aloneness
> which is at times isolating, can provide a lot of opening. We can
> inquire all the way to the level of seeing that there is no one to
> be understood, and that we are all understanding each other
> together...so this is just where I am at.
>
> On this beginning of winter, when the days begin to lengthen and
> the nights grow shorter, I am contemplative as I head to 15 hours
> of nighttime partying. What is there for me/us (yes, us) to do in
> the world this year? What beliefs and parts of self/psyche will I
> discover and welcome, or let go of? Who is letting go of them? How
> can I, sort of get out of the way, of my own development while
> taking an empowering stand for my values, knowing that they are
> going to change and they are not the final story? Or is this what
> we effortlessly do because it is our destiny if anything is? How
> can I have an impact in the next year? How am I fulfilling my
> unlimited capacity? What do I/we want to create in this next day,
> next year? Anyone have any answers or other useful guiding
> questions for us? What do we want to explore this year? Who are we?
>
> Maybe what I have said will provoke more inquiry. If there is a
> goal, then that is it. And of course, I expect to be seen and
> understood by some of you because we are all here together, and I
> have certain general ideas about the capacities of this
> group...other than that I am sick of hearing myself talk so I will
> close this. Thank you all...
>
> Love,
> Kari
>
>
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/63684dde/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Wed Dec 26 19:43:31 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Dec 26 19:51:31 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought, Thinking and tas
In-Reply-To: <00c001c847e2$5039b7c0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<00c001c847e2$5039b7c0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <137A7338-EDC7-4002-AED4-4A1B0E4D004F@dc.rr.com>
On Dec 26, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Don Lay wrote:
> What might it be like to be in conscious contact with the whole
> instead of just acting and pretending the identity system limited
> to the socio-economic reality? -- dl
>
I think that most people are, but only when they are not thinking
about it. Individuation would appear to be a necessary part of
thinking "about" something just as it is necessary when you go to the
ATM to take out some cash.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/14ef6b94/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Wed Dec 26 19:46:58 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Dec 26 19:55:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam andaloneness
References: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com><005b01c847df$71bf4a20$b5c16018@DL01>
<AF42A86D-C8B2-4B91-ACB5-68CB3980E454@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <012901c847ef$b1d807e0$b5c16018@DL01>
Very interesting.
It seems useful to distinguish and be aware that some parts may be ideas, may be thoughts about thoughts while other parts may be thoughts about a thing that is NT or not just a thought.
How might non being be described using enfold/unfold? -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam andaloneness
I would think that what Pat is describing here is what Bohm referred to as understanding, which to me has qualities of both knowing and seeing, The idea that any part of what actually is not what actually is might also be an error because, if we are using the same model we must be aware that the whole is enfolded in the parts and vice versa. The error comes from thinking in terms of differences rather than similarities and forgetting that both those ideas fit together as parts of an ever evolving but ultimately unbroken process.
At least that's my understanding, as of this moment.
don
On Dec 26, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Don Lay wrote:
Blue, below
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:53 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam and aloneness
That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into language) as indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then important to see that we act and pretend the separation of subject and object -- even when we know it does not represent actuality? -- dl
If it is seen [rather than "known"] that what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into language) as indicated by Bohm and others, it is then seen as well that we act and pretend the
separation of subject and object -- even when we know [rather than see] it does not represent actuality.
dl: Yes! Well put. Maybe we should say that proprioception may mean awareness of the faultiness of seeing as a system.
This "knowing" is of the intellect; is "inferential." This "seeing" is of the entire system.
dl: Maybe we should inquire about seeing as the entire system. Maybe that indicates that image/word/identity represents the seen as if the seen is all that is.
Looking carefully, maybe we can see that language, as it developed from seen thingKs that cast a shadow are useful but that are limited in Meaning. That is, using a system of seen thingKs within an imaginary system has limited meaning. Such is the identity card. Isn't that a large part of the reason, rational that totalitarian regimes fail -- the extremely limited acting and pretending? -- dl
When there is a seeing of what actually is, it is perfectly obvious that this that is cannot be put into language. Language needs to select, abstract, and fixify flux. Can a selected abstraction of fixified flux rightly claim to be the content of the simultaneous and continuous unfolding/enfolding?
And what is "content" anyway if not such a selected abstraction of fixified flux? Nothing
'wrong' with content, but content claimed/felt as truth is an absolute blindfold regarding
perception of what is. What need is there to see what is when it is believed that it is
what is that is being seen?
"Thought is simple telling me the way things are." DB
"Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception." DB
(Amazing how fast I have gotten at typing "proprioception of thought."
Well, it's not amazing really, is it).
This decade+ long intrigue with "proprioception of thought" as a concept
that has steadily refused to settle itself by means of satisfying the conceptual understanding,
for any more than a few brief moments, seems to do its main "paying off" in non conceptual
ways. Proprioception of thought appears to be the very nature of satisfaction itself.
It is seeking in its perfectly satisfied form. And to give it its due flux, we might
say "it is the continuous and simultaneous seeking/satisfying."
-- funny
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:30:52 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
Questions occur regarding some of the highlighted portions below.
Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the "Summons of the Ideal". Question: If the English word derives from the Greek/Latin ti to on/verum or verus indicating that which is ... whatever is. Is it meaningful to ignore the effects of using the structure of separation, the subject object structure of language and then think and speak of an absolute truth that may be expressed as an object of a separated, inquiring brain/mind?
That is, if what actually is cannot be known (cannot be put into language) as indicated by Bohm and others, is it not then important to see that we act and pretend the separation of subject and object -- even when we know it does not represent actuality? -- dl
From: Alfred Landman
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
[highlights added]
Hi Karilen Mays. Yesterday we took out the boat. It was cold. We drank hot soup and watched the birds. At home a book looked at me. Come and see. In The Wild Duck there is an "idealist," Gregers Werle, who continually talks as though he had been reading Ibsen's previous plays. He returns to his hometown after an extended exile and meddles in the affairs of a strange family, producing disastrous results. Living in a house whose closets are chock-full of skeletons. Over the course of the play the many secrets that lie behind the Ekdals' apparently happy home are revealed to Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the "Summons of the Ideal". This family has achieved a tolerable modus vivendi by ignoring the skeletons (among the secrets: Gregers' father impregnated his servant Gina then married her off to Hjalmar to legitimize the child, and Hjalmar's father has been disgraced and imprisoned for a crime the elder Werle committed.) and by permitting each member to live in a dreamworld of his own?the feckless father believing himself to be a great inventor, the grandfather dwelling on the past when he was a mighty sportsman, and little Hedvig, the child, centering her emotional life around an attic where a wounded wild duck leads a crippled existence in a make-believe forest.To the idealist all this appears intolerable; it must seem that the whole family is leading a life "based on a lie"; all sorts of evils are "growing in the dark". The remedy is obviously to face facts, to speak frankly, to let in the light. However, in this play the revelation of the truth is not a happy event because it rips up the foundation of the Ekdal family. When the skeletons are brought out of the closet, the whole dreamworld collapses; the weak husband thinks it is his duty to leave his wife, and the little girl, after trying to sacrifice her precious duck, shoots herself with the same gun. One of the famous quotes from the doctor Relling who built up and maintained the lies the family is founded on is "If you take away the lie of life from an average human, you take away his happiness at the same time." And a merry Christmas to all of you, Friends. AL
Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello, group exploring online,
There are couple things I would like to talk about. It is of course great that new people are joining in. However, I have so many messages, especially from Alan, that they are going in my spam folder and I just cant keep up. I may go on vacation mode again. I think it is awesome that Susan and Franis are here because you all just seem authentic and inspiring -- the types of people who are "good" at dialogue. It is difficult for me to find the "real" messages when so much of what is sent just reads like spam to me. So this list is actually spam right now in a sense is the first thing. What value do those messages add? (Not that mine adds more; you can judge that.)
The second thing I want to talk about it just some "food for thought" about my own experience lately. I know it is a limited snapshot, but speaking from our own experiences and feelings is a great way to have real dialogue, especially when it (our interpretations of the experiences and future experiences) is up for investigation.
Lately, I have been emotionally raw. The last few months, and even the last year have been fairly intense. Have attributed it to exhaustion some of the time, but I wonder what else is happening here. Many of us know something about human and adult development, ranging from Piaget, Maslow, Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, Kegan, Torbert, Beck and Cowan, etc. (If any of those names are not familiar, we can talk further.) There have been some intense contractions, physically and emotionally lately. So, given that development is not a straight line, or even stair steps, but let's say a dialectical spiral of patterns that is evolving, so nothing is a given...:) my "self assessment" is that I may be engaging more of my capacity than ever before and I dont know if that means I am "going to the next level of development" or hitting a pathological place, or a good place. Luckily I feel like I can be supported in this at work and through a few of my friends, whatever it is, though one aspect I will say a bit more about is being alone.
But first, some other aspects: I feel this deep, deep, tension in my stomach, and my heart area feels very raw, large, and warm. I realize in a sense I am story telling through this whole email. I did not plan to write it until a few moments ago, so maybe something interesting or provoking will be here, maybe not. (Yes, I have a bias for unplanned activities...) Back to the "symptoms" I've been noticing. There is a sense of separation, of woundedness, that I tend to wallow in. A small comment from someone can send me to a place of doubting if I really know anything, and if I am just a joke of a person. Yet I know that "my" capacity to experience and make sense of reality, in happy ecstatic places as well as dark lonely places in the psyche, is beyond what I seem to know. I can sort of trust my adaptogenic nature as a human and consciousness to take care of me. I dont know if it makes the disgust with myself and the world any easier to hold, but so far Im still here...or something is.
The realization of life lately, or maybe even oneness, for me has included a flavor of aloneness that I have always known, but when I was younger, I wanted it to go away and called it depression at times. As we are unique beings, no person can ever truly understand another. For what is there to understand, and who is doing it? The realization, I am alone...has really schocked me. I am inquiring into it and do not wish to hold on to it longer than it serves, but in a way it can be freeing. To truly realize this liberates me from the need for others to "get me." Then I am more available to be with them in a non-wanting way, except to allow them to be who they are by listening and seeing them. The fact is some people get me more than others. It is fine if some of us just dont get each other. That is why there are millions of people...so we can be seen, met, and supported by someone -- not everyone at everytime. So to play with this thought-feeling of woundedness and aloneness which is at times isolating, can provide a lot of opening. We can inquire all the way to the level of seeing that there is no one to be understood, and that we are all understanding each other together...so this is just where I am at.
On this beginning of winter, when the days begin to lengthen and the nights grow shorter, I am contemplative as I head to 15 hours of nighttime partying. What is there for me/us (yes, us) to do in the world this year? What beliefs and parts of self/psyche will I discover and welcome, or let go of? Who is letting go of them? How can I, sort of get out of the way, of my own development while taking an empowering stand for my values, knowing that they are going to change and they are not the final story? Or is this what we effortlessly do because it is our destiny if anything is? How can I have an impact in the next year? How am I fulfilling my unlimited capacity? What do I/we want to create in this next day, next year? Anyone have any answers or other useful guiding questions for us? What do we want to explore this year? Who are we?
Maybe what I have said will provoke more inquiry. If there is a goal, then that is it. And of course, I expect to be seen and understood by some of you because we are all here together, and I have certain general ideas about the capacities of this group...other than that I am sick of hearing myself talk so I will close this. Thank you all...
Love,
Kari
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071226/764675b5/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Wed Dec 26 19:53:20 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Dec 26 20:01:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam andaloneness
References: <20071226.105310.3184.281.ae.dropper@juno.com><005b01c847df$71bf4a20$b5c16018@DL01>
<AF42A86D-C8B2-4B91-ACB5-68CB3980E454@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <015101c847f0$9577f910$b5c16018@DL01>
I thought she was, at least in part, describing something regarding the identity processes, maybe something of the attempt to actually be an identified part that does not enfold.
Does the identified individual enfold or is it the one doing the folding/unfolding?
Where is the identified individual when it is enfolded? What is it after becomes infolded? -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought - was: spam andaloneness
I would think that what Pat is describing here is what Bohm referred to as understanding, which to me has qualities of both knowing and seeing, The idea that any part of what actually is not what actually is might also be an error because, if