From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 29 00:15:52 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Mon Oct 30 00:17:20 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <1dde854d0610281431w79b9b508s140f359ee69957b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <BAY22-F785B4EB4FAF5A51CCA9A4A5050@phx.gbl> I'll be looking forward to your input. I do see advice as one thing and insights as another. I can offer you what seems to be an insight, with the hope that you will share your own ideas on that topic, and then we dialog. k >From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:31:14 -1200 > >Now we are placing our attention where it counts. The life experience is >not >complicated when we just live at each moment. Our problems arise when we >attempt to offer advice or insights to another, especially when the other >is >not asking for our advice or insight. > >On 10/28/06, Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>Maybe, in time and with dialog, together we can find a way to speak about >>those special terms. I intend to make a dictionary of such, and see how >>my >>understanding changes over time. I'll keep track of the results. 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] language >> >Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:37:43 +0100 >> > >> >I couldn't agree more. However, I have found that, largely because >>of the >> >Krishnamurti Bohm connection, there are certain terms that are used in >>a >> >jargonistic sense and they don't refer to their more commonly >>understood >> >meanings. A few examples that I have stumbled over more than a few >>times >> >are: awareness, intelligence, attention. I am still not certain how to >> >handle these words. I tend to use them in the usual ways such as " I >>think >> >we need to pay more attention to this", or "She is very intelligent" or >> >"He must be aware that the bear is creeping up on him." But sometimes >>in >> >these circles, awareness means a state of consciousness that is beyond >> >thought. Intelligence is an attribute of the universe and not of >> >individuals, and attention is a state where perception is open and >> >unsullied by pre-existing attributions or meanings. And like you, I am >> >hard pressed to know when it is one thing or another. Then there is >> >"being" versus "becoming" and phrases like "psychological time" >>and there >> >are probably a whole load more. >> >don >> > >> > >> >On 28 Oct 2006, at 19:12, Morgan Jett wrote: >> > >> >>It seems to me that the use of jargon fossilizes meaning. Use >>of simpler >> >>and clearer language opens the possibility of new insights coming >> >>unexpectedly because we are constantly reformulating our thoughts as >>we >> >>search for a clearer way to say what we mean. My experience is that >>the >> >>subconscious works on issues presented to consciousness i.e. questions >>we >> >>formulate, for instance - and that answers are liable to pop up at the >> >>most unpredictable times. And the subconscious doesn't consider >>anything >> >>as "closed", final, or that one knows all there is to know. So I not >>only >> >>steer clear of jargon, and being referred to previous discussions when >>I >> >>ask for clarification of something, I delete anything of that nature. >> >>Image - a cat chasing its tail! k >> >> >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >> >>Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash >> >>with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/ >> >>default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>info: >> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >> >> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >> >> >>dialogue facilitator: >> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >> >> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >> >>admin@david-bohm.net >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >info: >> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> > >> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> > >> >dialogue facilitator: >> >facilitator@david-bohm.net >> > >> >Administrator of the mailing list: >> >admin@david-bohm.net >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> > >> > >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces >> >>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us >> >>_______________________________________________ >>info: >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >>dialogue facilitator: >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>admin@david-bohm.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> >> > > >-- >We are connected > >Owen >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Oct 29 00:37:59 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Mon Oct 30 00:39:24 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F785B4EB4FAF5A51CCA9A4A5050@phx.gbl> References: <BAY22-F785B4EB4FAF5A51CCA9A4A5050@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <05CBB519-7508-4287-B10F-F2E62B67855A@donfactor.demon.co.uk> This is an important point. If I write post in response to that of another person, it is not meant for that person only. Nor is it an invitation to explore the subject just with that person. One of the key ideas in the development of Bohm's approach to group dialogue was that it was impersonal. He used the phrase, "impersonal fellowship". That is, whatever was asked of one was actually asked of the many. The fundamental idea is that with the participation of the many a new kind of mind would be revealed, one in which the content of consciousness could be held in common amongst all participants and that from this sort of collaboration, any insights that might emerge from the activity would be the product of us all. don On 28 Oct 2006, at 23:15, Morgan Jett wrote: > I'll be looking forward to your input. I do see advice as one > thing and insights as another. I can offer you what seems to be an > insight, with the hope that you will share your own ideas on that > topic, and then we dialog. k > > >> From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com> >> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:31:14 -1200 >> >> Now we are placing our attention where it counts. The life >> experience is not >> complicated when we just live at each moment. Our problems arise >> when we >> attempt to offer advice or insights to another, especially when >> the other is >> not asking for our advice or insight. >> >> On 10/28/06, Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Maybe, in time and with dialog, together we can find a way to >>> speak about >>> those special terms. I intend to make a dictionary of such, and >>> see how >>> my >>> understanding changes over time. I'll keep track of the results. 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] language >>> >Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:37:43 +0100 >>> > >>> >I couldn't agree more. However, I have found that, largely because >>> of the >>> >Krishnamurti Bohm connection, there are certain terms that are >>> used in a >>> >jargonistic sense and they don't refer to their more commonly >>> understood >>> >meanings. A few examples that I have stumbled over more than a >>> few times >>> >are: awareness, intelligence, attention. I am still not certain >>> how to >>> >handle these words. I tend to use them in the usual ways such >>> as " I >>> think >>> >we need to pay more attention to this", or "She is very >>> intelligent" or >>> >"He must be aware that the bear is creeping up on him." But >>> sometimes in >>> >these circles, awareness means a state of consciousness that is >>> beyond >>> >thought. Intelligence is an attribute of the universe and not of >>> >individuals, and attention is a state where perception is open and >>> >unsullied by pre-existing attributions or meanings. And like >>> you, I am >>> >hard pressed to know when it is one thing or another. Then >>> there is >>> >"being" versus "becoming" and phrases like "psychological time" >>> and there >>> >are probably a whole load more. >>> >don >>> > >>> > >>> >On 28 Oct 2006, at 19:12, Morgan Jett wrote: >>> > >>> >>It seems to me that the use of jargon fossilizes meaning. Use >>> of simpler >>> >>and clearer language opens the possibility of new insights coming >>> >>unexpectedly because we are constantly reformulating our >>> thoughts as we >>> >>search for a clearer way to say what we mean. My experience >>> is that >>> the >>> >>subconscious works on issues presented to consciousness i.e. >>> questions >>> we >>> >>formulate, for instance - and that answers are liable to pop >>> up at the >>> >>most unpredictable times. And the subconscious doesn't consider >>> anything >>> >>as "closed", final, or that one knows all there is to know. So >>> I not >>> only >>> >>steer clear of jargon, and being referred to previous >>> discussions when >>> I >>> >>ask for clarification of something, I delete anything of that >>> nature. >>> >>Image - a cat chasing its tail! k >>> >> >>> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>> >>Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle >>> your cash >>> >>with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/ >>> >>default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline >>> >> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>> >>info: >>> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>> >> >>> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>> >> >>> >>dialogue facilitator: >>> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >>> >> >>> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>> >>admin@david-bohm.net >>> >> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> >info: >>> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>> > >>> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>> > >>> >dialogue facilitator: >>> >facilitator@david-bohm.net >>> > >>> >Administrator of the mailing list: >>> >admin@david-bohm.net >>> > >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> > >>> > >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows >>> Live Spaces >>> >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/? >>> href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx? >>> wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> info: >>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>> >>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>> >>> dialogue facilitator: >>> facilitator@david-bohm.net >>> >>> Administrator of the mailing list: >>> admin@david-bohm.net >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> We are connected >> >> Owen > > >> _______________________________________________ >> info: >> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >> dialogue facilitator: >> facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >> Administrator of the mailing list: >> admin@david-bohm.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https:// > voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 29 01:06:23 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Mon Oct 30 01:07:51 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <05CBB519-7508-4287-B10F-F2E62B67855A@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <BAY22-F162C63AAD9EDC5D3235408A5050@phx.gbl> Absolutely! That's another reason to steer clear of jargon, or come to a temporary common understanding of terms, even if it means trying to remember where different people are at the moment in their thinking, and asking them to repeat it if you've forgotten. Sometime back, we got onto a topic I felt a kind of discomfiture about, but couldn't articulate it. I just found the answer without the articulation of anything except "there has to be something more". Looking for understandings of consciousness, and intelligence + Krishnamurti (thanks, DonF), I found this Education and the significance of Life, Jiddu Krishnamurti, (p. 66-68) Modern education, in developing the intellect, offers more and more theories and facts, without bringing about the understanding of the total process of human existence. We are highly intellectual; we have developed cunning minds, and are caught up in explanations. The intellect is satisfied with theories and explanations, but intelligence is not; and for the understanding of the total process of existence, there must be an integration of the mind and heart in action. Intelligence is not separate from love. That was the missing ingredient. So what if we accumulate all this mechanical knowledge. Intelligence is what you do with it! Comments welcome! 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] language >Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 23:37:59 +0100 > >This is an important point. If I write post in response to that of another >person, it is not meant for that person only. Nor is it an invitation to >explore the subject just with that person. One of the key ideas in the >development of Bohm's approach to group dialogue was that it was >impersonal. He used the phrase, "impersonal fellowship". That is, whatever >was asked of one was actually asked of the many. The fundamental idea is >that with the participation of the many a new kind of mind would be >revealed, one in which the content of consciousness could be held in >common amongst all participants and that from this sort of collaboration, >any insights that might emerge from the activity would be the product of >us all. >don > >On 28 Oct 2006, at 23:15, Morgan Jett wrote: > >>I'll be looking forward to your input. I do see advice as one thing and >>insights as another. I can offer you what seems to be an insight, with >>the hope that you will share your own ideas on that topic, and then we >>dialog. k >> >> >>>From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com> >>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >>>Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:31:14 -1200 >>> >>>Now we are placing our attention where it counts. The life experience is >>>not >>>complicated when we just live at each moment. Our problems arise when we >>>attempt to offer advice or insights to another, especially when the >>>other is >>>not asking for our advice or insight. >>> >>>On 10/28/06, Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>Maybe, in time and with dialog, together we can find a way to speak >>>>about >>>>those special terms. I intend to make a dictionary of such, and see >>>>how >>>>my >>>>understanding changes over time. I'll keep track of the results. 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] language >>>> >Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:37:43 +0100 >>>> > >>>> >I couldn't agree more. However, I have found that, largely because >>>>of the >>>> >Krishnamurti Bohm connection, there are certain terms that are used >>>>in a >>>> >jargonistic sense and they don't refer to their more commonly >>>>understood >>>> >meanings. A few examples that I have stumbled over more than a few >>>>times >>>> >are: awareness, intelligence, attention. I am still not certain how >>>>to >>>> >handle these words. I tend to use them in the usual ways such as " I >>>>think >>>> >we need to pay more attention to this", or "She is very intelligent" >>>>or >>>> >"He must be aware that the bear is creeping up on him." But >>>>sometimes in >>>> >these circles, awareness means a state of consciousness that is >>>>beyond >>>> >thought. Intelligence is an attribute of the universe and not of >>>> >individuals, and attention is a state where perception is open and >>>> >unsullied by pre-existing attributions or meanings. And like you, I >>>>am >>>> >hard pressed to know when it is one thing or another. Then there is >>>> >"being" versus "becoming" and phrases like "psychological time" >>>>and there >>>> >are probably a whole load more. >>>> >don >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >On 28 Oct 2006, at 19:12, Morgan Jett wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>It seems to me that the use of jargon fossilizes meaning. Use >>>>of simpler >>>> >>and clearer language opens the possibility of new insights coming >>>> >>unexpectedly because we are constantly reformulating our thoughts >>>>as we >>>> >>search for a clearer way to say what we mean. My experience is >>>>that >>>>the >>>> >>subconscious works on issues presented to consciousness i.e. >>>>questions >>>>we >>>> >>formulate, for instance - and that answers are liable to pop up at >>>>the >>>> >>most unpredictable times. And the subconscious doesn't consider >>>>anything >>>> >>as "closed", final, or that one knows all there is to know. So I >>>>not >>>>only >>>> >>steer clear of jargon, and being referred to previous discussions >>>>when >>>>I >>>> >>ask for clarification of something, I delete anything of that >>>>nature. >>>> >>Image - a cat chasing its tail! k >>>> >> >>>> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>>> >>Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your >>>>cash >>>> >>with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/ >>>> >>default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline >>>> >> >>>> >>_______________________________________________ >>>> >>info: >>>> >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>>> >> >>>> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>>> >> >>>> >>dialogue facilitator: >>>> >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >>>> >> >>>> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>>> >>admin@david-bohm.net >>>> >> >>>> >>_______________________________________________ >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>> >info: >>>> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>>> > >>>> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>>> > >>>> >dialogue facilitator: >>>> >facilitator@david-bohm.net >>>> > >>>> >Administrator of the mailing list: >>>> >admin@david-bohm.net >>>> > >>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>>Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live >>>>Spaces >>>> >>>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/? >>>>href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx? >>>>wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>info: >>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>>> >>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>>dialogue facilitator: >>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>>Administrator of the mailing list: >>>>admin@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>We are connected >>> >>>Owen >> >> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>info: >>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>> >>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>> >>>dialogue facilitator: >>>facilitator@david-bohm.net >>> >>>Administrator of the mailing list: >>>admin@david-bohm.net >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>> >>> >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https:// >>voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx >> >>_______________________________________________ >>info: >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >>dialogue facilitator: >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>admin@david-bohm.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001 From gregoire at mindspring.com Sun Oct 29 02:41:09 2006 From: gregoire at mindspring.com (Rogier Gregoire) Date: Mon Oct 30 02:42:36 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <20061029110003.243C8242D7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org> References: <20061029110003.243C8242D7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org> Message-ID: <E40175CF-E1F7-4BD7-BF7B-6F5DC38D2106@mindspring.com> I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it a dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community to come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same time too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace David Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following paradigm as a premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to respond or react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm by Meher Baba as originally posted: We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals, who have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole, on the other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them. And the Corollary: It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others which alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the whole). Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a universal experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an ephemeral but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the participants on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience, reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the game of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add my view of it and would like His statement considered rather than to trouble yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some recognition of this posting. Rogier Gregoire -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061028/0bbcfd74/attachment.html From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:20:35 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Mon Oct 30 04:22:07 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <E40175CF-E1F7-4BD7-BF7B-6F5DC38D2106@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <BAY22-F217BEB5012F6EE08A7727BA5FB0@phx.gbl> All in All, I would be flattered by some recognition of this posting. I acknowledge it, and will respond when I can. Certainly not without thought. Hozhoon, k >From: Rogier Gregoire <gregoire@mindspring.com> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,Issue 29 The >Indivisible Whole >Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:41:09 -0500 > >I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it a >dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community to >come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same >time too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace >David Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following >paradigm as a premise with the hope that some would find time or interest >to respond or react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is >the paradigm by Meher Baba as originally posted: > >We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals, who >have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole, on >the other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them. > >And the Corollary: > >It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others which >alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the >whole). > >Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a universal >experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least >available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an >ephemeral but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the >participants on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an >experience, reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals >the integral nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense >is that the game of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. > >I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add my >view of it and would like His statement considered rather than to trouble >yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some >recognition of this posting. >Rogier Gregoire > >_______________________________________________ >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 > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline From tubakari at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 03:46:19 2006 From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays) Date: Mon Oct 30 04:47:48 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The Indivisible Whole Message-ID: <20061029024620.51066.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com> Rogier et al, This brings to mind some points about dialogue. There is a certain amount of trust in the process. Just as when don replies to kathryn it is not only for her, when someone's message is not explicitly replied to, then it does not mean it is lost or unacknowledged. That is not to say that we couldn't do better about acknowledging each other which could act as a catalyst for all sorts of things, namely being more fully ourselves, which I believe energetically liberates others to do the same. In dialogue, the words and tacit aspects weave themselves into a flow of meaning. And then we all know this isn't exactly dialogue even though some of us may at times embody the spirit (of dialogue). The paradox of love of which you speak is a perfect example of our human form infused with an unlimited and divine nature. Both limited and infinite, spoken and unspoken, growth and decay, etc. This quote reminds me of the reciprocity and interdependence of all that is. So even if someone else believes that a human form manifestation is limited and a part, that makes it no more negligible than absolutely everything else that exists...or no more important. Can we come to terms with our paradoxical nature and the perfection illustrated by each of us in the midst of our seemingly imperfect forms? :) That is the question for me: how do we embrace two opposing movements? One moment at a time....and maybe the line between "duality" is not so clear any more. Thank you Rogier (and everyone!) ;) love for real, kari ----- Original Message ---- From: Rogier Gregoire <gregoire@mindspring.com> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:41:09 PM Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it a dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community to come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same time too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace David Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following paradigm as a premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to respond or react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm by Meher Baba as originally posted: We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals, who have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole, on the other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them. And the Corollary: It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others which alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the whole). Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a universal experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an ephemeral but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the participants on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience, reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the game of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add my view of it and would like His statement considered rather than to trouble yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some recognition of this posting. Rogier Gregoire -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061028/787aafbe/attachment.html From franis_franis at juno.com Sun Oct 29 06:57:00 2006 From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel) Date: Mon Oct 30 08:03:01 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The Indivisible Whole Message-ID: <20061028.225701.1600.0.franis_franis@juno.com> Can we come to terms with our paradoxical nature and the > perfection illustrated by each of us in the midst of our seemingly > imperfect forms? :) This opposition exists only as a concept in our culture. Oppositions do not exclude, they're just two ends of the same stick, IMHO. > Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive > desire to promote a universal experience > that can be discussed or named. I think this search is because love is such an inadequate word to describe the so many rainbow sorts of expressions of it that I have experienced and witnessed. In making and appreciating art I am most fascinated when the action is congruent with intention, communicating a doubled effect using many levels of meaning. To be able to express love like that is my ideal. There are many building blocks of Dialogue that are in common with loving intentions. I imagine people as mirrors that magnify love; depending how well you have shined and cleared your ability to reflect back what you are being faced with, the more capacity you have for patience, gratitude, understanding and compassion that are some of the expressions of love. It seems that doing this "shining" work on oneself protects the other person, and leaves the giver open and vulnerable. Not having to defend or convince might leave similiar feelings of openness for those in Dialogue. Love can be expressed and demonstrated in action, and sometimes love is expressed by what is left out - loving with respect, or even a very active "tough love." Sometimes there can be loving actions that do not "hit the mark." That is, my loving actions may be finely intentioned, but they are not received in the spirit I did the actions. This "missing" seems to occur more often if my own connection with myself is not so cleared out from what separates me from knowing myself, (and of course, compassionately loving myself,) and knowing what an action may mean for the other person. In Dialogue, we find out what someone means because they tell us how they are different from what we believe. Where else do we get the occasion to find this out about people except in the long conversations of bonding and courting? My experience is that, as I can love without attachment, I keep less of an idea about what my love is supposed to result in - so it's a sort of inoculation against disappointment by releasing any investment or expectation of results. Also that seems to nip in the bud most of the unsavory reactions of love such as hate, revenge, etc. Same as in freeing expectations of results in Dialogue; when you dialogue with an expectation, you're only going to get what you expect at best. The other emotions love is mixed in with seem to color its expression. One of the things that I have learned from Dialogue is, for me, reciprocity seems to be an essential ingredient of a loving relationship. I seem to choose people with whom I have some sort of a gesture of give and take to express my love in ongoing actions of devotion, connection, generosity, (and hopefully, my own probably too-often-suspended honest needs.) For me an essential ingredient in love and connection is reciprocal giving and receiving, people who can both give and receive graciously. I've learned that this priority in me is not true for everyone. However, I've found enough people who have this ideal of reciprocity to share it with them, and to hide it's "necessity" in myself so that I had to discover it in me. My convictions about giving and receiving has circumstantially excluded from becoming closer to me those who don’t feel this way, of course. This also led me to watch how I have seemed to categorize giving and receiving into generalized "appropriate" situations...but that's another post... Let me say that doing this investigation about what seemed to be an essential ingredient of how I express wholeness of loving in reciprocity has been of much emotional benefit for me - and for others who now get the the resulting capacity of mine to give a whole lot more often without feeling depleted. Franis On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> writes: > Rogier et al, > > This brings to mind some points about dialogue. > There is a certain amount of trust in the process. Just as when don > replies to kathryn it is not only for her, when someone's message is > not explicitly replied to, then it does not mean it is lost or > unacknowledged. That is not to say that we couldn't do better about > acknowledging each other which could act as a catalyst for all sorts > of things, namely being more fully ourselves, which I believe > energetically liberates others to do the same. In dialogue, the > words and tacit aspects weave themselves into a flow of meaning. And > then we all know this isn't exactly dialogue even though some of us > may at times embody the spirit (of dialogue). > > The paradox of love of which you speak is a perfect example of our > human form infused with an unlimited and divine nature. Both limited > and infinite, spoken and unspoken, growth and decay, etc. > > This quote reminds me of the reciprocity and interdependence of all > that is. So even if someone else believes that a human form > manifestation is limited and a part, that makes it no more > negligible than absolutely everything else that exists...or no more > important. Can we come to terms with our paradoxical nature and the > perfection illustrated by each of us in the midst of our seemingly > imperfect forms? :) That is the question for me: how do we embrace > two opposing movements? One moment at a time....and maybe the line > between "duality" is not so clear any more. > > Thank you Rogier (and everyone!) ;) > love for real, > kari > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rogier Gregoire <gregoire@mindspring.com> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:41:09 PM > Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 > The Indivisible Whole > > > I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call > it a dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this > community to come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral > and at the same time too precise to easily fit into the > epistemological effort to embrace David Bohms pronouncements. I > once, not long ago, posted the following paradigm as a premise with > the hope that some would find time or interest to respond or react > to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm by > Meher Baba as originally posted: > > > We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of > individuals, who have no existence except as manifestations of the > whole; as the whole, on the other hand, has no existence except as > manifested in them. > > > And the Corollary: > > It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others > which alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the > universe (the whole). > > > Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a > universal experience that can be discussed or named. Love is > certainly the least available experience to such a quest and to even > consider such an ephemeral but universal emotion as the key to > understanding confounds the participants on this list serve. In > passing let me say that love, as an experience, reflects the > inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral nature > of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the > game of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. > > > I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to > add my view of it and would like His statement considered rather > than to trouble yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be > flattered by some recognition of this posting. > Rogier Gregoire > From w at david-bohm.net Sun Oct 29 12:26:19 2006 From: w at david-bohm.net (william) Date: Mon Oct 30 13:28:01 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole References: <C00D8D6A-19B3-4CD5-BC45-D984914B3CE2@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <45448FDB.000001.05588@VAIO-584793128F> From: Don Factor >...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. william: other explanations are thinkable. It might be quite possible that different people at different places come up with the same thing at the same time not because of some mysterious non-local connection between them but because they have been unfolding the same thing at the same without knowing about each other. Such a process of unfoldment may have started simultaneously some time ago perhaps because of some seemingly unrelated event or development. These multiple processes may eventually have explicated independently of each other at the same time, thus giving rise to the suspicion that there must have been some mysterious form of communication between them, but this is not necessarily the case. The final result was implied from the beginning without anybody knowing it yet. >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 to 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 always been keen >to attack and deny any suggestion that such connections can >exist. It;s a paradigm thing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061029/9b0b16f1/attachment.html From franis_franis at juno.com Sun Oct 29 12:38:00 2006 From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel) Date: Mon Oct 30 13:44:35 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole Message-ID: <20061029.033801.1828.0.franis_franis@juno.com> But there is a lot >of research on "distant viewing" a lot to 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 always been keen >to attack and deny any suggestion that such connections can >exist. It's a paradigm thing. I believe it's called "remote viewing." It's a skill that allows someone to visualize a place at a certain time - even in the future. The idea came from the ability of some people to dream they are flying and seem to be able to look at what they're flying by with a degree of factual application beyond their ability to know anything about what they can see. I hear that mostly you have to be able to receive impressions without superimposing your ideas/images on intrpreting what you are seeing, so it takes that certain skill of visual suspension. Franis From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Oct 29 12:56:53 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Mon Oct 30 13:58:28 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <45448FDB.000001.05588@VAIO-584793128F> References: <C00D8D6A-19B3-4CD5-BC45-D984914B3CE2@donfactor.demon.co.uk> <45448FDB.000001.05588@VAIO-584793128F> Message-ID: <C2844AD3-BD09-44FB-998A-771193D43F92@donfactor.demon.co.uk> I think that calling the synchronisities a mysterious force, is indicative of a presupposition that locality, i.e. separateness, is fundamental. This is the self-world-view that most of us grew up with. But in recent times a lot of research has shown that we would do better to think of the world as fundamentally non-local and not just at the quantum level. I referenced some links to this in a recent post. It would appear that some of Bohm's suggestions about a holographic universe, non-locality and the primacy of information (meaning) have suddenly come back into fashion. Sadly, none of what I have read has credited Bohm or even mentioned him. Nevertheless, I think that one could probably graph the way aspects and emergent necessities within the general culture (culture=shared meanings: Bohm) leads different researchers to work on the same problems and to come up with similar ideas, not due to finding out about them by reading, etc. but by way of simply being parts the same culture of shared meaning. This can be viewed as more than coincidental and gives evidence of a deeper connection within, at the very least, a given culture. But we are not only members of a given culture. We are also part of the whole of humanity and that particular whole or sub- whole, is part of a larger ecosystem without which it could not survive and that is a part of, etc. etc. etc. don On 29 Oct 2006, at 11:26, william wrote: > william: other explanations are thinkable. It might be quite > possible that different people at different places come up with the > same thing at the same time not because of some mysterious non- > local connection between them but because they have been unfolding > the same thing at the same without knowing about each other. Such > a process of unfoldment may have started simultaneously some time > ago perhaps because of some seemingly unrelated event or > development. These multiple processes may eventually have > explicated independently of each other at the same time, thus > giving rise to the suspicion that there must have been some > mysterious form of communication between them, but this is not > necessarily the case. The final result was implied from the > beginning without anybody knowing it yet. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061029/34fd2b1a/attachment.html From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Sun Oct 29 13:41:52 2006 From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com) Date: Mon Oct 30 14:43:31 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <20061030110002.865FF2430E@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org> Message-ID: <OFF7F914CB.1944FFA3-ON85257216.004313F0-85257216.0045C085@dialogos.com> Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. The irrelevance to your question is highlighted in the quiry; Is the sky a whole range of OTHER colors besides the ones visible to the human eye? Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably identical to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is included in her composite of countless aspects, each one influencing how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self-image etc. So I would say Lynne is not only identical to, but immeasurably more than what you see._R . From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> . dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think when I say Lynne? . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061029/dc5ceab1/attachment.html From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Sun Oct 29 13:51:41 2006 From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com) Date: Mon Oct 30 14:53:17 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <20061030110002.865FF2430E@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org> Message-ID: <OF3CB145AA.49133E69-ON85257216.0046534E-85257216.0046A675@dialogos.com> Rodger __The paradox; who is using what? Whether jargon or clearer language lead us to fossils or new meaning, it mainly relates to the persons intent._R . From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org . It seems to me that the use of jargon fossilizes meaning. . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061029/c291eb26/attachment.html From oenthomas at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 15:04:28 2006 From: oenthomas at gmail.com (Owen Thomas) Date: Mon Oct 30 16:05:59 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <E40175CF-E1F7-4BD7-BF7B-6F5DC38D2106@mindspring.com> References: <20061029110003.243C8242D7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org> <E40175CF-E1F7-4BD7-BF7B-6F5DC38D2106@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1dde854d0610290604j25cc3eaj8bacd5eaf7909f94@mail.gmail.com> Rogier, I also sit on the periphery after attempting to explain success in Dialogue in my home town of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. This list is not willing to acknowledge our name "Unity in Diversity" as being a key to dialogue. Bohm was so resistant to rules that this group refuses to consider Love or even our guides in Mexico for respectful writing (an approach to love). The list does not even respect a theme and if you wish to communicate with me it is necessary to email my address to avoid disruption by independent egos. On 10/28/06, Rogier Gregoire <gregoire@mindspring.com> wrote: > > I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it a > dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community to > come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same time > too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace David > Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following paradigm as > a premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to respond or > react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm by > Meher Baba as originally posted: > We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals, who > have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole, on > the other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them. > > And the Corollary: > > It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others which > alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the > whole). > > Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a universal > experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least > available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an ephemeral > but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the participants > on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience, > reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral > nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the game > of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. > > I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add my > view of it and would like His statement considered rather than to trouble > yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some > recognition of this posting. > Rogier Gregoire > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > -- We are connected Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061029/0047a8d2/attachment.html From donlay at gte.net Sun Oct 29 15:28:33 2006 From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay) Date: Mon Oct 30 16:30:37 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole References: <OFF7F914CB.1944FFA3-ON85257216.004313F0-85257216.0045C085@dialogos.com> Message-ID: <006801c6fb66$899cabe0$7755153f@DL01> Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. Don L: I suspect no one or no thingk is limited to what just thought, to just a mechanical system. It seems demaning to treat people as if they are only what I think they are. My sense is that people, as any region of the universe, are not identical to a thought or social system; that ultimately, it is can be demaning to those identified, especially if the identification, personification is mechanical. -- dbl http://home1.gte.net/donlay ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:41 AM Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. The irrelevance to your question is highlighted in the quiry; Is the sky a whole range of OTHER colors besides the ones visible to the human eye? Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably identical to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is included in her composite of countless aspects, each one influencing how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self-image etc. So I would say Lynne is not only identical to, but immeasurably more than what you see._R . From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> . dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think when I say Lynne? . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20061029/ccae6c65/attachment.html From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 29 16:49:23 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Mon Oct 30 17:51:00 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <OF3CB145AA.49133E69-ON85257216.0046534E-85257216.0046A675@dialogos.com> Message-ID: <BAY22-F69EECEDEB6743954F8030A5FB0@phx.gbl> it mainly relates to the persons intent. It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough. k >From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 07:51:41 -0500 > > > > > > >Rodger __The paradox; who is using what? Whether jargon or clearer language >lead us to fossils or new meaning, it mainly relates to the persons >intent._R >. >From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> >Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >. >It seems to me that the use of jargon fossilizes meaning. >. >_______________________________________________ >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 > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 29 17:04:05 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Mon Oct 30 18:05:41 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <1dde854d0610290604j25cc3eaj8bacd5eaf7909f94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <BAY22-F20E08F994E722204796215A5FB0@phx.gbl> Please set me straight if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing from both of you is anger at the group. Is there some way to work through that to get at deeper meaning? k >From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,Issue 29 The >Indivisible Whole >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:04:28 -1200 > >Rogier, >I also sit on the periphery after attempting to explain success in Dialogue >in my home town of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. This list is not willing >to acknowledge our name "Unity in Diversity" as being a key to dialogue. >Bohm was so resistant to rules that this group refuses to consider Love or >even our guides in Mexico for respectful writing (an approach to love). The >list does not even respect a theme and if you wish to communicate with me >it >is necessary to email my address to avoid disruption by independent egos. > >On 10/28/06, Rogier Gregoire <gregoire@mindspring.com> wrote: >> >>I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it a >>dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community to >>come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same >>time >>too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace David >>Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following paradigm >>as >>a premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to respond >>or >>react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm by >>Meher Baba as originally posted: >>We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals, who >>have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole, on >>the other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them. >> >>And the Corollary: >> >>It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others which >>alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the >>whole). >> >>Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a universal >>experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least >>available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an >>ephemeral >>but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the >>participants >>on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience, >>reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral >>nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the >>game >>of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. >> >>I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add my >>view of it and would like His statement considered rather than to trouble >>yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some >>recognition of this posting. >>Rogier Gregoire >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> > > >-- >We are connected > >Owen >_______________________________________________ >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 > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 29 17:17:17 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Mon Oct 30 18:18:56 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] dialog vs conversation Message-ID: <BAY22-F23C89ED9A1E09628CDFC3AA5FB0@phx.gbl> Below are dictionary definitions. The only difference I see is the use of the words "formal" and "informal". And we just discussed the use of language. Obviously, Bohm dialog has a purpose - to uncover and examine underlying assumptions and share meanings to get at deeper meaning - without coming to a conclusion about the topic under discussion - the point is to be aware of the process. It seems to me that except for the "formal" & "informal" part, and possibly the uncovering and examining of underlying assumptions at times, we do engage in dialog. As for "following a thread" or topic or theme, we also do that. Everyone may not participate, but I think that all who have something to say on a particular topic do participate. If not, I'd be interested in hearing why not. If I have missed something, please fill in the gaps. Thanks, k di·a·logue or di·a·log n 2. a formal discussion or negotiation, especially between opposing sides in a political or international context 3. talk of any kind between two or more people (formal) vi to take part in a conversation, discussion, or negotiation Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. conversation – an informal talk with somebody, especially about opinions, ideas, feelings _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Oct 29 17:27:40 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Mon Oct 30 18:29:15 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] love Message-ID: <BAY22-F23916C1515AB806F9FAD0DA5FB0@phx.gbl> Yes, Franis, a single word is inadequate to talk about love. And I loved reading your post. Love has been a major theme in all expressions of life, art (all the arts) - absolutely everything - probably for longer than history can reach back. It seems to me that people have much less trouble talking about it than actually practicing it - in any or all of its forms. And here, I have no lack of words and experience to illustrate my meaning. There is just too much, and it is too personal. I simply wonder if love will ever be safe or possible in a competitive society. Love and Hozhoon, k _________________________________________________________________ Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Oct 29 19:12:27 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Mon Oct 30 20:14:03 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] love In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F23916C1515AB806F9FAD0DA5FB0@phx.gbl> References: <BAY22-F23916C1515AB806F9FAD0DA5FB0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <DE7EA1D7-55F8-44AF-BC64-34E55CD0DF4A@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Well, I have to say that love is another one of that group of words that include, meaning and being, and are all indefinable except that we all know what they mean. Dialogue, on the other hand has a few definitions and the one that interests most of us here is Bohm's version which, as K suggests, is both informal and about something more subtle than the topic that happens to be under consideration. When we decided to publish Dialogue - A proposal, it was Bohm's idea to include this epigraph: ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ***** We are proposing a kind of collective inquiry not only into the content of what each of us says, thinks and feels but also into the underlying motivations, assumptions and beliefs that lead us to do so. ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ****** My own view is that each of us is free to treat the content of their own posts and those of others as material for just this sort of inquiry. Conclusions are not required only an openness to the possibility of gaining increased insight into the workings of human thought. Anything else is gravy. don On 29 Oct 2006, at 16:27, Morgan Jett wrote: > > Yes, Franis, a single word is inadequate to talk about love. And I > loved reading your post. > > Love has been a major theme in all expressions of life, art (all > the arts) - absolutely everything - probably for longer than > history can reach back. It seems to me that people have much less > trouble talking about it than actually practicing it - in any or > all of its forms. And here, I have no lack of words and experience > to illustrate my meaning. There is just too much, and it is too > personal. > > I simply wonder if love will ever be safe or possible in a > competitive society. > > Love and Hozhoon, k > > _________________________________________________________________ > Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your > cash with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/ > default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 29 19:20:15 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Mon Oct 30 20:22:35 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] love In-Reply-To: <DE7EA1D7-55F8-44AF-BC64-34E55CD0DF4A@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <BAY22-F5F46A7FF0949F8AE43DCCA5FB0@phx.gbl> Thanks for the clarification, Don. I am on the list because this is what I want to do, and because I thought that was the point. 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] love >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:12:27 +0000 > >Well, I have to say that love is another one of that group of words that >include, meaning and being, and are all indefinable except that we all >know what they mean. Dialogue, on the other hand has a few definitions and >the one that interests most of us here is Bohm's version which, as K >suggests, is both informal and about something more subtle than the topic >that happens to be under consideration. > >When we decided to publish Dialogue - A proposal, it was Bohm's idea to >include this epigraph: >************************************************************************ >************************************************************************ >***** >We are proposing a kind of collective inquiry not only into the content of >what each of us says, thinks and feels but also into the underlying >motivations, assumptions and beliefs that lead us to do so. >************************************************************************ >************************************************************************ >****** >My own view is that each of us is free to treat the content of their own >posts and those of others as material for just this sort of inquiry. >Conclusions are not required only an openness to the possibility of >gaining increased insight into the workings of human thought. Anything >else is gravy. > >don > >On 29 Oct 2006, at 16:27, Morgan Jett wrote: > >> >>Yes, Franis, a single word is inadequate to talk about love. And I loved >>reading your post. >> >>Love has been a major theme in all expressions of life, art (all the >>arts) - absolutely everything - probably for longer than history can >>reach back. It seems to me that people have much less trouble talking >>about it than actually practicing it - in any or all of its forms. And >>here, I have no lack of words and experience to illustrate my meaning. >>There is just too much, and it is too personal. >> >>I simply wonder if love will ever be safe or possible in a competitive >>society. >> >>Love and Hozhoon, k >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash >>with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/ >>default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline >> >>_______________________________________________ >>info: >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >>dialogue facilitator: >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>admin@david-bohm.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ From w at david-bohm.net Sun Oct 29 22:38:55 2006 From: w at david-bohm.net (william) Date: Mon Oct 30 23:40:33 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole References: <006801c6fb66$899cabe0$7755153f@DL01> Message-ID: <45451F6F.000003.01404@VAIO-584793128F> >Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably identical >to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is >included in her composite of countless aspects, each one influencing >how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self-image etc. So I would >say Lynne is not only identical to, but immeasurably more than what >you see._R This looks like a significant insight to me. It's another way of saying that identity is a form of attribution. I tend to agree that a person is what you and me and everybody else thinks of it. If nobody thinks anything then there would be no such person. So, attribution is the key factor. People are what everybody else think of them. Thought is the creator of identity. And therefore the image is of utmost importance. I think, almost everybody grasps this significance intuitively, and "acts/pretends" accordingly, and quite rightly so... william -------Original Message------- From: Don Lay Date: 29.10.2006 15:29:10 To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. Don L: I suspect no one or no thingk is limited to what just thought, to just a mechanical system. It seems demaning to treat people as if they are only what I think they are. My sense is that people, as any region of the universe, are not identical to a thought or social system; that ultimately, it is can be demaning to those identified, especially if the identification, personification is mechanical. -- dbl http://home1.gte.net/donlay ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:41 AM Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. The irrelevance to your question is highlighted in the quiry; Is the sky a whole range of OTHER colors besides the ones visible to the human eye? Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably identical to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is included in her composite of countless aspects, each one influencing how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self-image etc. So I would say Lynne is not only identical to, but immeasurably more than what you see._R . From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> . dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think when I say Lynne? . . _______________________________________________ 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/20061029/dd6f0894/attachment.html