From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 00:55:07 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sun Oct 29 01:56:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] trolling culture
Message-ID: <BAY22-F923F43F2CE040DBDD2229A5040@phx.gbl>
Am I the last person in the group to find out there is such a thing? See
Wikipeida. And - would Bohm dialong either welcome or be tolerant of this
behavior? k
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Sat Oct 28 00:47:49 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sun Oct 29 02:06:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061026205728.58942.qmail@web52901.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C167E8B5.7ADF%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Maybe there is confusion in the fact that we are both Being, itself, and
individual manifestations of that Being. It?s the same reality, but these
are different dimensions of that reality. I can sometimes feel that
identity with another, and others may have the same awareness, but to talk
to one another as separate individuals, we are stuck with separating,
mechanical communication.
That limiting communication can be frustrating, as we struggle to agree on
definitions of words (anyway, I struggle ? what I mean by words such as
meaning, being, reason, etc. may not be exactly what someone else means, &
that gets confusing). At the same time, words have the power to evoke much
meaning, even if we?re not always on the same page! Language, too, evolves.
Lynne
On 10/26/06 2:57 PM, "Karilen Mays" <tubakari@yahoo.com> 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 <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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061027/058062f7/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Sat Oct 28 01:02:40 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sun Oct 29 02:06:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <003701c6f9df$0840b740$cc65153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <C167EC30.7AE1%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something negative?
With wholeness seen as positive? Would this the the confusion of subject
with object, or trying to compare apples and oranges? Pure subject or
awareness, simply is. There is no positive or negative. Personal identity,
on the other hand, is created, is objective, is open to confusion or
incoherence, is past ? except in the present, where it is in process of
becoming created ? maybe that process is where the two come together??
Lynne
On 10/27/06 9:46 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
> 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 <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>> 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 <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
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/dcb9e8a0/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sat Oct 28 01:29:09 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Oct 29 02:30:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <C167E8B5.7ADF%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <006c01c6fa1f$b6938850$6b75153f@DL01>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Wholewe are stuck with separating, mechanical communication. -- Lynne
Seems that way to me also. Maybe it is important to look at language .. as db says, what a word does. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynne Tolk
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Maybe there is confusion in the fact that we are both Being, itself, and individual manifestations of that Being. It's the same reality, but these are different dimensions of that reality. I can sometimes feel that identity with another, and others may have the same awareness, but to talk to one another as separate individuals, we are stuck with separating, mechanical communication.
That limiting communication can be frustrating, as we struggle to agree on definitions of words (anyway, I struggle - what I mean by words such as meaning, being, reason, etc. may not be exactly what someone else means, & that gets confusing). At the same time, words have the power to evoke much meaning, even if we're not always on the same page! Language, too, evolves.
Lynne
On 10/26/06 2:57 PM, "Karilen Mays" <tubakari@yahoo.com> 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 <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
_______________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/b53113aa/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sat Oct 28 01:35:29 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Oct 29 02:36:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)
References: <C167D293.7ADD%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <007601c6fa20$99070770$6b75153f@DL01>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)I also know little about Greek thought. I've been following Mait Edey's contributions to the JCS Online for a few years and find what he says easy to read. I have been toying with the idea of Being equating somewhat with Bohm's notions of the subtle and Existence as the gross.
At times I sense that Being as subtle and Existence as emerging imagery, standing out as imagination. Being as subtle, shifting movement, flux and existence as imagery that we try to fix by using the notion of identity. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynne Tolk
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/d4f944c8/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sat Oct 28 01:37:40 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Oct 29 02:39:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)
References: <C167D293.7ADD%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <008001c6fa20$e73893a0$6b75153f@DL01>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)don't know enough about early Greek thought -- Lynne
We may know far more than we realize because Greek thought is the origin of modern thought. If you have some modern thought running about in your head, its origin may be Greece. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynne Tolk
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] (no subject)
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061027/6fbfc597/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sat Oct 28 02:13:35 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Oct 29 02:17:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <C167EC30.7AE1%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <00b701c6fa26$2412f040$6b75153f@DL01>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible WholeLynne: Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something negative?
Pat: Is there as much of a problem with the whole term "acting and pretending sameness?" -- Pat
dbl: There seems to be confusion about personal identity, personal sameness. What is the mask of persona the same as? What is personal sameness? Does it mean same as the "front" one acts and pretends while playing roles?
Lynne: Would this [be] the confusion of subject with object, or trying to compare apples and oranges?
dbl: I believe Edey says there's confusion re the S and O.
Lynne: Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no positive or negative.
dbl: I like the idea that there is isness, isness is. However, there's language to be explained and isness never seems to be what language say it is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments of language aren't they?
Seems to me Edey is talking about something like pure isness or pure C. It seems imagination does emerge and stand out, and perhaps that's the basis of language -- what stands out in mind, in imagination.
Socrates holds up globe, points to it and says it is being. Then, pointing to a reflected image of the globe and says that is existence. I believe the interpretation is that the globe itself is Being and mentation, thought, imagination is existence.
Thus, maybe this region of the universe right here and now pecking the typer is BEING but the personal identity, Don Lay is existence because what stands out is language, imagery, etc. --Don L
From: Lynne Tolk
Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something negative? With wholeness seen as positive? Would this the the confusion of subject with object, or trying to compare apples and oranges? Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no positive or negative. Personal identity, on the other hand, is created, is objective, is open to confusion or incoherence, is past - except in the present, where it is in process of becoming created - maybe that process is where the two come together??
Lynne
On 10/27/06 9:46 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
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 <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
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 <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061027/dfa9425b/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Sat Oct 28 03:28:39 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sun Oct 29 03:29:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <00b701c6fa26$2412f040$6b75153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <C1680E67.7AEC%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
However, there's language to be explained and isness never seems to be what
language say it is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments of
language aren't they? (dbl)
Yes! Language objectifies, so does thought (isn?t language the structure we
create in order to think?) I think this is what Bohm means when he says
thought deals with reflections of reality, not reality, itself. Can?t be
helped, it?s what we do, what we have to work with. But I think so long as
we can keep aware of this and keep offering up our best efforts, knowing
it?s never quite who or what we are, we can get closer. I think & hope that
is what dialogue is about.
Lynne
On 10/27/06 6:13 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
> Lynne: Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something
> negative?
>
> Pat: Is there as much of a problem with the whole term "acting and pretending
> sameness?" -- Pat
>
> dbl: There seems to be confusion about personal identity, personal sameness.
> What is the mask of persona the same as? What is personal sameness? Does it
> mean same as the "front" one acts and pretends while playing roles?
>
> Lynne: Would this [be] the confusion of subject with object, or trying to
> compare apples and oranges?
>
> dbl: I believe Edey says there's confusion re the S and O.
>
> Lynne: Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no positive or
> negative.
>
> dbl: I like the idea that there is isness, isness is. However, there's
> language to be explained and isness never seems to be what language say it is,
> does it? Negative and positive are judgments of language aren't they?
>
> Seems to me Edey is talking about something like pure isness or pure C. It
> seems imagination does emerge and stand out, and perhaps that's the basis of
> language -- what stands out in mind, in imagination.
>
> Socrates holds up globe, points to it and says it is being. Then, pointing to
> a reflected image of the globe and says that is existence. I believe the
> interpretation is that the globe itself is Being and mentation, thought,
> imagination is existence.
>
> Thus, maybe this region of the universe right here and now pecking the typer
> is BEING but the personal identity, Don Lay is existence because what stands
> out is language, imagery, etc. --Don L
>
>
> From: Lynne Tolk <mailto:lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>>
>> Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something negative?
>> With wholeness seen as positive? Would this the the confusion of subject
>> with object, or trying to compare apples and oranges? Pure subject or
>> awareness, simply is. There is no positive or negative. Personal identity,
>> on the other hand, is created, is objective, is open to confusion or
>> incoherence, is past ? except in the present, where it is in process of
>> becoming created ? maybe that process is where the two come together??
>>
>> Lynne
>>
>> On 10/27/06 9:46 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>>> 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 <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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061027/650e445f/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sat Oct 28 03:42:32 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Oct 29 03:44:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <C1680E67.7AEC%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <00d401c6fa32$592c6bb0$6b75153f@DL01>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
From: Lynne Tolk
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
However, there's language to be explained and isness never seems to be what language say it is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments of language aren't they? (dbl)
Yes! Language objectifies, so does thought (isn't language the structure we create in order to think?) [dbl: Maybe we don't create it. Maybe language evolves and then the we occurs, evolves in language. ] I think this is what Bohm means when he says thought deals with reflections of reality, not reality, itself. [dbl: I think your thinking is in the ball park. ] Can't be helped, it's what we do, what we have to work with. But I think so long as we can keep aware of this and keep offering up our best efforts, knowing it's never quite who or what we are, we can get closer. I think & hope that is what dialogue is about.
Maybe awareness, wariness is the key. -- dbl
Lynne
On 10/27/06 6:13 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
Lynne: Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something negative?
Pat: Is there as much of a problem with the whole term "acting and pretending sameness?" -- Pat
dbl: There seems to be confusion about personal identity, personal sameness. What is the mask of persona the same as? What is personal sameness? Does it mean same as the "front" one acts and pretends while playing roles?
Lynne: Would this [be] the confusion of subject with object, or trying to compare apples and oranges?
dbl: I believe Edey says there's confusion re the S and O.
Lynne: Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no positive or negative.
dbl: I like the idea that there is isness, isness is. However, there's language to be explained and isness never seems to be what language say it is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments of language aren't they?
Seems to me Edey is talking about something like pure isness or pure C. It seems imagination does emerge and stand out, and perhaps that's the basis of language -- what stands out in mind, in imagination.
Socrates holds up globe, points to it and says it is being. Then, pointing to a reflected image of the globe and says that is existence. I believe the interpretation is that the globe itself is Being and mentation, thought, imagination is existence.
Thus, maybe this region of the universe right here and now pecking the typer is BEING but the personal identity, Don Lay is existence because what stands out is language, imagery, etc. --Don L
From: Lynne Tolk <mailto:lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something negative? With wholeness seen as positive? Would this the the confusion of subject with object, or trying to compare apples and oranges? Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no positive or negative. Personal identity, on the other hand, is created, is objective, is open to confusion or incoherence, is past - except in the present, where it is in process of becoming created - maybe that process is where the two come together??
Lynne
On 10/27/06 9:46 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
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 <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
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 <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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061027/107da75f/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sat Oct 28 04:00:16 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Oct 29 04:01:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <C1680E67.7AEC%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
<00d401c6fa32$592c6bb0$6b75153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <00e301c6fa34$d2e452e0$6b75153f@DL01>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible WholeMaybe language is faulty in the sense that the word/image/identity scheme is synthetic and arbitrary -- perhaps having very limited meaning locally and almost none non-locally. Think of the truth of the part being false when compared with the truth of the whole.
Try denying language such that the experience occurs of that which is prior to language. It's a still, silent experience, a very subtle experience. Some call it a Spiritual experience, some a wholeness experience. Maybe it is coherent to regard it as whoelenss experience because the brain/mind operations are still and quiet, not creating any pollution.
Maybe with such experiences identity begins to appear to be a language problem. -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
From: Lynne Tolk
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
However, there's language to be explained and isness never seems to be what language say it is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments of language aren't they? (dbl)
Yes! Language objectifies, so does thought (isn't language the structure we create in order to think?) [dbl: Maybe we don't create it. Maybe language evolves and then the we occurs, evolves in language. ] I think this is what Bohm means when he says thought deals with reflections of reality, not reality, itself. [dbl: I think your thinking is in the ball park. ] Can't be helped, it's what we do, what we have to work with. But I think so long as we can keep aware of this and keep offering up our best efforts, knowing it's never quite who or what we are, we can get closer. I think & hope that is what dialogue is about.
Maybe awareness, wariness is the key. -- dbl
Lynne
On 10/27/06 6:13 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
Lynne: Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something negative?
Pat: Is there as much of a problem with the whole term "acting and pretending sameness?" -- Pat
dbl: There seems to be confusion about personal identity, personal sameness. What is the mask of persona the same as? What is personal sameness? Does it mean same as the "front" one acts and pretends while playing roles?
Lynne: Would this [be] the confusion of subject with object, or trying to compare apples and oranges?
dbl: I believe Edey says there's confusion re the S and O.
Lynne: Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no positive or negative.
dbl: I like the idea that there is isness, isness is. However, there's language to be explained and isness never seems to be what language say it is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments of language aren't they?
Seems to me Edey is talking about something like pure isness or pure C. It seems imagination does emerge and stand out, and perhaps that's the basis of language -- what stands out in mind, in imagination.
Socrates holds up globe, points to it and says it is being. Then, pointing to a reflected image of the globe and says that is existence. I believe the interpretation is that the globe itself is Being and mentation, thought, imagination is existence.
Thus, maybe this region of the universe right here and now pecking the typer is BEING but the personal identity, Don Lay is existence because what stands out is language, imagery, etc. --Don L
From: Lynne Tolk <mailto:lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something negative? With wholeness seen as positive? Would this the the confusion of subject with object, or trying to compare apples and oranges? Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no positive or negative. Personal identity, on the other hand, is created, is objective, is open to confusion or incoherence, is past - except in the present, where it is in process of becoming created - maybe that process is where the two come together??
Lynne
On 10/27/06 9:46 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
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 <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
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 <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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061027/3175320c/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Oct 28 05:06:11 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Oct 29 05:09:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] trolling culture
Message-ID: <20061027.230615.1328.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Am I the last person in the group to find out there is such a thing? See
Wikipeida. And - would Bohm dialong either welcome or be tolerant of
this
behavior? k
To what do you refer, k?
pat
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Sat Oct 28 06:09:14 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Sun Oct 29 06:10:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <00e301c6fa34$d2e452e0$6b75153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <C168340A.7AF3%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
But does identity need to be a problem? The truth of the part is only false
when compared with the truth of the whole, because they just don?t compare ?
they?re not the same dimension. We create ourselves/language/thought, using
language/thought. Creation is limiting; it means choosing and combining
from possibilities to come up with that one limited thing that wasn?t there
before. That may be a song, which is only a certain group of words with a
certain melody and rhythm. That may be this entity called a person which my
parents named Lynne. None of that is perfect, all of it is limited, and
it?s the process of the universe, however messy. I think it?s rather
amazing, sometimes horrifying, often beautiful. And it?s not different from
the undivided wholeness (called Emptiness by Buddhism), it?s just a
different dimension.
(I got a little carried away, but it?s my (current) pov.)
Lynne
On 10/27/06 8:00 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
> Maybe language is faulty in the sense that the word/image/identity scheme is
> synthetic and arbitrary -- perhaps having very limited meaning locally and
> almost none non-locally. Think of the truth of the part being false when
> compared with the truth of the whole.
>
> Try denying language such that the experience occurs of that which is prior to
> language. It's a still, silent experience, a very subtle experience. Some
> call it a Spiritual experience, some a wholeness experience. Maybe it is
> coherent to regard it as whoelenss experience because the brain/mind
> operations are still and quiet, not creating any pollution.
>
> Maybe with such experiences identity begins to appear to be a language
> problem. -- Don L
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Don Lay <mailto:donlay@gte.net>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org <mailto:bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:42 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>>> From: Lynne Tolk <mailto:lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org <mailto:bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:28 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>>
>>>
>>> However, there's language to be explained and isness never seems to be what
>>> language say it is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments of
>>> language aren't they? (dbl)
>>>
>>> Yes! Language objectifies, so does thought (isn?t language the structure we
>>> create in order to think?) [dbl: Maybe we don't create it. Maybe language
>>> evolves and then the we occurs, evolves in language. ] I think this is
>>> what Bohm means when he says thought deals with reflections of reality, not
>>> reality, itself. [dbl: I think your thinking is in the ball park. ]
>>> Can?t be helped, it?s what we do, what we have to work with. But I think so
>>> long as we can keep aware of this and keep offering up our best efforts,
>>> knowing it?s never quite who or what we are, we can get closer. I think &
>>> hope that is what dialogue is about.
>> Maybe awareness, wariness is the key. -- dbl
>>
>>
>> Lynne
>> On 10/27/06 6:13 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>> Lynne: Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something
>> negative?
>>
>> Pat: Is there as much of a problem with the whole term "acting and
>> pretending sameness?" -- Pat
>>
>> dbl: There seems to be confusion about personal identity, personal sameness.
>> What is the mask of persona the same as? What is personal sameness? Does it
>> mean same as the "front" one acts and pretends while playing roles?
>>
>> Lynne: Would this [be] the confusion of subject with object, or trying to
>> compare apples and oranges?
>>
>> dbl: I believe Edey says there's confusion re the S and O.
>>
>> Lynne: Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no positive or
>> negative.
>>
>> dbl: I like the idea that there is isness, isness is. However, there's
>> language to be explained and isness never seems to be what language say it
>> is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments of language aren't they?
>>
>> Seems to me Edey is talking about something like pure isness or pure C. It
>> seems imagination does emerge and stand out, and perhaps that's the basis of
>> language -- what stands out in mind, in imagination.
>>
>> Socrates holds up globe, points to it and says it is being. Then, pointing
>> to a reflected image of the globe and says that is existence. I believe the
>> interpretation is that the globe itself is Being and mentation, thought,
>> imagination is existence.
>>
>> Thus, maybe this region of the universe right here and now pecking the typer
>> is BEING but the personal identity, Don Lay is existence because what stands
>> out is language, imagery, etc. --Don L
>>
>>
>> From: Lynne Tolk <mailto:lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>>>
>>> Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something negative?
>>> With wholeness seen as positive? Would this the the confusion of subject
>>> with object, or trying to compare apples and oranges? Pure subject or
>>> awareness, simply is. There is no positive or negative. Personal identity,
>>> on the other hand, is created, is objective, is open to confusion or
>>> incoherence, is past ? except in the present, where it is in process of
>>> becoming created ? maybe that process is where the two come together??
>>>
>>> Lynne
>>>
>>> On 10/27/06 9:46 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>>>> 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 <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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- 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/20061027/88c1c270/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sat Oct 28 12:45:58 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sun Oct 29 12:47:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <00e301c6fa34$d2e452e0$6b75153f@DL01>
References: <C1680E67.7AEC%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
<00d401c6fa32$592c6bb0$6b75153f@DL01>
<00e301c6fa34$d2e452e0$6b75153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <CE8FD58D-2A36-4090-A8B1-5D196A98D9C4@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
This thread reminds me of something called, levels of discourse.
There are many different levels of discourse in which any subject can
be considered. And if we don't recognise that, then we are confused.
We ought to try to make sure that we are communicating at the same
level otherwise we are not really communicating, rather we are
addding to the confusion. For instance, I might say that my desk is
made up mostly of empty space, that the solid wood of it is only an
illusion that makes sense at the middle size level of things. Right
now I am writing at, I guess you'd call it, the middle sized level.
And at this level, Lynne's "so long as we can keep aware of this and
keep offering up our best efforts, knowing it?s never quite who or
what we are, we can get closer."
don
On 28 Oct 2006, at 03:00, Don Lay wrote:
> Maybe language is faulty in the sense that the word/image/identity
> scheme is synthetic and arbitrary -- perhaps having very limited
> meaning locally and almost none non-locally. Think of the truth of
> the part being false when compared with the truth of the whole.
>
> Try denying language such that the experience occurs of that which
> is prior to language. It's a still, silent experience, a very
> subtle experience. Some call it a Spiritual experience, some a
> wholeness experience. Maybe it is coherent to regard it as
> whoelenss experience because the brain/mind operations are still
> and quiet, not creating any pollution.
>
> Maybe with such experiences identity begins to appear to be a
> language problem. -- Don L
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
> From: Lynne Tolk
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
> However, there's language to be explained and isness never seems to
> be what language say it is, does it? Negative and positive are
> judgments of language aren't they? (dbl)
>
> Yes! Language objectifies, so does thought (isn?t language the
> structure we create in order to think?) [dbl: Maybe we don't
> create it. Maybe language evolves and then the we occurs,
> evolves in language. ] I think this is what Bohm means when he
> says thought deals with reflections of reality, not reality,
> itself. [dbl: I think your thinking is in the ball park. ]
> Can?t be helped, it?s what we do, what we have to work with. But I
> think so long as we can keep aware of this and keep offering up our
> best efforts, knowing it?s never quite who or what we are, we can
> get closer. I think & hope that is what dialogue is about.
> Maybe awareness, wariness is the key. -- dbl
>
>
> Lynne
> On 10/27/06 6:13 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>
> Lynne: Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as
> something negative?
>
> Pat: Is there as much of a problem with the whole term "acting and
> pretending sameness?" -- Pat
>
> dbl: There seems to be confusion about personal identity, personal
> sameness. What is the mask of persona the same as? What is
> personal sameness? Does it mean same as the "front" one acts and
> pretends while playing roles?
>
> Lynne: Would this [be] the confusion of subject with object, or
> trying to compare apples and oranges?
>
> dbl: I believe Edey says there's confusion re the S and O.
>
> Lynne: Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no positive
> or negative.
>
> dbl: I like the idea that there is isness, isness is. However,
> there's language to be explained and isness never seems to be what
> language say it is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments
> of language aren't they?
>
> Seems to me Edey is talking about something like pure isness or
> pure C. It seems imagination does emerge and stand out, and
> perhaps that's the basis of language -- what stands out in mind, in
> imagination.
>
> Socrates holds up globe, points to it and says it is being. Then,
> pointing to a reflected image of the globe and says that is
> existence. I believe the interpretation is that the globe itself
> is Being and mentation, thought, imagination is existence.
>
> Thus, maybe this region of the universe right here and now pecking
> the typer is BEING but the personal identity, Don Lay is existence
> because what stands out is language, imagery, etc. --Don L
>
>
> From: Lynne Tolk <mailto:lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>
> Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something
> negative? With wholeness seen as positive? Would this the the
> confusion of subject with object, or trying to compare apples and
> oranges? Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no
> positive or negative. Personal identity, on the other hand, is
> created, is objective, is open to confusion or incoherence, is past
> ? except in the present, where it is in process of becoming created
> ? maybe that process is where the two come together??
>
> Lynne
>
> On 10/27/06 9:46 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> 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 <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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Sat Oct 28 13:47:20 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sun Oct 29 13:48:47 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061029110003.243C8242D7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF65851F9F.2FD33570-ON85257215.003D6EFA-85257215.0040C254@dialogos.com>
Rodger __We seem pestered by an idea of perfection -- as if perfect should
mean something that completely satisfies the imaginings of personae.
When -perfect- is seen from wholeness instead of the persona we find a very
different meaning.
I.e. If we move too near a flame and get burnt, the persona tends to think
either the burn is bad, or the flame is bad, or the movement too close was
bad, etc, re: imperfection.
But I think from the standpoint of wholeness, there remains an endless
intricacy of laws, or ways in which life works. A burn is exactly what is
supposed to happen when we stay too near a flame, for too long. Perfection.
There is never a chaos of possible outcomes -- that is the perfection, the
design inherent in all living things.
Granted we can use some magical physics or be protected by guardian angels
etc -- but in either case we simply play by different sets of rules --
thus, living rules remain intact, all around us. There is no avoiding the
perfection.
An imperfection is created in thought according to specific definitions.
The idea behind imperfection is to loan grandiosity to the persona which
claims to know what defines imperfect and perfect._R
.
From: Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
We create ourselves/language/thought, using
language/thought.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061028/165f404e/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Sat Oct 28 14:56:49 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sun Oct 29 14:59:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <C168340A.7AF3%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <00b101c6fa90$94688430$4b71153f@DL01>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible WholeParmenides: All is flux ... There is no sameness ... you cannot step in the same river twice.
Bohm: Identity is not necessity (tas).
Lynne: ... does identity need to be a problem?
dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think when I say Lynne? Is she identical (the same as) what her employer's thought of her when he directs the you-word at her? Is she the same as what her daughter or grand daughter thinks when they observe her? Just exactly what thingk is Lynne always like? What is Lynne identical with?
Do such questions suggest there might be what Don F suggests is a categorical problem when the personal identity is used without awareness that it is a man-made or synthetic concept that is useful in a limited way? -- dbl
From: Lynne Tolk
But does identity need to be a problem? The truth of the part is only false when compared with the truth of the whole, because they just don't compare - they're not the same dimension. We create ourselves/language/thought, using language/thought. Creation is limiting; it means choosing and combining from possibilities to come up with that one limited thing that wasn't there before. That may be a song, which is only a certain group of words with a certain melody and rhythm. That may be this entity called a person which my parents named Lynne. None of that is perfect, all of it is limited, and it's the process of the universe, however messy. I think it's rather amazing, sometimes horrifying, often beautiful. And it's not different from the undivided wholeness (called Emptiness by Buddhism), it's just a different dimension.
(I got a little carried away, but it's my (current) pov.)
Lynne
On 10/27/06 8:00 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
Maybe language is faulty in the sense that the word/image/identity scheme is synthetic and arbitrary -- perhaps having very limited meaning locally and almost none non-locally. Think of the truth of the part being false when compared with the truth of the whole.
Try denying language such that the experience occurs of that which is prior to language. It's a still, silent experience, a very subtle experience. Some call it a Spiritual experience, some a wholeness experience. Maybe it is coherent to regard it as whoelenss experience because the brain/mind operations are still and quiet, not creating any pollution.
Maybe with such experiences identity begins to appear to be a language problem. -- Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061028/1e2985cc/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 16:48:36 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sun Oct 29 16:50:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <CE8FD58D-2A36-4090-A8B1-5D196A98D9C4@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F4F8C01637246089C5FAFFA5050@phx.gbl>
My education theorist-mentor used to have us write the same topic three ways
- in jargon, so a layperson could understand with no difficulty, and so a
child could understand. It was enlightening to see the transformations that
occurred between the versions, and the effort that had to go into
maintaining the same meaning on all three levels. k
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:45:58 +0100
>
>This thread reminds me of something called, levels of discourse. There are
>many different levels of discourse in which any subject can be considered.
>And if we don't recognise that, then we are confused. We ought to try to
>make sure that we are communicating at the same level otherwise we are not
>really communicating, rather we are addding to the confusion. For
>instance, I might say that my desk is made up mostly of empty space, that
>the solid wood of it is only an illusion that makes sense at the middle
>size level of things. Right now I am writing at, I guess you'd call it,
>the middle sized level. And at this level, Lynne's "so long as we can keep
>aware of this and keep offering up our best efforts, knowing it’s never
>quite who or what we are, we can get closer."
>
>don
>
>
>On 28 Oct 2006, at 03:00, Don Lay wrote:
>
>>Maybe language is faulty in the sense that the word/image/identity scheme
>>is synthetic and arbitrary -- perhaps having very limited meaning locally
>>and almost none non-locally. Think of the truth of the part being false
>>when compared with the truth of the whole.
>>
>>Try denying language such that the experience occurs of that which is
>>prior to language. It's a still, silent experience, a very subtle
>>experience. Some call it a Spiritual experience, some a wholeness
>>experience. Maybe it is coherent to regard it as whoelenss experience
>>because the brain/mind operations are still and quiet, not creating any
>>pollution.
>>
>>Maybe with such experiences identity begins to appear to be a language
>>problem. -- Don L
>>
>>
>>
>>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Don Lay
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:42 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>>From: Lynne Tolk
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:28 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>>
>>
>>However, there's language to be explained and isness never seems to be
>>what language say it is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments of
>>language aren't they? (dbl)
>>
>>Yes! Language objectifies, so does thought (isn’t language the structure
>>we create in order to think?) [dbl: Maybe we don't create it. Maybe
>>language evolves and then the we occurs, evolves in language. ] I
>>think this is what Bohm means when he says thought deals with reflections
>>of reality, not reality, itself. [dbl: I think your thinking is in the
>>ball park. ] Can’t be helped, it’s what we do, what we have to work
>>with. But I think so long as we can keep aware of this and keep offering
>>up our best efforts, knowing it’s never quite who or what we are, we can
>>get closer. I think & hope that is what dialogue is about.
>> Maybe awareness, wariness is the key. -- dbl
>>
>>
>>Lynne
>>On 10/27/06 6:13 PM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>Lynne: Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something
>>negative?
>>
>>Pat: Is there as much of a problem with the whole term "acting and
>>pretending sameness?" -- Pat
>>
>>dbl: There seems to be confusion about personal identity, personal
>>sameness. What is the mask of persona the same as? What is personal
>>sameness? Does it mean same as the "front" one acts and pretends while
>>playing roles?
>>
>>Lynne: Would this [be] the confusion of subject with object, or trying
>>to compare apples and oranges?
>>
>>dbl: I believe Edey says there's confusion re the S and O.
>>
>>Lynne: Pure subject or awareness, simply is. There is no positive or
>>negative.
>>
>>dbl: I like the idea that there is isness, isness is. However, there's
>>language to be explained and isness never seems to be what language say
>>it is, does it? Negative and positive are judgments of language aren't
>>they?
>>
>>Seems to me Edey is talking about something like pure isness or pure C.
>>It seems imagination does emerge and stand out, and perhaps that's the
>>basis of language -- what stands out in mind, in imagination.
>>
>>Socrates holds up globe, points to it and says it is being. Then,
>>pointing to a reflected image of the globe and says that is existence. I
>>believe the interpretation is that the globe itself is Being and
>>mentation, thought, imagination is existence.
>>
>>Thus, maybe this region of the universe right here and now pecking the
>>typer is BEING but the personal identity, Don Lay is existence because
>>what stands out is language, imagery, etc. --Don L
>>
>>
>>From: Lynne Tolk <mailto:lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>>
>>Is there a judgment here of the personal identity as something negative?
>>With wholeness seen as positive? Would this the the confusion of subject
>>with object, or trying to compare apples and oranges? Pure subject or
>>awareness, simply is. There is no positive or negative. Personal
>>identity, on the other hand, is created, is objective, is open to
>>confusion or incoherence, is past – except in the present, where it is in
>>process of becoming created – maybe that process is where the two come
>>together??
>>
>>Lynne
>>
>>On 10/27/06 9:46 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>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 <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>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 <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 17:29:26 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sun Oct 29 17:30:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] trolling culture
In-Reply-To: <20061027.230615.1328.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F19ED2D1E10E7F858F061EEA5050@phx.gbl>
wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established
community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to
cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic,
or otherwise inappropriate messages.
For many people, the characterizing feature of trolling is the perception of
intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic,
disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into
engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction
from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the person
develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause chaos.
This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in Internet culture: "Do not
feed the trolls."
A common tactic that many trolls resort to is the strategy of using multiple
usernames or pseudonyms that are ready to use just in case a debate or
argument emerges. By using multiple usernames (called "sock puppets" in this
context) and a variety of artificial personalities the troll would have the
ability to protect his or her image in a community. A troll would then also
be able to increase his or her influence in an entire online community by
using those other self-serving nicknames to draw attention towards his or
her most favored account. Many users with more than one computer, however,
such as hardware buffs, computer repair shops and thrift stores often give
each computer a unique name and use that name as the e-mail or newsgroup
account username to identify the computer being used rather than its user.
Contrary to the purpose of deception this practice is followed with the
intent of creating a verification record for the computer that was repaired
or tested rather than to promote malice, ill-will or evil intent. Sometimes
the email reply address or other changeable header line is used for this
purpose rather than the username line.
"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played
without the consent of most of the players.
There's a lot more information on the website, including the fact that some
social scientists do this simply to study behavior. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] trolling culture
>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:06:11 -0400
>
>Am I the last person in the group to find out there is such a thing? See
>
>Wikipeida. And - would Bohm dialong either welcome or be tolerant of
>this
>behavior? k
>
>To what do you refer, k?
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Sat Oct 28 17:46:28 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Sun Oct 29 17:45:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D02CD@msw2k.msw.local>
This strikes me as really valuable--very simple and meaningful--worth
saving. D.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:03 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sat Oct 28 19:51:52 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sun Oct 29 19:53:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <00b101c6fa90$94688430$4b71153f@DL01>
References: <C168340A.7AF3%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
<00b101c6fa90$94688430$4b71153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <8832FF4A-E236-4D86-9AD5-7C1FCAB8DEE4@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 28 Oct 2006, at 13:56, Don Lay wrote:
> Parmenides: All is flux ... There is no sameness ... you cannot
> step in the same river twice.
I believe that is Heraclitus, who, I believe along with Parmenides,
thought that there was a simple anwer to what the universe was made
of. H said, water, P said fire, and I am sure that the Eliatics and
Heraclitions had firey debates about it, that no doubt led to tears.
> Bohm: Identity is not necessity (tas).
This phrase, does not mean that we can do without identity. It means
that a particular set of meanings that form an identity are not
necessary.
>
> Lynne: ... does identity need to be a problem?
>
> dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think when
> I say Lynne? Is she identical (the same as) what her employer's
> thought of her when he directs the you-word at her? Is she the
> same as what her daughter or grand daughter thinks when they
> observe her? Just exactly what thingk is Lynne always like? What
> is Lynne identical with?
Lynne, from my point of view, is a unique collection of qualities,
some of which, I am able to recognise, especially when her name is
attached to an expression of them. They are clearly not, for example,
from the identity of dbl (dabl? dibl?) or William or Franis even
though I suppose she could fool me by imitating their styles. One
point about identifying identities is that I had great fun noticing
when kirsten was using someone else's words. It was always clear to
me when it wasn't her words, so just for fun I would Google a few
phrases and identify the source. After a while, I could identify most
of her sources without having to resort to Google.
>
> Do such questions suggest there might be what Don F suggests is a
> categorical problem when the personal identity is used without
> awareness that it is a man-made or synthetic concept that is useful
> in a limited way?
I think they do. From the viewpoint of the whole, none of these
identities mean very much in and of themselves. That would be what
Bohm referred to as the cosmic domain or category. But there is also
the domain of the personal and the general and in those domains,
identity has a great deal of significance. It has the most
significance of course, in the personal, and it would be a mistake to
write that category off. In order to understand this whole notion of
identity or self idem we have to look at it within each of these
three levels - and as Bohm also pointed out, there are probably more.
don
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 19:57:43 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Sun Oct 29 19:59:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <8832FF4A-E236-4D86-9AD5-7C1FCAB8DEE4@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F99473C46D51BFA0B020C8A5050@phx.gbl>
This phrase, does not mean that we can do without identity. It means that a
particular set of meanings that form an identity are not necessary.
Thank you. That makes much more sense to me. k
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:51:52 +0100
>
>
>On 28 Oct 2006, at 13:56, Don Lay wrote:
>
>>Parmenides: All is flux ... There is no sameness ... you cannot step in
>>the same river twice.
>
>I believe that is Heraclitus, who, I believe along with Parmenides,
>thought that there was a simple anwer to what the universe was made of. H
>said, water, P said fire, and I am sure that the Eliatics and Heraclitions
>had firey debates about it, that no doubt led to tears.
>>Bohm: Identity is not necessity (tas).
>
>This phrase, does not mean that we can do without identity. It means that
>a particular set of meanings that form an identity are not necessary.
>>
>>Lynne: ... does identity need to be a problem?
>>
>>dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think when I say
>>Lynne? Is she identical (the same as) what her employer's thought of her
>>when he directs the you-word at her? Is she the same as what her
>>daughter or grand daughter thinks when they observe her? Just exactly
>>what thingk is Lynne always like? What is Lynne identical with?
>
>Lynne, from my point of view, is a unique collection of qualities, some
>of which, I am able to recognise, especially when her name is attached to
>an expression of them. They are clearly not, for example, from the
>identity of dbl (dabl? dibl?) or William or Franis even though I suppose
>she could fool me by imitating their styles. One point about identifying
>identities is that I had great fun noticing when kirsten was using someone
>else's words. It was always clear to me when it wasn't her words, so just
>for fun I would Google a few phrases and identify the source. After a
>while, I could identify most of her sources without having to resort to
>Google.
>>
>>Do such questions suggest there might be what Don F suggests is a
>>categorical problem when the personal identity is used without awareness
>>that it is a man-made or synthetic concept that is useful in a limited
>>way?
>
>I think they do. From the viewpoint of the whole, none of these identities
>mean very much in and of themselves. That would be what Bohm referred to
>as the cosmic domain or category. But there is also the domain of the
>personal and the general and in those domains, identity has a great deal
>of significance. It has the most significance of course, in the personal,
>and it would be a mistake to write that category off. In order to
>understand this whole notion of identity or self idem we have to look at
>it within each of these three levels - and as Bohm also pointed out, there
>are probably more.
>
>don
>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 Sat Oct 28 20:11:38 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Sun Oct 29 20:13:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D02CD@msw2k.msw.local>
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D02CD@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <C00D8D6A-19B3-4CD5-BC45-D984914B3CE2@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
There seems to me to be some scientific evidence that this is the
case. We know, for instance that some scientific discoveries often
are made by different groups in different places who are not aware of
the other's work at around the same time. In the 19th century the
only reason for this that was suggested was that since scientists
travelled a lot, they might have accidently carried particles of the
substances in question in their beards.
The whole catalogue of synchronisities (Jung and Pauli) along with
the coincidences that we all have experienced hint at such non-local
connections. It seems, though, that there is little hard evidence
that this is the csse in part because the information is not
reliable. But there is a lot of research on "distant viewing" a lot
ot if funded by the US military during the cold-war days, that was
never published in reputable journals in part because it was
restricted and in part because the fraternity of skeptics have alway
been keen to attack and deny any suggestion that such connections can
exist. It;s a paradigm thing.
For some interesting links to recent discoveries that may prove
relevant check out:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/quantum-
world;jsessionid=MHCAPKNMGAMO
don
On 28 Oct 2006, at 16:46, Dorothy Stulberg wrote:
> This strikes me as really valuable--very simple and meaningful--worth
> saving. D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Factor
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:03 AM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>
>
>>
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info: