From DStulberg at msw-law.com Thu Oct 26 00:41:24 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Fri Oct 27 01:40:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Mait Edey Essay
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0241@msw2k.msw.local>
please send. I think we can do attachments though can't we? D
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:29 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Mait Edey Essay
The thought occurs that the listserve may not do attachments. If
anyone's interested, I can email it off list.
There's a very interesting Mait Edey essay on JCS ONLINE this morning re
Existence, Being, Cartesian dualism, Subjectivity, Subject, Object,
identity, etc. I fine it persuasive.
I'm seeing it as linking Bohm not only to Parmenides/Heraclitean line of
thought but also to the very sensitive early Greek thought re Existence
and Being. Maybe it is ground for Bohm's ontological interpretation of
quantum physics.
See attachment. I've highlighted for later work/discussion; also added
notes.
Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061025/4728106b/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 26 00:50:56 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 27 01:52:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Mait Edey Essay
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0241@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <004c01c6f888$0da33bc0$3c6f153f@DL01>
Hi Dorothy,
I believe the attachment got through. I sent it at 11:25am with NO SUBJECT in the subject line. Check, and if you did not receive the attachment, send me your home email OFF LIST and I will forward.
Regards,
Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothy Stulberg
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Mait Edey Essay
please send. I think we can do attachments though can't we? D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:29 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Mait Edey Essay
The thought occurs that the listserve may not do attachments. If anyone's interested, I can email it off list.
There's a very interesting Mait Edey essay on JCS ONLINE this morning re Existence, Being, Cartesian dualism, Subjectivity, Subject, Object, identity, etc. I fine it persuasive.
I'm seeing it as linking Bohm not only to Parmenides/Heraclitean line of thought but also to the very sensitive early Greek thought re Existence and Being. Maybe it is ground for Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum physics.
See attachment. I've highlighted for later work/discussion; also added notes.
Don L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061025/c6fbb71e/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 26 13:37:01 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 27 14:38:34 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
References: <c29.46c7193.324fd2b1@aol.com>
<000201c6ec71$c5f53980$7501a8c0@your0548c161e1>
<6BFCCF17-3307-4EA5-A23B-EE3707DE8E2B@mu6.com>
Message-ID: <004601c6f8f3$1fa4e740$826b153f@DL01>
Dirk, what you say makes sense to me. Is it clear to you that the persona is explicated systematically such that it is possible, meaningful to speak of and focus upon how it systematically explicates -- often via language.
Playing with words, we might say that when the personal pronoun is used the personal identity explicates -- quite like when the word TREE is used something like a tree occurs in imagination: i.e., TREE explicates. Playing further, perhaps we can see how valuable for culture, a nation state, is the personal identity explicated by words used by leaders, as Bohm points out.
We might say a particular design explicates a laser when light waves are synchronized by design -- and by analogy -- say that a nation state is explicated in laser-like fashion by synchronizing the personal identity by design.
Maybe a desirable design would create no pollution, suffering, confusion.
Would it be possible for the logos to somehow design language such pollution, confusion did not cause suffering? Would Ratio, Reason, Meaning as universal principals be involved? That is, through ratio, reason, meaning ... could laser-like unity occur with ideas?
Don L
From: Dirk Laureyssens
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:07 PM
The persona - being the explicate element - is energetically connected with the implicate order/structure. These zillions of connections make the fundamental, constant process through which we are constantly interacting with the deeper structure. That is hierarchy, not quantum anarchy. The way we are able to resonate harmonically with the deeper energy structure will determinate if we will be creative. If we are disharmonic we close/block the gates to receive that energy/information. Creativity is related to the possibility to open such gates. Then we translate these deeper energies in our personal values/language/actions, like making music, a painting, etc.
Dirk
On 10 Oct 2006, at 14:45, Don Lay wrote:
When a musician writes,performs music ... do we say they explicate; i.e., the music unfolds from the implicate?
The graphic artist often says although he is present at the easel, somehow 'he' does not do the painting. Rather, it unfolds; i.e., art becomes explicated. Writers sometimes say "they" did not do the work .... Hemingway reread an earlier work, said: did I do that? Ed White (NY Times sports writer) said he went to the typewriter, pecked a bit and thirty minutes later the job was done.
Where does art come from? We say it comes from the person ..., but often they deny it. Maybe it is like the beating heart, breathing lungs and like Bohm says of tas: it's happening right here "in there", but I ain't doing it.
I'm trying to point to all the sub-systems, quantum systems ... neuronal and biological activity that must occur before I even know that I am, before self-consciousness occurs -- quite before persona reference is applicable. It seems to me that so long as we continue talking about the persona instead of instead of the processes, we continue to pollute experience. Reason-ance, logos-ance, ratio-ance? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] music & assumptions
Interesting idea! And to me it agrees with my earlier thought: surely solo improvisation, recorded (presumably) on ones own, is not dialogue, it's monologue. Unless one's perhaps exploring the dialogue between different elements of one's personality perhaps... - hence why I said group dialogue as opposed to dialogue.
When the musician makes meaning, does she participate and interpret the meaning of the whole for homo-sap -- a partial meaning for a part of the whole?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/6a19b123/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 26 15:10:03 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 27 16:11:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then look at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/4cb36820/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 26 15:25:48 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 27 16:26:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <013501c6f902$436ac780$826b153f@DL01>
Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary personal identity?
When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity, is it possible to simultaneously to experience WHOLENESS? Is it possible to use words directing attentive awareness to a synthetic, separated personal identity and also FEEL and experience INDIVISIBILITY?
Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the INDIVISIBLE WHOLE in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
QUESTIONS: So what! Who cares? What kind of nut would improvise such questions? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then look at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/a04118a2/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 26 15:42:30 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 27 16:44:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <42162110-81C4-4C21-A4D5-01D4826B90B3@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Don' know where you got that idea. Wholeness is about the actuality
of no separation, meaning is being. If anything, you could say that
wholeness is a primary quality of meaning.
don
On 26 Oct 2006, at 14:10, Don Lay wrote:
> Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just
> exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might
> then look at the question for meaning and see that the question
> addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things
> within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/64439f8b/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 26 16:11:32 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 27 17:13:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
<42162110-81C4-4C21-A4D5-01D4826B90B3@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <018d01c6f908$b6fcc030$826b153f@DL01>
Don' know where you got that idea. Wholeness is about the actuality of no separation, meaning is being. If anything, you could say that wholeness is a primary quality of meaning. -- don
Could you feel it while talking of and feeling you're self?
What advantage occurs with talking about and feeling wholeness?-- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Don' know where you got that idea. Wholeness is about the actuality of no separation, meaning is being. If anything, you could say that wholeness is a primary quality of meaning.
don
On 26 Oct 2006, at 14:10, Don Lay wrote:
Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then look at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/31c40c12/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Thu Oct 26 16:14:57 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Oct 27 17:16:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
<013501c6f902$436ac780$826b153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <019101c6f909$215f6680$826b153f@DL01>
What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
Would that FEEL be adequately described as personal? Would it be mine, or would that word be inapplicable?
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
From: Don Lay
Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary personal identity?
When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity, is it possible to simultaneously to experience WHOLENESS? Is it possible to use words directing attentive awareness to a synthetic, separated personal identity and also FEEL and experience INDIVISIBILITY?
Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the INDIVISIBLE WHOLE in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
QUESTIONS: So what! Who cares? What kind of nut would improvise such questions? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then look at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/437d4c28/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 26 16:27:43 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 27 17:28:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <013501c6f902$436ac780$826b153f@DL01>
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
<013501c6f902$436ac780$826b153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <F8A6D485-EA82-4877-8F42-A417DE4A3BA8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too
judgemental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's
personal identity or admitting its relative significance. So, if I am
busy acting and pretending in your sense I probably would not be
experiencing unbroken wholeness. But if I am aware of - how can I put
this? - my place in the universe, then I can certainly feel and
experience that indivisibility. Maybe a better question might be, If
we are really all implicitly patrs of one another and al that is,
then why do we need mechanical means of communication? Why can't we
carry on our dialogue with all the other parts, continuously wherever
we are? Of course, there may be an answer to that which is, we are
doing just that, but in all the complexity of parts and and
subwholes, our conscious minds are not able to deal with it, so it
works at a more subtle level. Whatever each of us does, thinks or
says spreads throughout the universe, or connects non-localy with the
rest of what is going on in the universal flux and it has its effect.
If there is a lot of incoherence in the mix then we see a lot of
incoherence in our world, and vice versa. But don't take this
suggestion as truth, its just something I am playing with while I
write this.
Actually, as I am thinking of all this, I begin to wonder who you
are. I know who you pretend to be, but is there someone else hiding
behind it all? Another Peter Krauss, pehaps? Or what about the rest
of us? Maybe there is only me.
don
On 26 Oct 2006, at 14:25, Don Lay wrote:
> Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary personal
> identity?
>
> When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity,
> is it possible to simultaneously to experience WHOLENESS? Is it
> possible to use words directing attentive awareness to a synthetic,
> separated personal identity and also FEEL and experience
> INDIVISIBILITY?
>
> Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the
> INDIVISIBLE WHOLE in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
>
> QUESTIONS: So what! Who cares? What kind of nut would improvise
> such questions? -- Don L
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
> Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just
> exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might
> then look at the question for meaning and see that the question
> addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things
> within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/ec21eadd/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Thu Oct 26 16:35:30 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Fri Oct 27 17:36:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <F8A6D485-EA82-4877-8F42-A417DE4A3BA8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C1663FF2.3A80%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
We?re on the same page, Don! k
On 10/26/06 10:27 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too
> judgemental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's personal
> identity or admitting its relative significance. So, if I am busy acting and
> pretending in your sense I probably would not be experiencing unbroken
> wholeness. But if I am aware of - how can I put this? - my place in the
> universe, then I can certainly feel and experience that indivisibility. Maybe
> a better question might be, If we are really all implicitly patrs of one
> another and al that is, then why do we need mechanical means of communication?
> Why can't we carry on our dialogue with all the other parts, continuously
> wherever we are? Of course, there may be an answer to that which is, we are
> doing just that, but in all the complexity of parts and and subwholes, our
> conscious minds are not able to deal with it, so it works at a more subtle
> level. Whatever each of us does, thinks or says spreads throughout the
> universe, or connects non-localy with the rest of what is going on in the
> universal flux and it has its effect. If there is a lot of incoherence in the
> mix then we see a lot of incoherence in our world, and vice versa.? But don't
> take this suggestion as truth, its just something I am playing with while I
> write this.
>
> Actually, as I am thinking of all this, I begin to wonder who you are. I know
> who you pretend to be, but is there someone else hiding behind it all? Another
> Peter Krauss, pehaps? Or what about the rest of us? Maybe there is only me.
>
> don
>
>
> On 26 Oct 2006, at 14:25, Don Lay wrote:
>
>>
>> Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary personal
>> identity??
>>
>> ?
>>
>> When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity, is it
>> possible to simultaneously to experience WHOLENESS?? Is it possible to use
>> words directing attentive awareness to a synthetic, separated personal
>> identity and also FEEL and experience?INDIVISIBILITY?
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the INDIVISIBLE WHOLE
>> in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
>>
>> ?
>>
>> QUESTIONS:?So what!?? Who cares?? What kind of nut would improvise such
>> questions? -- Don L
>>
>> ?
>>
>> ?
>>
>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: Don Lay <mailto:donlay@gte.net>
>>>
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
>>>
>>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just
>>> exactly where?is it?? Looking around, we do not see it.? We might then
>>> look at the question for meaning and see that the question
>>> addresses?wholeness as if?wholeness is a thing among other things?within
>>> the whole.? Is it? --?Don L
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/7dcefc1f/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Thu Oct 26 16:37:35 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Fri Oct 27 17:38:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <F8A6D485-EA82-4877-8F42-A417DE4A3BA8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C166406F.3A81%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
On 10/26/06 10:27 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity,
>>
>> Additional thought ? there is no completely ?separate image identity?.
>> Otherwise, you wouldn?t have linked this up with Peter Strauss! k
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/19b560ec/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Oct 26 16:50:50 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 27 17:58:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061026.105628.692.15.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Actually, I don't see a very big difference between thoughts and
feelings. These two words seem to point to essentially the same thing,
called by different names. The word 'feeling' seems to emphasize the more
"natural" or down to earth aspect, while the word 'thought' seem to
emphasize the more "abstract" or intellectual side of it. It seems very
different, but in both cases the general principle is the same. We should
really have one word that categorizes both aspects under the same name.
So it's not so much an interaction between thoughts and feelings but it
is an ongoing process with different phases where occasionally 'thought'
emerges as the dominant aspect while at the next moment it blends into a
'feeling', etc. (william)
And yet, there are thoughts without (discernable) feelings.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/2c42acf3/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Oct 26 16:56:22 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 27 17:58:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)
Message-ID: <20061026.105628.692.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Wonderful piece, don. It often seems to be "all about" getting the
language about
this "close to the source" (if not "the source" itself) subject matter
'pinned down' properly [agreeably]. Then perhaps, 'we' can finally convey
what 'we' mean. And then "go deeper" instead of endlessly treading the
fairly shallow 'waters' of dialogical confusion regarding matters of
"self"* and "image of self," or Being & Existence, or Subject & Object.
I noticed that someone referred to the Partridge etymological dictionary.
There was a story about how bohm and k. (who both LOVED etymology)
discovered that they both loved the same etymological dictionary, the one
by Partridge.
But anyway the distinction between Being (as not object or objectifiable)
and Existence (objectifiable) has never seemed clearer [in terms of how
to
think and speak about it].
Much more there too. A good reference to keep handy and use.
pat
p.s. *Wondering if there are any problems [for "you"] with seeing
"self" and "being" as synonymous.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:25:01 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
There's a very interesting Mait Edey essay on JCS ONLINE this morning re
Existence, Being, Cartesian dualism, Subjectivity, Subject, Object,
identity, etc. I fine it persuasive.
I'm seeing it as linking Bohm not only to Parmenides/Heraclitean line of
thought but also to the very sensitive early Greek thought re Existence
and Being. Maybe it is ground for Bohm's ontological interpretation of
quantum physics.
See attachment. I've highlighted for later work/discussion; also added
notes.
Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/89ccd13f/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Oct 26 17:04:23 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 27 18:36:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061026.113548.692.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Actually, as I am thinking of all this, I begin to wonder who you are. I
know who you pretend to be, but is there someone else hiding behind it
all? Another Peter Krauss, pehaps? Or what about the rest of us? Maybe
there is only me.
don
We can find all of us in each of us. The one's that are "hardest" to
'find' are the most revealing. The most freeing.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/6e816cca/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Oct 26 17:35:01 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 27 18:36:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061026.113548.692.20.ae.dropper@juno.com>
As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too
judgemental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's
personal identity or admitting its relative significance. (don)
Is there as much of a problem with the whole term "acting and pretending
sameness?"
And what if it was not "you" that was "acting and pretending sameness"
- would it seem as "judgmental," i.e., as "morally wrong?"
What is it that is "responsible" for this "acting and pretending
sameness?"
Is "responsible" the best term here, where the term shifts so easily
into "blame."
Maybe it would be wise to use other than morally loaded terms
to speak of the action or the process or the mechanics of
"acting and pretending sameness."
And it is interesting as well, that speaking of "acting and pretending
sameness of self identity" by self identity*, easily ushers in the
limitations about which we attempt to speak - injecting
its inherent confusion into the dialogue. Quite the conundrum!
* "Self identity" here, meaning the assumptions of absolute necessity**
underlying such, the reflexes that hold such in place (from various
angles
at various moments).
**Assumptions that are held in place by even deeper assumptions
reflexively telling us of the dangers*** of not protecting the "sameness"
of "me."
*** Some of the "dangers" being:
"Death"
"An undifferentiated mush"
"All that experience to no avail"
"No personal responsibility"
"No Ground"
"No Security"
"Boredom"
Just thoughts, every last one of them; thoughts believed.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/2f8c3c1a/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 26 17:46:07 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 27 18:47:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <20061026.105628.692.15.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061026.105628.692.15.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <41B8CAB9-495E-4CAD-A253-B1C378E5DCE9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 26 Oct 2006, at 15:50, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Actually, I don't see a very big difference between thoughts and
> feelings. These two words seem to point to essentially the same
> thing, called by different names. The word 'feeling' seems to
> emphasize the more "natural" or down to earth aspect, while the
> word 'thought' seem to emphasize the more "abstract" or
> intellectual side of it. It seems very different, but in both cases
> the general principle is the same. We should really have one word
> that categorizes both aspects under the same name. So it's not so
> much an interaction between thoughts and feelings but it is an
> ongoing process with different phases where occasionally 'thought'
> emerges as the dominant aspect while at the next moment it blends
> into a 'feeling', etc. (william)
>
> And yet, there are thoughts without (discernable) feelings.
> pat
Yes and also feelings without an accompanying thought. Their content
is a sensation, such as, my tooth hurts. And then there are other
sorts that are intimately tied to a thought's content like, You make
me feel happy, you make me feel sad, etc. The question is which comes
first, the feeling or the thought? Bohm thought that the thought
comes first, but I have read some articles recently that would argue
that the feeling comes first - at least, in so far as the content
arises after, and as a result of, the feeling or sensation.
Here's an excerpt from one. The madness mentioned is Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder: If you can find the whole thing, perhaps at your
doctor or dentist's office, it is worth reading the rest of it.
Don
From February 2006 National Geographic.
Scientists say that the brain chemistry of infatuation is akin to
mental illness?which gives new meaning to "madly in love."
Get a taste of what awaits you in print from this compelling excerpt.
In the Western world we have for centuries concocted poems and
stories and plays about the cycles of love, the way it morphs and
changes over time, the way passion grabs us by our flung-back throats
and then leaves us for something saner. If Dracula?the frail woman,
the sensuality of submission?reflects how we understand the passion
of early romance, the Flintstones reflects our experiences of long-
term love: All is gravel and somewhat silly, the song so familiar you
can't stop singing it, and when you do, the emptiness is almost
unbearable.
We have relied on stories to explain the complexities of love, tales
of jealous gods and arrows. Now, however, these stories?so much a
part of every civilization?may be changing as science steps in to
explain what we have always felt to be myth, to be magic. For the
first time, new research has begun to illuminate where love lies in
the brain, the particulars of its chemical components.
Anthropologist Helen Fisher may be the closest we've ever come to
having a doyenne of desire. At 60 she exudes a sexy confidence, with
corn-colored hair, soft as floss, and a willowy build. A professor at
Rutgers University, she lives in New York City, her book-lined
apartment near Central Park, with its green trees fluffed out in the
summer season, its paths crowded with couples holding hands.
Fisher has devoted much of her career to studying the biochemical
pathways of love in all its manifestations: lust, romance,
attachment, the way they wax and wane. One leg casually crossed over
the other, ice clinking in her glass, she speaks with appealing
frankness, discussing the ups and downs of love the way most people
talk about real estate. "A woman unconsciously uses orgasms as a way
of deciding whether or not a man is good for her. If he's impatient
and rough, and she doesn't have the orgasm, she may instinctively
feel he's less likely to be a good husband and father. Scientists
think the fickle female orgasm may have evolved to help women
distinguish Mr. Right from Mr. Wrong."
One of Fisher's central pursuits in the past decade has been looking
at love, quite literally, with the aid of an MRI machine. Fisher and
her colleagues Arthur Aron and Lucy Brown recruited subjects who had
been "madly in love" for an average of seven months. Once inside the
MRI machine, subjects were shown two photographs, one neutral, the
other of their loved one.
What Fisher saw fascinated her. When each subject looked at his or
her loved one, the parts of the brain linked to reward and pleasure?
the ventral tegmental area and the caudate nucleus?lit up. What
excited Fisher most was not so much finding a location, an address,
for love as tracing its specific chemical pathways. Love lights up
the caudate nucleus because it is home to a dense spread of receptors
for a neurotransmitter called dopamine, which Fisher came to think of
as part of our own endogenous love potion. In the right proportions,
dopamine creates intense energy, exhilaration, focused attention, and
motivation to win rewards. It is why, when you are newly in love, you
can stay up all night, watch the sun rise, run a race, ski fast down
a slope ordinarily too steep for your skill. Love makes you bold,
makes you bright, makes you run real risks, which you sometimes
survive, and sometimes you don't.
Get the whole story in the pages of National Geographic magazine.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/629ad617/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 26 17:55:58 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 27 18:56:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <20061026.105628.692.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061026.105628.692.16.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <51C6E40D-9145-46E4-A6F9-80DFDF30E4E7@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Interesting, this story. I tried once to turn Dave on to Partridge,'s
"Origins", which has been my favourite since long before I came
across Bohm. But he wasn't much interested. After he died, Saral gave
me two gifts as memorabilia, one was his favourite etymological
dictionary which was The Universal English Dictionary by H.C. Wyld. I
never saw a copy of Origins in either his office or his home. Both
sit side by side on a shelf next to my desk. She also gave me his
favourite hat, which was recently devoured by moths in my cupboard.
Don't know what that means.
don
On 26 Oct 2006, at 15:56, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Wonderful piece, don. It often seems to be "all about" getting the
> language about
> this "close to the source" (if not "the source" itself) subject
> matter 'pinned down' properly [agreeably]. Then perhaps, 'we' can
> finally convey what 'we' mean. And then "go deeper" instead of
> endlessly treading the fairly shallow 'waters' of dialogical
> confusion regarding matters of "self"* and "image of self," or
> Being & Existence, or Subject & Object.
>
> I noticed that someone referred to the Partridge etymological
> dictionary. There was a story about how bohm and k. (who both LOVED
> etymology) discovered that they both loved the same etymological
> dictionary, the one by Partridge.
>
> But anyway the distinction between Being (as not object or
> objectifiable)
> and Existence (objectifiable) has never seemed clearer [in terms of
> how to
> think and speak about it].
>
> Much more there too. A good reference to keep handy and use.
>
> pat
>
> p.s. *Wondering if there are any problems [for "you"] with seeing
> "self" and "being" as synonymous.
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:25:01 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
> There's a very interesting Mait Edey essay on JCS ONLINE this
> morning re Existence, Being, Cartesian dualism, Subjectivity,
> Subject, Object, identity, etc. I fine it persuasive.
>
> I'm seeing it as linking Bohm not only to Parmenides/Heraclitean
> line of thought but also to the very sensitive early Greek thought
> re Existence and Being. Maybe it is ground for Bohm's ontological
> interpretation of quantum physics.
>
> See attachment. I've highlighted for later work/discussion; also
> added notes.
>
> Don L
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/a1516eca/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Oct 26 18:03:09 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Oct 27 19:04:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061026.113548.692.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061026.113548.692.19.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <6E3DE095-736F-42BA-925D-A6218D4193FB@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>
> We can find all of us in each of us. The one's that are "hardest" to
> 'find' are the most revealing. The most freeing.
>
> pat
if this is the case, and I agree that it probably is, then we can say
that dialogue works because,
if much of each of us gets included in the rest of us, then every one
of us ends up sharing all of
us with everyone they know, and ad infinitum.
don
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Oct 26 18:49:14 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 27 19:51:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061026.124919.692.22.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The third choice is always the "combinatory property" of one and two, or
can always be translated as such.
Remember: Orthodox (Right Opinion)
Heterodox (Other Opinion)
Paradox (Beyond Opinion) (OR: a combination of the two)?
Nice Trinity. It is also correct to say that the "third choice:
is from "among the infinite." It is never "set." It regards
circumstance - totally.
pat
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:30:10 -0400 "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> writes:
Are you saying the third choice was the _logos_? I have difficulty
relating the idea of three to the Greek _logos_.
I have, in the past, wondered if the idea two millennia ago was that the
'holy' spirit was a combinatory property, maybe like emergent property of
attention to power and logos, i.e., g-d and son. Philo, with expertise
in the Greek, taught that the universal logos was the son of the power.
Maybe they added the universal reason to man's reason and ... who knows?
Your thoughts? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
For example, What's the meaning that there are only two choices? what's
the meaning of the judgments in the first place? What are the effects of
the judgments, etc? -- dbl
Part of the "trinity" explorations was the observation of the nature of
"the third choice,"
which is from 'among the infinite'. It is the 'two choice' situation
(illusion) that traps us every time.
pat
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/424b27c9/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 22:48:44 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Fri Oct 27 23:49:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061026204844.75273.qmail@web52912.mail.yahoo.com>
how can we not be whole even when we feel separateness and confusion?
that is an interesting question about what is the advantage...my first thought is that there is none; it's just fun. maybe remembering helps alleviate suffering, but then again maybe not. before this email i was about to say that it seems absurd to describe wholeness and ask some of these questions, but maybe it is necessary...
i am appreciative.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Don' know where you got that idea. Wholeness is about the actuality of no separation, meaning is being. If anything, you could say that wholeness is a primary quality of meaning. -- don
Could you feel it while talking of and feeling you're self?
What advantage occurs with talking about and feeling wholeness?-- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Don' know where you got that idea. Wholeness is about the actuality of no separation, meaning is being. If anything, you could say that wholeness is a primary quality of meaning.
don
On 26 Oct 2006, at 14:10, Don Lay wrote:
Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then look at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/a6192538/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 22:49:59 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Fri Oct 27 23:50:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061026204959.61664.qmail@web52902.mail.yahoo.com>
are you asking would the feel of wholeness be mine? that seems ludicrous. who is there to have it?
thanks, kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Lay <donlay@gte.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:14:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
Would that FEEL be adequately described as personal? Would it be mine, or would that word be inapplicable?
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
From: Don Lay
Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary personal identity?
When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity, is it possible to simultaneously to experience WHOLENESS? Is it possible to use words directing attentive awareness to a synthetic, separated personal identity and also FEEL and experience INDIVISIBILITY?
Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the INDIVISIBLE WHOLE in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
QUESTIONS: So what! Who cares? What kind of nut would improvise such questions? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then look at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/f61d67d2/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 22:57:27 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Fri Oct 27 23:58:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061026205728.58942.qmail@web52901.mail.yahoo.com>
maybe we did and still do for a time need mechanical means of communication...maybe as more people realize the holographic nature of reality and the potential of Being contained in the personal, finite human form, we will communicate telepathically and need less and less processes and tools which we use now?
i too wonder why we cant simultaneously communicate with any or all aspects of Reality (includes self, culture, and nature and the parts could be called an infinite number of names), and wonder if the potential for this is actually ever present.
i appreciate the spirit of your questions and thoughts.
thanks don,
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:27:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
As you know, I feel that your terms "acting and pretending" are too judgemental, as if there was something wrong with attending to one's personal identity or admitting its relative significance. So, if I am busy acting and pretending in your sense I probably would not be experiencing unbroken wholeness. But if I am aware of - how can I put this? - my place in the universe, then I can certainly feel and experience that indivisibility. Maybe a better question might be, If we are really all implicitly patrs of one another and al that is, then why do we need mechanical means of communication? Why can't we carry on our dialogue with all the other parts, continuously wherever we are? Of course, there may be an answer to that which is, we are doing just that, but in all the complexity of parts and and subwholes, our conscious minds are not able to deal with it, so it works at a more subtle level. Whatever each of us does, thinks or says spreads throughout the universe, or connects
non-localy with the rest of what is going on in the universal flux and it has its effect. If there is a lot of incoherence in the mix then we see a lot of incoherence in our world, and vice versa. But don't take this suggestion as truth, its just something I am playing with while I write this.
Actually, as I am thinking of all this, I begin to wonder who you are. I know who you pretend to be, but is there someone else hiding behind it all? Another Peter Krauss, pehaps? Or what about the rest of us? Maybe there is only me.
don
On 26 Oct 2006, at 14:25, Don Lay wrote:
Can WHOLENESS be experienced ... by a separated, imaginary personal identity?
When I act and pretend the actuality of my separate image identity, is it possible to simultaneously to experience WHOLENESS? Is it possible to use words directing attentive awareness to a synthetic, separated personal identity and also FEEL and experience INDIVISIBILITY?
Or must I use words that direct attentive awareness to the INDIVISIBLE WHOLE in order to experience indivisible wholeness?
QUESTIONS: So what! Who cares? What kind of nut would improvise such questions? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Asking if INDIVISIBLE WHOLENESS is actual, we might also ask just exactly where is it? Looking around, we do not see it. We might then look at the question for meaning and see that the question addresses wholeness as if wholeness is a thing among other things within the whole. Is it? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061026/5c9d0845/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Oct 26 23:13:22 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Oct 28 00:16:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Imagining the past
Message-ID: <20061026.171330.692.23.ae.dropper@juno.com>
An interesting insight into thought occurred yesterday. Story. Got a wood
stove. Oil no longer affordable. Just began to use it. Maybe a week now.
What a difference! Walking into a toasty warm house. Feels like I am
walking into someone else's warm, welcoming, cozy house. Because, see,
when using the oil furnace [for over 25 years] I hardly ever turned it
above 55 degrees. Used space heaters sometimes, lots of clothes, hot
water bottles.
When trying to imagine 25 years of this, I just couldn't do it. Twenty
five years Very recent years! Could not imagine it. What did come up was
the question How ever did I DO this?
Then it occurred to me. I was trying to imagine something that had been
"difficult."
That's why I couldn't imagine it. It was never difficult.
The "comfort" of the warm house had made me try to imagine
"discomfort" in contrast to this. But there had been no
"discomfort."
pat