From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Oct 27 00:05:05 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Oct 28 01:06:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061026205728.58942.qmail@web52901.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20061026205728.58942.qmail@web52901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D447F14D-2D3E-4D3E-8632-0DDED80693A0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I am thinking about your suggestion about "fun". It brought back to
me an insight I had some years ago about fun. The insight was about
the fact that exploring all this stuff, the meaning of self, mind,
thought, all of that was fun. I mentioned this to my father, who
objected to the term fun. He was a man of very little formal
education, but he was also something of a philosopher in his quiet
moments. He said, its not fun its joy, fun is too trivial. But as I
think about it, I don't want to reject the trivial. If I'm having fun
and I am not doing any harm then its got to be okay. That's the
insight. Of course, in cold print it doesn't look right and certainly
doesn't sound like much. But then insights don't come in cold print.
don
On 26 Oct 2006, at 21:57, Karilen Mays wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061026/7acd5c7b/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 27 14:29:10 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 28 15:30:26 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
In-Reply-To: <20061024100003.6C8BE24107@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF32323784.0D6DB0E6-ON85257214.0043C097-85257214.004496D1@dialogos.com>
Rodger__In saying --your will is entirely created out of thought of what
is necessary and possible--, I think intelligence as an inherent aspect of
necessity & possibility, organinically draws -will- into Being._R
.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:32:07 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <000201c6f5df$fdc3d660$9e18153f@DL01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Pat: "You have to see that your will is entirely created out of the
thought of what is necessary and possible." -- Bohm
What both Bohm and Krishnamurti seem unaware of is that using the personal
pronouns keeps in mind the scenario of separated subjects and objects. Is
seems they are unaware of what those words do, what the meaning of the
persona pronouns do. -- dbl
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/94bee5fa/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 27 14:47:32 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 28 15:49:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
<013501c6f902$436ac780$826b153f@DL01>
<F8A6D485-EA82-4877-8F42-A417DE4A3BA8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <005c01c6f9c6$1ba1b0a0$ac5d153f@DL01>
Additional thought - there is no completely "separate image identity". Otherwise, you wouldn't have linked this up with Peter Strauss! k
Peter Strass may be a creation of writer, Factot, to stimulate internet dialogue and stimulate book sales. d
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:27 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/20061027/11c46444/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 27 14:51:58 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 28 15:53:11 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <20061026100004.1CD99241D1@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF51C1DFC6.4D7B9FDE-ON85257214.0045F98F-85257214.0046AD2C@dialogos.com>
Rodger __I think these alternative possibilities below needs so much
training because as adults we first need to unlearn the training from our
schooling & upbringing.
But if it was shown to children from an early age that it was natural to
relax into our PerceptionIinterpretation = Response, our views may not be
so quickly inhibited. _R
.
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:31:03 -0700
From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
Once you interrupt this Perception-Interpretation = Response process you
can do at least three other possibilities: you can choose to can gain more
data before you make an interpretation or conclusion, you can choose to do
something else more appropriate or just choose to not react indefinitely.
But this takes quite a bit of training and skill to be able to do, because
the justified necessity for these habits have often been
imperatively shaped and installed.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/4eed53e4/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 27 14:57:14 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 28 15:58:16 2006
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
References: <OF32323784.0D6DB0E6-ON85257214.0043C097-85257214.004496D1@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <007001c6f9c7$6f67f590$ac5d153f@DL01>
Maybe the all inclusive that which is, by definition includes will, necessity, intelligence. -- dbl
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:29 AM
Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
Rodger__In saying --your will is entirely created out of thought of what is necessary and possible--, I think intelligence as an inherent aspect of necessity & possibility, organinically draws -will- into Being._R
.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:32:07 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] punish people
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <000201c6f5df$fdc3d660$9e18153f@DL01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Pat: "You have to see that your will is entirely created out of the thought of what is necessary and possible." -- Bohm
What both Bohm and Krishnamurti seem unaware of is that using the personal pronouns keeps in mind the scenario of separated subjects and objects. Is seems they are unaware of what those words do, what the meaning of the persona pronouns do. -- dbl
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/2b970b89/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 27 15:24:26 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 28 16:25:40 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061028100002.E7B252425A@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF7EF7ED68.5A2219D5-ON85257214.00488889-85257214.0049A623@dialogos.com>
Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their mid-fifties
had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised families and
shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never experienced an
orgasm.
Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left for
university and the mother took on a lover.
But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it has
meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
.
.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words
create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/11820b4b/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 27 15:21:09 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 28 16:32:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
<013501c6f902$436ac780$826b153f@DL01>
<F8A6D485-EA82-4877-8F42-A417DE4A3BA8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005c01c6f9c6$1ba1b0a0$ac5d153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <000501c6f9cc$2211bbf0$9d0d153f@DL01>
Don F: Actually, as I am thinking of all this, I begin to wonder who you are. [dbl: The who-word begs the question, doesn't it. ] I know who you pretend to be, [dbl: Then you know more than I. ] but is there someone else hiding behind it all? [dbl: Another who? Is it possible for an infinite regression of "whos" to occur ... remeinds me of "who dat say dat last who dat?". ] Another Peter Krauss, pehaps? Or what about the rest of us? Maybe there is only me. -- don
dbl: Is it possible that Peter is related to Santa Krauss? -- dbl
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Additional thought - there is no completely "separate image identity". Otherwise, you wouldn't have linked this up with Peter Strauss! k
Peter Strass may be a creation of writer, Factot, to stimulate internet dialogue and stimulate book sales. d
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:27 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/eb7ed766/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Fri Oct 27 17:16:49 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Sat Oct 28 18:15:43 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D02A6@msw2k.msw.local>
I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't describe
my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm not sure why.
Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their mid-fifties
had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised families and
shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never experienced an
orgasm.
Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left
for university and the mother took on a lover.
But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it
has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
.
.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words
create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/ed44861d/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 27 17:17:48 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 28 18:23:47 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <OF7EF7ED68.5A2219D5-ON85257214.00488889-85257214.0049A623@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <000501c6f9db$a25e9760$cc65153f@DL01>
Maybe the experience of sexual organism would suggest the experience of wholeness. The thought occurs of having read once that during a former time the experience was described as "dying". Who knows what that meant.
Maybe it meant no longer experiencing the separated identity associated with societal pretentiousness. -- Don L
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their mid-fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never experienced an orgasm.
Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left for university and the mother took on a lover.
But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
.
.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/d384f12b/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 27 17:35:44 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 28 18:38:50 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D02A6@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <002801c6f9dd$93b6d7c0$cc65153f@DL01>
It is unclear what the "wrongness" might mean here, but I have seen, known the situation Rodger describes. I always wondered why they would do that. It seems they were taught that PROPER procreation was important but not the pleasure of sex. So they chose someone for procreation, but not the pleasures of sex.
Sick? Maybe. I'm reminded of a play, circa 1960, of a couple wanting to raise the perfect child, something like that. So when the child put his hand in his diaper and touched himself, they had his hand amputated. Later, they had to do the same thing with the other hand. Then, the kid somehow got a foot into the act and it had to be amputated and then the other foot, but the couple had a perfect kid. Sick? Something like that.
Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothy Stulberg
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't describe my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm not sure why. Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their mid-fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never experienced an orgasm.
Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left for university and the mother took on a lover.
But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
.
.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061027/ad9e9ee3/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 27 17:46:09 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 28 18:47:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
<013501c6f902$436ac780$826b153f@DL01>
<F8A6D485-EA82-4877-8F42-A417DE4A3BA8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005c01c6f9c6$1ba1b0a0$ac5d153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <003701c6f9df$0840b740$cc65153f@DL01>
Additional thought - there is no completely "separate image identity". Otherwise, you wouldn't have linked this up with Peter Strauss! k
Maybe "no completely "separate image identity" " means no actual identity -- that the identity is useful, MEANINGFUL for culture, society, but not for the whole.
Sartre and Genet pointed out in the '50s that personal identity means separate identity. Without the idea of separation, personal identity would not work. I have no problem with acting and pretending identity for banking reasons, home-ownership, etc.
However, thinking of THE WHOLE, I dislike saying I am separated from it, whatever it is.
More, seems to me K and B both suggest that pollution, problems occur when using the image/word identity processes, and the personal identity processes without the awareness that they are convenient cultural, social systems. -- Don L
Additional thought - there is no completely "separate image identity". Otherwise, you wouldn't have linked this up with Peter Strauss! k
Peter Strass may be a creation of writer, Factot, to stimulate internet dialogue and stimulate book sales. d
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:27 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/c32e817e/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 17:46:59 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Oct 28 18:48:11 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <002801c6f9dd$93b6d7c0$cc65153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F5E5201471053DB62689C3A5040@phx.gbl>
PROPER procreation was important but not the pleasure of sex
Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:35:44 -0400
>
>It is unclear what the "wrongness" might mean here, but I have seen, known
>the situation Rodger describes. I always wondered why they would do that.
>It seems they were taught that PROPER procreation was important but not the
>pleasure of sex. So they chose someone for procreation, but not the
>pleasures of sex.
>
>Sick? Maybe. I'm reminded of a play, circa 1960, of a couple wanting to
>raise the perfect child, something like that. So when the child put his
>hand in his diaper and touched himself, they had his hand amputated.
>Later, they had to do the same thing with the other hand. Then, the kid
>somehow got a foot into the act and it had to be amputated and then the
>other foot, but the couple had a perfect kid. Sick? Something like that.
>
>Don L
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dorothy Stulberg
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:16 AM
> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
> I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't describe
>my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm not sure why.
>Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
>Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
> Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their mid-fifties
>had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised families and
>shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never experienced an
>orgasm.
>
> Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left
>for university and the mother took on a lover.
>
> But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it
>has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
> .
> .
>
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words
>create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
> .
> .
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 27 17:58:16 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 28 19:00:53 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <BAY22-F5E5201471053DB62689C3A5040@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <005501c6f9e0$b9b7d160$cc65153f@DL01>
> Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
> cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
Is it sicker than teaching children they are separated from all other
people, from the Earth, Universe, and implicitly from THE WHOLE? Is it
sicker than teaching children to use words that direct attention to their
separated identity without also teaching them it is only cultural or
societal purposes? -- dbl
http
> PROPER procreation was important but not the pleasure of sex
>
> Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
> cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
>
>
>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:35:44 -0400
>>
>>It is unclear what the "wrongness" might mean here, but I have seen, known
>>the situation Rodger describes. I always wondered why they would do that.
>>It seems they were taught that PROPER procreation was important but not
>>the pleasure of sex. So they chose someone for procreation, but not the
>>pleasures of sex.
>>
>>Sick? Maybe. I'm reminded of a play, circa 1960, of a couple wanting to
>>raise the perfect child, something like that. So when the child put his
>>hand in his diaper and touched himself, they had his hand amputated.
>>Later, they had to do the same thing with the other hand. Then, the kid
>>somehow got a foot into the act and it had to be amputated and then the
>>other foot, but the couple had a perfect kid. Sick? Something like that.
>>
>>Don L
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dorothy Stulberg
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:16 AM
>> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>> I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't describe
>> my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm not sure why.
>> Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
>> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>> Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their
>> mid-fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised
>> families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never
>> experienced an orgasm.
>>
>> Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left
>> for university and the mother took on a lover.
>>
>> But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it
>> has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
>> .
>> .
>>
>> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
>> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> .
>> What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that
>> words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
>> .
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 27 18:04:43 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 28 19:05:59 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <BAY22-F5E5201471053DB62689C3A5040@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <005801c6f9e1$a0df62b0$cc65153f@DL01>
Speaking of sick, I saw on a TV program that a tribe in Africa circumcises
women. OUCH!
Another tribe had a word "mingey", meaning something like evil (I suppose).
Anyone the elders attributed "mingey" to were stoned or killed in someway.
A woman had a baby that they decided was "mingey" so the baby was thrown in
the river. Ughhh!
I'm glad we are more perfect and don't mutilate or kill each other because
of minney-ness, or confuse each with imaginary identity. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
> PROPER procreation was important but not the pleasure of sex
>
> Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
> cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
>
>
>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:35:44 -0400
>>
>>It is unclear what the "wrongness" might mean here, but I have seen, known
>>the situation Rodger describes. I always wondered why they would do that.
>>It seems they were taught that PROPER procreation was important but not
>>the pleasure of sex. So they chose someone for procreation, but not the
>>pleasures of sex.
>>
>>Sick? Maybe. I'm reminded of a play, circa 1960, of a couple wanting to
>>raise the perfect child, something like that. So when the child put his
>>hand in his diaper and touched himself, they had his hand amputated.
>>Later, they had to do the same thing with the other hand. Then, the kid
>>somehow got a foot into the act and it had to be amputated and then the
>>other foot, but the couple had a perfect kid. Sick? Something like that.
>>
>>Don L
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dorothy Stulberg
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:16 AM
>> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>> I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't describe
>> my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm not sure why.
>> Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
>> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>> Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their
>> mid-fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised
>> families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never
>> experienced an orgasm.
>>
>> Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left
>> for university and the mother took on a lover.
>>
>> But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it
>> has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
>> .
>> .
>>
>> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
>> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> .
>> What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that
>> words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
>> .
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 18:08:11 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Oct 28 19:09:20 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <005801c6f9e1$a0df62b0$cc65153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F298D7445B977745BD129CA5040@phx.gbl>
Love your irony, Don. k
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:04:43 -0400
>
>Speaking of sick, I saw on a TV program that a tribe in Africa circumcises
>women. OUCH!
>
>Another tribe had a word "mingey", meaning something like evil (I suppose).
>Anyone the elders attributed "mingey" to were stoned or killed in someway.
>A woman had a baby that they decided was "mingey" so the baby was thrown in
>the river. Ughhh!
>
>I'm glad we are more perfect and don't mutilate or kill each other because
>of minney-ness, or confuse each with imaginary identity. -- dbl
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:46 AM
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
>>PROPER procreation was important but not the pleasure of sex
>>
>>Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
>>cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
>>
>>
>>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:35:44 -0400
>>>
>>>It is unclear what the "wrongness" might mean here, but I have seen,
>>>known the situation Rodger describes. I always wondered why they would
>>>do that. It seems they were taught that PROPER procreation was important
>>>but not the pleasure of sex. So they chose someone for procreation, but
>>>not the pleasures of sex.
>>>
>>>Sick? Maybe. I'm reminded of a play, circa 1960, of a couple wanting to
>>>raise the perfect child, something like that. So when the child put his
>>>hand in his diaper and touched himself, they had his hand amputated.
>>>Later, they had to do the same thing with the other hand. Then, the kid
>>>somehow got a foot into the act and it had to be amputated and then the
>>>other foot, but the couple had a perfect kid. Sick? Something like
>>>that.
>>>
>>>Don L
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Dorothy Stulberg
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:16 AM
>>> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>
>>>
>>> I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't
>>>describe my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm not
>>>sure why. Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>>>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
>>>Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>
>>>
>>> Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their
>>>mid-fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised
>>>families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never
>>>experienced an orgasm.
>>>
>>> Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left
>>>for university and the mother took on a lover.
>>>
>>> But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it
>>>has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
>>> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> .
>>> What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that
>>>words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 18:13:51 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Oct 28 19:15:01 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <005501c6f9e0$b9b7d160$cc65153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2558BE55AEB5EC8BC24CB6A5040@phx.gbl>
No - not sicker. It's a web. But my answer (a long time coming) is that
we have to realize that those who taught us were also imperfect and
subjected to the same teaching we were. So in order to stop the
perpetuation of "sickness", we have to distinguish between blame,
responsiility, and rationalization, try to heal ourselves and not pass the
infection on. And forgive ourselves for being imperfect. Hozhoon, Don.
k
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:58:16 -0400
>
>>Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
>>cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
>
>Is it sicker than teaching children they are separated from all other
>people, from the Earth, Universe, and implicitly from THE WHOLE? Is it
>sicker than teaching children to use words that direct attention to their
>separated identity without also teaching them it is only cultural or
>societal purposes? -- dbl
>
>
>http
>
>
>>PROPER procreation was important but not the pleasure of sex
>>
>>Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
>>cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
>>
>>
>>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:35:44 -0400
>>>
>>>It is unclear what the "wrongness" might mean here, but I have seen,
>>>known the situation Rodger describes. I always wondered why they would
>>>do that. It seems they were taught that PROPER procreation was important
>>>but not the pleasure of sex. So they chose someone for procreation, but
>>>not the pleasures of sex.
>>>
>>>Sick? Maybe. I'm reminded of a play, circa 1960, of a couple wanting to
>>>raise the perfect child, something like that. So when the child put his
>>>hand in his diaper and touched himself, they had his hand amputated.
>>>Later, they had to do the same thing with the other hand. Then, the kid
>>>somehow got a foot into the act and it had to be amputated and then the
>>>other foot, but the couple had a perfect kid. Sick? Something like
>>>that.
>>>
>>>Don L
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Dorothy Stulberg
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:16 AM
>>> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>
>>>
>>> I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't
>>>describe my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm not
>>>sure why. Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>>>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
>>>Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>
>>>
>>> Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their
>>>mid-fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised
>>>families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never
>>>experienced an orgasm.
>>>
>>> Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left
>>>for university and the mother took on a lover.
>>>
>>> But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it
>>>has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
>>> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> .
>>> What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that
>>>words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 27 18:52:02 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 28 19:53:13 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <BAY22-F2558BE55AEB5EC8BC24CB6A5040@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <000c01c6f9e8$3f844600$7d15153f@DL01>
Hozhoon??? - dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
> No - not sicker. It's a web. But my answer (a long time coming) is that
> we have to realize that those who taught us were also imperfect and
> subjected to the same teaching we were. So in order to stop the
> perpetuation of "sickness", we have to distinguish between blame,
> responsiility, and rationalization, try to heal ourselves and not pass the
> infection on. And forgive ourselves for being imperfect. Hozhoon, Don.
> k
>
>
>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:58:16 -0400
>>
>>>Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
>>>cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
>>
>>Is it sicker than teaching children they are separated from all other
>>people, from the Earth, Universe, and implicitly from THE WHOLE? Is it
>>sicker than teaching children to use words that direct attention to their
>>separated identity without also teaching them it is only cultural or
>>societal purposes? -- dbl
>>
>>
>>http
>>
>>
>>>PROPER procreation was important but not the pleasure of sex
>>>
>>>Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
>>>cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:35:44 -0400
>>>>
>>>>It is unclear what the "wrongness" might mean here, but I have seen,
>>>>known the situation Rodger describes. I always wondered why they would
>>>>do that. It seems they were taught that PROPER procreation was important
>>>>but not the pleasure of sex. So they chose someone for procreation, but
>>>>not the pleasures of sex.
>>>>
>>>>Sick? Maybe. I'm reminded of a play, circa 1960, of a couple wanting
>>>>to raise the perfect child, something like that. So when the child put
>>>>his hand in his diaper and touched himself, they had his hand amputated.
>>>>Later, they had to do the same thing with the other hand. Then, the
>>>>kid somehow got a foot into the act and it had to be amputated and then
>>>>the other foot, but the couple had a perfect kid. Sick? Something like
>>>>that.
>>>>
>>>>Don L
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Dorothy Stulberg
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:16 AM
>>>> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't
>>>> describe my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm not
>>>> sure why. Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>>>> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>>>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their
>>>> mid-fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised
>>>> families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never
>>>> experienced an orgasm.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children
>>>> left for university and the mother took on a lover.
>>>>
>>>> But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it
>>>> has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
>>>> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>> .
>>>> What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that
>>>> words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
>>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 19:06:40 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sat Oct 28 20:07:50 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1006096462FAFC18650231A5040@phx.gbl>
Hozhoon - may we walk in balance and harmony - beauty - with all our
relations. A Navajo word, world view, and goal. k
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:52:02 -0400
>
>Hozhoon??? - dbl
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:13 PM
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
>>No - not sicker. It's a web. But my answer (a long time coming) is that
>>we have to realize that those who taught us were also imperfect and
>>subjected to the same teaching we were. So in order to stop the
>>perpetuation of "sickness", we have to distinguish between blame,
>>responsiility, and rationalization, try to heal ourselves and not pass the
>>infection on. And forgive ourselves for being imperfect. Hozhoon, Don. k
>>
>>
>>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:58:16 -0400
>>>
>>>>Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
>>>>cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
>>>
>>>Is it sicker than teaching children they are separated from all other
>>>people, from the Earth, Universe, and implicitly from THE WHOLE? Is it
>>>sicker than teaching children to use words that direct attention to their
>>>separated identity without also teaching them it is only cultural or
>>>societal purposes? -- dbl
>>>
>>>
>>>http
>>>
>>>
>>>>PROPER procreation was important but not the pleasure of sex
>>>>
>>>>Christianity is responsible for the imposition of that more. Maybe other
>>>>cultural systems as well. Sick - absolutely! k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:35:44 -0400
>>>>>
>>>>>It is unclear what the "wrongness" might mean here, but I have seen,
>>>>>known the situation Rodger describes. I always wondered why they would
>>>>>do that. It seems they were taught that PROPER procreation was
>>>>>important but not the pleasure of sex. So they chose someone for
>>>>>procreation, but not the pleasures of sex.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sick? Maybe. I'm reminded of a play, circa 1960, of a couple wanting
>>>>>to raise the perfect child, something like that. So when the child put
>>>>>his hand in his diaper and touched himself, they had his hand
>>>>>amputated. Later, they had to do the same thing with the other hand.
>>>>>Then, the kid somehow got a foot into the act and it had to be
>>>>>amputated and then the other foot, but the couple had a perfect kid.
>>>>>Sick? Something like that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don L
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Dorothy Stulberg
>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:16 AM
>>>>> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't
>>>>>describe my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm not
>>>>>sure why. Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>>>>>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their
>>>>>mid-fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised
>>>>>families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never
>>>>>experienced an orgasm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children
>>>>>left for university and the mother took on a lover.
>>>>>
>>>>> But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that
>>>>>it has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
>>>>> .
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
>>>>> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>> .
>>>>> What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that
>>>>>words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
>>>>> .
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live
>>>>Spaces
>>>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
>>https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Oct 27 19:06:45 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Oct 28 20:07:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <005c01c6f9c6$1ba1b0a0$ac5d153f@DL01>
References: <012301c6f900$0fbbf410$826b153f@DL01>
<013501c6f902$436ac780$826b153f@DL01>
<F8A6D485-EA82-4877-8F42-A417DE4A3BA8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<005c01c6f9c6$1ba1b0a0$ac5d153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <3B0BA92C-1CEE-42C2-9996-8B50FFDA536A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 27 Oct 2006, at 13:47, Don Lay wrote:
> Additional thought ? there is no completely ?separate image
> identity?. Otherwise, you wouldn?t have linked this up with Peter
> Strauss! k
>
> Peter Strass may be a creation of writer, Factot, to stimulate
> internet dialogue and stimulate book sales. d
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:27 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061027/1554eaa9/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Oct 27 19:26:28 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sat Oct 28 20:27:39 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <002801c6f9dd$93b6d7c0$cc65153f@DL01>
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D02A6@msw2k.msw.local>
<002801c6f9dd$93b6d7c0$cc65153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <1A8D9D5D-5BFF-4BDF-906B-A48D97D1A999@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Sounds great. Who starred in it?
don
On 27 Oct 2006, at 16:35, Don Lay wrote:
> It is unclear what the "wrongness" might mean here, but I have
> seen, known the situation Rodger describes. I always wondered why
> they would do that. It seems they were taught that PROPER
> procreation was important but not the pleasure of sex. So they
> chose someone for procreation, but not the pleasures of sex.
>
> Sick? Maybe. I'm reminded of a play, circa 1960, of a couple
> wanting to raise the perfect child, something like that. So when
> the child put his hand in his diaper and touched himself, they had
> his hand amputated. Later, they had to do the same thing with the
> other hand. Then, the kid somehow got a foot into the act and it
> had to be amputated and then the other foot, but the couple had a
> perfect kid. Sick? Something like that.
>
> Don L
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dorothy Stulberg
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:16 AM
> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
> I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't
> describe my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm
> not sure why. Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
>
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-
> bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
> Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their mid-
> fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised
> families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but
> never experienced an orgasm.
>
> Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children
> left for university and the mother took on a lover.
>
> But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that
> it has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
> .
> .
>
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that
> words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
> .
> .
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061027/439a77e1/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 20:25:28 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Sat Oct 28 21:26:37 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061027182528.27009.qmail@web52905.mail.yahoo.com>
rodger,
this is a great illustration of something...thanks for sharing your thoughts.
it seems paradoxical, for if we try to for instance explain Being to someone, everyone should know some of what we talk about because we are human and it is from which we come...and are.
yet if someone does not acknowledge Being, then maybe they wouldnt have a clue if we try to describe insights or experiences related to the indescribable...so in a way that is their experience of reality...so maybe wholeness includes the feeling of separateness and until we acknowledge and feel our way through that, we wont truly know wholeness....!?!
an orgasm seems different because that is a specific experience, and though we are sexual creatures and everyone should know that feeling and sensation, not everyone will....yet we have the capacity to.
so we cannot tell some one anything they dont already know basically, yet they do have to be willing to acknowledge something (?). so openness is the key for any sort of change in experience or perspective...
love,
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 6:24:26 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their mid-fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never experienced an orgasm.
Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left for university and the mother took on a lover.
But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
.
.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/f41c712b/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 27 23:55:06 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Oct 29 00:57:04 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D02A6@msw2k.msw.local>
<002801c6f9dd$93b6d7c0$cc65153f@DL01>
<1A8D9D5D-5BFF-4BDF-906B-A48D97D1A999@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <003c01c6fa12$9dd0a5d0$6b75153f@DL01>
I didn't see the play, and am unsure it was ever produced. I read the book. -- dbl
Sounds great. Who starred in it?
don
On 27 Oct 2006, at 16:35, Don Lay wrote:
It is unclear what the "wrongness" might mean here, but I have seen, known the situation Rodger describes. I always wondered why they would do that. It seems they were taught that PROPER procreation was important but not the pleasure of sex. So they chose someone for procreation, but not the pleasures of sex.
Sick? Maybe. I'm reminded of a play, circa 1960, of a couple wanting to raise the perfect child, something like that. So when the child put his hand in his diaper and touched himself, they had his hand amputated. Later, they had to do the same thing with the other hand. Then, the kid somehow got a foot into the act and it had to be amputated and then the other foot, but the couple had a perfect kid. Sick? Something like that.
Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothy Stulberg
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
I feel there is something wrong (wrong isn't the word, I can't describe my feelings on reading this) with this response--and I'm not sure why. Anyone else have some feelings about it? D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:24 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their mid-fifties had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised families and shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never experienced an orgasm.
Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left for university and the mother took on a lover.
But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it has meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
.
.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061027/73dcb9e9/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Fri Oct 27 23:13:23 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sun Oct 29 02:06:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <002301c6f849$c1ee5180$c543153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <C167D293.7ADD%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
I love this essay. I don?t know enough about early Greek thought to relate
it, but I?ve been reading a lot of Ken Wilbur & I see some of his insistence
that the method match the category (or quadrant). The first quadrant is
internal, subjective & must be known through subjective means, such as
meditation. The second quadrant is the objective, ?it?, & is studied as
object. (Third & fourth quadrants are merely plurals of one & two.)
Lynne
On 10/25/06 9:25 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/7a661ddc/attachment.html