From donlay at knology.net Fri Nov 30 01:25:31 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 30 01:27:51 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <001901c83298$5ee0fcc0$b5c16018@DL01>
<474F40D3.000001.00128@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <006a01c832e7$84e1bdc0$b5c16018@DL01>
Sorry! Actually, I may be getting close.
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>W: Is there any chance you will finish this "work" any time soon?
>
>dl: I hope not. -- dl
Oh no! (big sigh of desperation)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071129/e4aa9dd1/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 01:52:55 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Nov 30 01:55:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F>
<C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
I accepted that long ago.
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what
"I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of
global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue as
prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The
propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with
the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm
applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I
don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he
hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated.
Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order
is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into
the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And
for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't
consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be
asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I
shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is illusory"
> because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an unbroken
> whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an
> individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from
> more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up
> with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which
> are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together.
> Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
>
> Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far as I
> am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and so
> both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's ideas
> about virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do exist at
> once. What good would computers be without the virtual reality that is a
> part of them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest =
> explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order does not
> meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of
> "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at the same
> time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
>
> For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted that
> long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the
> implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said
> the explicate unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more
> attention to what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that
> order works. And I would guess that the mind is part of the
> implicate/virtual (mind as opposed to brain).
>
> Susan
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:10 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
>
> On 28 Nov 2007, at 20:21, william wrote:
>
> >What Bohm appears to be saying in the bits that you and'or Pat, have
> quoted and
> >commented on is that TAS deludes us into thinking that there is someone
> "in there,
> >doing the willing, the thinking and the acting (acting in both senses of
> the word).
> >And that the belief that there is someone "in there" doing it is wrong
> and leaves us
> >having to act and pretend that it is true while actually it is just a
> mechanical process
> >called TAS that is doing it. If that is the case, then what good is
> proprioception and
> >dialogue, for that matter, if it is all TAS.? What might the difference
> be - that is, what
> >would it be like - if it was me doing it rather than TAS? How would that
> be experienced
> >as being different? Or is such, in this sort of model, even possible?
>
> Well, what do you feel about these questions yourself? Any suggestions
> coming from you?
>
>
> Well, for me, the model is incomplete in the sense that what is left out
> might change its entire meaning. I am not certain that I can say just what
> the missing link might be, but I can say that there must be some aspect of
> the whole system that when it is included, can make the apparent incoherence
> that you and I and a few others have commented on come together into a more
> meaningful whole.
> What occurs to me, at a very simple level, and this probably sounds like a
> cliche, is that we tend to look at the system in terms of "either-or" rather
> than "both-and" terms. It is widely acknowledged that the human mind is
> constructed in such a way that in order to think or reflect or consider
> anything, it has to break it into parts. This is the easy part. But then
> putting those parts back together again is where it gets tricky. So we find
> ourselves saying things like, "the self is illusory" because there is a
> point of view that says we are all parts of an unbroken whole therefore
> their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an individual self. But if,
> we take the trouble to look at the question from more than a single
> perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up with an explicate
> order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which are actual and
> necessary but cannot really be made manifest together. Actually, you can't,
> make the implicate manifest at all. I mean, we may know that at a
> microscopic level, a table is more empty space than solid wood, but that
> doesn't mean that the table is only an illusion. This reminds me of that
> American General who was in charge of a Special Ops group studying studying
> psi phenomena, who 'knew" that if he could achieve the right state of
> consciousness he could walk right through a solid wall. So far as I know, he
> never succeeded even though the wall, at the microscopic level was mostly
> empty space and so was he.
>
> don
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071129/1b4f8376/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 30 02:15:03 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 30 02:17:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of global problems.
I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is correct and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is instantly made available to others. So I'm not so quick to invalidate the importance and impact of an individuals thoughts.
At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to work with the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of creating some observable changes in the near future. But I do think what is being discussed here is an important aspect of that. My own personal thinking in this area is that for radical results to occur the general public will need to change from their outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is for science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the source.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I accepted that long ago.
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue as prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated. Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together. Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far as I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and so both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's ideas about virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do exist at once. What good would computers be without the virtual reality that is a part of them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest = explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order does not meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at the same time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted that long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said the explicate unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more attention to what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that order works. And I would guess that the mind is part of the implicate/virtual (mind as opposed to brain).
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071129/c4c2fb0e/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Fri Nov 30 02:37:02 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 30 02:39:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <007e01c832f1$81e49ed0$b5c16018@DL01>
If Maturana is correct and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is instantly made available to others. -- Susan
It interesting to speculate about the possible mechanics might be by which one man becomes aware of another's thought. It might be that women would have some insight into that before men. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of global problems.
I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is correct and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is instantly made available to others. So I'm not so quick to invalidate the importance and impact of an individuals thoughts.
At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to work with the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of creating some observable changes in the near future. But I do think what is being discussed here is an important aspect of that. My own personal thinking in this area is that for radical results to occur the general public will need to change from their outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is for science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the source.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I accepted that long ago.
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue as prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated. Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together. Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far as I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and so both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's ideas about virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do exist at once. What good would computers be without the virtual reality that is a part of them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest = explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order does not meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at the same time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted that long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said the explicate unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more attention to what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that order works. And I would guess that the mind is part of the implicate/virtual (mind as opposed to brain).
Susan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071129/dfa6b9ca/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 02:46:59 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Nov 30 02:49:19 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F>
<C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com>
I: Lots of people have suggested there is a collective consciousness. A
suggestion isn't enough to validate a theory. My point is, we need to
examine whether or not, why and how of BD's effectiveness. Not to mention
setting it in the context of current global issues. An individual's
thoughts are important and necessary to the individual, because s/he has to
cope with living on a daily basis. There are topics and subtopics galore
here.
If you want to start with collective consciousness, let's ask what the
difference between that and social meanings is. And prior to that, we have
to come to an understanding of what consciousness is. That's still up for
grabs.
On Nov 29, 2007 8:15 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that
> what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors
> of global problems.
>
> I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is correct
> and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work
> suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is
> instantly made available to others. So I'm not so quick to invalidate the
> importance and impact of an individuals thoughts.
>
> At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to work with
> the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of creating some observable
> changes in the near future. But I do think what is being discussed here is
> an important aspect of that. My own personal thinking in this area is that
> for radical results to occur the general public will need to change from
> their outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is for
> science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the source.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I accepted that long ago.
>
> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that
> what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors
> of global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue
> as prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The
> propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with
> the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm
> applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I
> don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he
> hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated.
> Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order
> is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into
> the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And
> for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't
> consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
>
> This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be
> asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I
> shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is
> > illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an
> > unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an
> > individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from
> > more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up
> > with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which
> > are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together.
> > Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
> >
> > Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far as
> > I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and so
> > both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's ideas
> > about virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do exist at
> > once. What good would computers be without the virtual reality that is a
> > part of them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest =
> > explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order does not
> > meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of
> > "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at the same
> > time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
> >
> > For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted that
> > long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the
> > implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said
> > the explicate unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more
> > attention to what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that
> > order works. And I would guess that the mind is part of the
> > implicate/virtual (mind as opposed to brain).
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071129/362c4fb8/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 30 04:04:49 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 30 04:07:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME>
As far as I can tell Maturana has done much more than just suggest a collective conscious. The Gaia Theory is a scientific theory based on Maturana's theories. Although the scientific community in the US has mostly ignored it (without denying it) his theories are very popular in the rest of the world and are being worked with. Maturana's definition of consciousness is very much a part of that and has been quite accepted within a large part of the scientific community especially outside of the US.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: Lots of people have suggested there is a collective consciousness. A suggestion isn't enough to validate a theory. My point is, we need to examine whether or not, why and how of BD's effectiveness. Not to mention setting it in the context of current global issues. An individual's thoughts are important and necessary to the individual, because s/he has to cope with living on a daily basis. There are topics and subtopics galore here.
If you want to start with collective consciousness, let's ask what the difference between that and social meanings is. And prior to that, we have to come to an understanding of what consciousness is. That's still up for grabs.
On Nov 29, 2007 8:15 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of global problems.
I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is correct and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is instantly made available to others. So I'm not so quick to invalidate the importance and impact of an individuals thoughts.
At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to work with the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of creating some observable changes in the near future. But I do think what is being discussed here is an important aspect of that. My own personal thinking in this area is that for radical results to occur the general public will need to change from their outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is for science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the source.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I accepted that long ago.
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue as prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated. Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together. Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far as I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and so both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's ideas about virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do exist at once. What good would computers be without the virtual reality that is a part of them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest = explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order does not meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at the same time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted that long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said the explicate unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more attention to what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that order works. And I would guess that the mind is part of the implicate/virtual (mind as opposed to brain).
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071129/dcc7db88/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 30 11:47:18 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 30 11:49:45 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <007e01c832f1$81e49ed0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<007e01c832f1$81e49ed0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <3F0D11E0-E93A-4791-B664-F878ABE80715@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> It might be that women would have some insight into that before
> men. -- dl
>
Here is where your Greeks might come in. Have you ever read
Lysistrata by Aristophanes? If it could have worked back then, why
not now?
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 01:37, Don Lay wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From: Susan Clemons
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is
> that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem
> the horrors of global problems.
>
> I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is
> correct and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness,
> which his work suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of
> the collective and is instantly made available to others. So I'm
> not so quick to invalidate the importance and impact of an
> individuals thoughts.
>
> At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to
> work with the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of
> creating some observable changes in the near future. But I do
> think what is being discussed here is an important aspect of that.
> My own personal thinking in this area is that for radical results
> to occur the general public will need to change from their outer
> cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is for
> science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the source.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Irene Darcy
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I accepted that long ago.
>
> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is
> that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem
> the horrors of global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem
> to me that dialogue as prescribed and developed by K&DB is
> sufficient into itself. Why? The propositions can be myriad. But
> until and unless we who are acquainted with the process examine
> said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm applied to
> everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I
> don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I
> think he hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are
> all annihilated. Changing myself, and it eventually having an
> effect in the Generative Order is not working. And if the world
> and all in it vanish and are consumed into the Generative Order,
> we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And for those who
> need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't
> consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
>
> This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat
> may be asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I
> hope so. I shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
> Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is
> illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all
> parts of an unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such
> isolated phenomenon as an individual self. But if, we take the
> trouble to look at the question from more than a single perspective
> - a "both and" perspective - we can come up with an explicate
> order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which are
> actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together.
> Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
>
> Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as
> far as I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist
> at once and so both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I
> think William's ideas about virtuality take care of this very well
> and show how both do exist at once. What good would computers be
> without the virtual reality that is a part of them? The same seems
> true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest = explicate order.
> But the fact that there is an explicate order does not meant that
> the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of
> "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at
> the same time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
>
> For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted
> that long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote
> for the implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be
> saying when he said the explicate unfolds from the implicate.
> This, to me means paying far more attention to what kind of order
> exists within the implicate and how that order works. And I would
> guess that the mind is part of the implicate/virtual (mind as
> opposed to brain).
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/412a86cd/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 30 12:19:48 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 30 12:22:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com>
<00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I'm afraid that neither Gaia theory, Maturana, nor Bohm has had much
support from the scientific community inside or outside the US. They
have fairly wide spread support from environmentalists, religious and
spiritual thinkers and some artists plus, of course, people like us.
But I am not certain how to define that last group. But science is a
world unto itself. It has its own high priests and fixed purposes and
even its own palace guard.
Take consciousness, for example. The scientific community is
interested primarily in the material side of the question and the
most highly regarded philosophers of mind work from materialist
premises. Science is based on "evidence" which is narrowly defined by
certain types of experiment. The idea of a universal consciousness,
know in the trade as panpsychism, is scoffed at. This is one of the
things that Bohm and probably Maturana are accused of. Ideas like
Jung's collective unconscious or a cultural consciousness of shared
meaning, or Rupert Sheldrake's formative causation are all pretty
much ignored by big science and the foundations that fund it all.
Which is why, Bohm said that, if dialogue was to get anywhere it had
to grow as a grass roots sort of enterprise. And here there is
something of a beginning. Not in any formal sense but thinking of
dialogue as an attitude. The problem may be that it isn't growing
fast enough. And that may be caused by the underlying assumptions
that tacitly rule Western culture.
On this last topic Bohm said that for over two hundred years the
common belief from science on down had it that the world was made up
of a lot of separate things - billiard balls bouncing off of one
another. And that idea burrowed deeply into the common consciousness,
or value system of the wes - early on. We could say it is all
Newton's fault, although he didn't like it either. Anyway, this idea,
supported by our senses, in this medium sized domain of awareness
that Bohm called the explicate order, has been difficult to shift. So
there is still more work to be done.
And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 03:04, Susan Clemons wrote:
> As far as I can tell Maturana has done much more than just suggest
> a collective conscious. The Gaia Theory is a scientific theory
> based on Maturana's theories. Although the scientific community in
> the US has mostly ignored it (without denying it) his theories are
> very popular in the rest of the world and are being worked with.
> Maturana's definition of consciousness is very much a part of that
> and has been quite accepted within a large part of the scientific
> community especially outside of the US.
>
> Susan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Irene Darcy
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I: Lots of people have suggested there is a collective
> consciousness. A suggestion isn't enough to validate a theory.
> My point is, we need to examine whether or not, why and how of BD's
> effectiveness. Not to mention setting it in the context of current
> global issues. An individual's thoughts are important and
> necessary to the individual, because s/he has to cope with living
> on a daily basis. There are topics and subtopics galore here.
>
> If you want to start with collective consciousness, let's ask what
> the difference between that and social meanings is. And prior to
> that, we have to come to an understanding of what consciousness
> is. That's still up for grabs.
>
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 8:15 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is
> that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem
> the horrors of global problems.
>
> I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is
> correct and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness,
> which his work suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of
> the collective and is instantly made available to others. So I'm
> not so quick to invalidate the importance and impact of an
> individuals thoughts.
>
> At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to
> work with the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of
> creating some observable changes in the near future. But I do
> think what is being discussed here is an important aspect of that.
> My own personal thinking in this area is that for radical results
> to occur the general public will need to change from their outer
> cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is for
> science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the source.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Irene Darcy
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I accepted that long ago.
>
> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is
> that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem
> the horrors of global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem
> to me that dialogue as prescribed and developed by K&DB is
> sufficient into itself. Why? The propositions can be myriad. But
> until and unless we who are acquainted with the process examine
> said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm applied to
> everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I
> don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I
> think he hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are
> all annihilated. Changing myself, and it eventually having an
> effect in the Generative Order is not working. And if the world
> and all in it vanish and are consumed into the Generative Order,
> we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And for those who
> need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't
> consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
>
> This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat
> may be asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I
> hope so. I shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
> Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is
> illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all
> parts of an unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such
> isolated phenomenon as an individual self. But if, we take the
> trouble to look at the question from more than a single perspective
> - a "both and" perspective - we can come up with an explicate
> order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which are
> actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together.
> Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
>
> Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as
> far as I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist
> at once and so both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I
> think William's ideas about virtuality take care of this very well
> and show how both do exist at once. What good would computers be
> without the virtual reality that is a part of them? The same seems
> true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest = explicate order.
> But the fact that there is an explicate order does not meant that
> the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of
> "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at
> the same time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
>
> For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted
> that long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote
> for the implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be
> saying when he said the explicate unfolds from the implicate.
> This, to me means paying far more attention to what kind of order
> exists within the implicate and how that order works. And I would
> guess that the mind is part of the implicate/virtual (mind as
> opposed to brain).
>
> Susan
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/0d4e5230/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 30 12:24:14 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 30 12:26:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com>
<00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME>
<31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <1E75CB57-AF6E-4845-8545-951EB6DB2044@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
And here is a nice quote I found in this morning's newspaper:
"Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder,
spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human
spirit." e.e. cummings (1894-19620
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:19, Don Factor wrote:
> I'm afraid that neither Gaia theory, Maturana, nor Bohm has had
> much support from the scientific community inside or outside the
> US. They have fairly wide spread support from environmentalists,
> religious and spiritual thinkers and some artists plus, of course,
> people like us. But I am not certain how to define that last group.
> But science is a world unto itself. It has its own high priests and
> fixed purposes and even its own palace guard.
>
> Take consciousness, for example. The scientific community is
> interested primarily in the material side of the question and the
> most highly regarded philosophers of mind work from materialist
> premises. Science is based on "evidence" which is narrowly defined
> by certain types of experiment. The idea of a universal
> consciousness, know in the trade as panpsychism, is scoffed at.
> This is one of the things that Bohm and probably Maturana are
> accused of. Ideas like Jung's collective unconscious or a cultural
> consciousness of shared meaning, or Rupert Sheldrake's formative
> causation are all pretty much ignored by big science and the
> foundations that fund it all. Which is why, Bohm said that, if
> dialogue was to get anywhere it had to grow as a grass roots sort
> of enterprise. And here there is something of a beginning. Not in
> any formal sense but thinking of dialogue as an attitude. The
> problem may be that it isn't growing fast enough. And that may be
> caused by the underlying assumptions that tacitly rule Western
> culture.
>
> On this last topic Bohm said that for over two hundred years the
> common belief from science on down had it that the world was made
> up of a lot of separate things - billiard balls bouncing off of one
> another. And that idea burrowed deeply into the common
> consciousness, or value system of the wes - early on. We could say
> it is all Newton's fault, although he didn't like it either.
> Anyway, this idea, supported by our senses, in this medium sized
> domain of awareness that Bohm called the explicate order, has been
> difficult to shift. So there is still more work to be done.
>
> And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
>
> don
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 03:04, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>> As far as I can tell Maturana has done much more than just suggest
>> a collective conscious. The Gaia Theory is a scientific theory
>> based on Maturana's theories. Although the scientific community
>> in the US has mostly ignored it (without denying it) his theories
>> are very popular in the rest of the world and are being worked
>> with. Maturana's definition of consciousness is very much a part
>> of that and has been quite accepted within a large part of the
>> scientific community especially outside of the US.
>>
>> Susan
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Irene Darcy
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>
>> I: Lots of people have suggested there is a collective
>> consciousness. A suggestion isn't enough to validate a theory.
>> My point is, we need to examine whether or not, why and how of
>> BD's effectiveness. Not to mention setting it in the context of
>> current global issues. An individual's thoughts are important and
>> necessary to the individual, because s/he has to cope with living
>> on a daily basis. There are topics and subtopics galore here.
>>
>> If you want to start with collective consciousness, let's ask what
>> the difference between that and social meanings is. And prior to
>> that, we have to come to an understanding of what consciousness
>> is. That's still up for grabs.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2007 8:15 PM, Susan Clemons
>> <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is
>> that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to
>> stem the horrors of global problems.
>>
>> I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is
>> correct and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness,
>> which his work suggests, then everything we think becomes a part
>> of the collective and is instantly made available to others. So
>> I'm not so quick to invalidate the importance and impact of an
>> individuals thoughts.
>>
>> At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to
>> work with the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of
>> creating some observable changes in the near future. But I do
>> think what is being discussed here is an important aspect of
>> that. My own personal thinking in this area is that for radical
>> results to occur the general public will need to change from their
>> outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is
>> for science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the
>> source.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Irene Darcy
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>
>> I accepted that long ago.
>>
>> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is
>> that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to
>> stem the horrors of global problems. And in that light, it
>> doesn't seem to me that dialogue as prescribed and developed by
>> K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The propositions can be
>> myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with the
>> process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny
>> Bohm applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely
>> is futile. I don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical
>> effect. I think he hoped for a more 'explicate order', change
>> before we are all annihilated. Changing myself, and it eventually
>> having an effect in the Generative Order is not working. And if
>> the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into the
>> Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle.
>> And for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the
>> results weren't consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
>>
>> This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat
>> may be asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest.
>> I hope so. I shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons
>> <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is
>> illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all
>> parts of an unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such
>> isolated phenomenon as an individual self. But if, we take the
>> trouble to look at the question from more than a single
>> perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up with an
>> explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of
>> which are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest
>> together. Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
>>
>> Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as
>> far as I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist
>> at once and so both are "real" in the sense of having existence.
>> I think William's ideas about virtuality take care of this very
>> well and show how both do exist at once. What good would
>> computers be without the virtual reality that is a part of them?
>> The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest =
>> explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order
>> does not meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same
>> time. I think of "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and
>> explicate/manifest at the same time. So there is no need for the
>> idea of "illusion" at all.
>>
>> For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted
>> that long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote
>> for the implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be
>> saying when he said the explicate unfolds from the implicate.
>> This, to me means paying far more attention to what kind of order
>> exists within the implicate and how that order works. And I would
>> guess that the mind is part of the implicate/virtual (mind as
>> opposed to brain).
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/9b26f4ec/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 30 15:49:48 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 30 15:52:25 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com><00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME>
<31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002a01c83360$455981f0$b676480c@HOME>
Yes, I understand what you're saying Don. There is no support from the top guns in the scientific community as a whole on any of this. But I do think it has changed some in the last few years and from what I've read there is more acceptance outside the US for this type of theory than inside. The growth of the popularity of cognitive science is one indication that it's growing even here in the US. And I think you're correct, it's not growing fast enough to suit most of us. And I, of course, agree with the grass roots idea or I would never have joined this list to begin with.
The billiard ball theory is the belief in outer cause and effect and this is the main sticking point. That's why I feel it's important to look at the idea of "source". Learning to recognize that we have billiard ball thinking and learning to change that is at the heart of the issue imo.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I'm afraid that neither Gaia theory, Maturana, nor Bohm has had much support from the scientific community inside or outside the US. They have fairly wide spread support from environmentalists, religious and spiritual thinkers and some artists plus, of course, people like us. But I am not certain how to define that last group. But science is a world unto itself. It has its own high priests and fixed purposes and even its own palace guard.
Take consciousness, for example. The scientific community is interested primarily in the material side of the question and the most highly regarded philosophers of mind work from materialist premises. Science is based on "evidence" which is narrowly defined by certain types of experiment. The idea of a universal consciousness, know in the trade as panpsychism, is scoffed at. This is one of the things that Bohm and probably Maturana are accused of. Ideas like Jung's collective unconscious or a cultural consciousness of shared meaning, or Rupert Sheldrake's formative causation are all pretty much ignored by big science and the foundations that fund it all. Which is why, Bohm said that, if dialogue was to get anywhere it had to grow as a grass roots sort of enterprise. And here there is something of a beginning. Not in any formal sense but thinking of dialogue as an attitude. The problem may be that it isn't growing fast enough. And that may be caused by the underlying assumptions that tacitly rule Western culture.
On this last topic Bohm said that for over two hundred years the common belief from science on down had it that the world was made up of a lot of separate things - billiard balls bouncing off of one another. And that idea burrowed deeply into the common consciousness, or value system of the wes - early on. We could say it is all Newton's fault, although he didn't like it either. Anyway, this idea, supported by our senses, in this medium sized domain of awareness that Bohm called the explicate order, has been difficult to shift. So there is still more work to be done.
And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 03:04, Susan Clemons wrote:
As far as I can tell Maturana has done much more than just suggest a collective conscious. The Gaia Theory is a scientific theory based on Maturana's theories. Although the scientific community in the US has mostly ignored it (without denying it) his theories are very popular in the rest of the world and are being worked with. Maturana's definition of consciousness is very much a part of that and has been quite accepted within a large part of the scientific community especially outside of the US.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: Lots of people have suggested there is a collective consciousness. A suggestion isn't enough to validate a theory. My point is, we need to examine whether or not, why and how of BD's effectiveness. Not to mention setting it in the context of current global issues. An individual's thoughts are important and necessary to the individual, because s/he has to cope with living on a daily basis. There are topics and subtopics galore here.
If you want to start with collective consciousness, let's ask what the difference between that and social meanings is. And prior to that, we have to come to an understanding of what consciousness is. That's still up for grabs.
On Nov 29, 2007 8:15 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of global problems.
I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is correct and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is instantly made available to others. So I'm not so quick to invalidate the importance and impact of an individuals thoughts.
At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to work with the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of creating some observable changes in the near future. But I do think what is being discussed here is an important aspect of that. My own personal thinking in this area is that for radical results to occur the general public will need to change from their outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is for science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the source.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I accepted that long ago.
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue as prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated. Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together. Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far as I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and so both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's ideas about virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do exist at once. What good would computers be without the virtual reality that is a part of them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest = explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order does not meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at the same time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted that long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said the explicate unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more attention to what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that order works. And I would guess that the mind is part of the implicate/virtual (mind as opposed to brain).
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/a9cfa738/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 15:56:35 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Nov 30 15:59:02 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F>
<C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com>
<00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME>
<31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <c47283890711300656p427cb673s6ebfe2d480d8403d@mail.gmail.com>
And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
I: I know you would have, Don. Maybe the collaborative thinking of
dialogue could come a little closer.
As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
And while I respect the role of individual meaning, I believe that is where
we must not 'act & pretend'.
On Nov 30, 2007 6:19 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm afraid that neither Gaia theory, Maturana, nor Bohm has had much
> support from the scientific community inside or outside the US. They have
> fairly wide spread support from environmentalists, religious and spiritual
> thinkers and some artists plus, of course, people like us. But I am not
> certain how to define that last group. But science is a world unto itself.
> It has its own high priests and fixed purposes and even its own palace
> guard.
> Take consciousness, for example. The scientific community is interested
> primarily in the material side of the question and the most highly regarded
> philosophers of mind work from materialist premises. Science is based on
> "evidence" which is narrowly defined by certain types of experiment. The
> idea of a universal consciousness, know in the trade as panpsychism, is
> scoffed at. This is one of the things that Bohm and probably Maturana are
> accused of. Ideas like Jung's collective unconscious or a cultural
> consciousness of shared meaning, or Rupert Sheldrake's formative causation
> are all pretty much ignored by big science and the foundations that fund it
> all. Which is why, Bohm said that, if dialogue was to get anywhere it had to
> grow as a grass roots sort of enterprise. And here there is something of a
> beginning. Not in any formal sense but thinking of dialogue as an attitude.
> The problem may be that it isn't growing fast enough. And that may be caused
> by the underlying assumptions that tacitly rule Western culture.
>
> On this last topic Bohm said that for over two hundred years the common
> belief from science on down had it that the world was made up of a lot of
> separate things - billiard balls bouncing off of one another. And that idea
> burrowed deeply into the common consciousness, or value system of the wes -
> early on. We could say it is all Newton's fault, although he didn't like it
> either. Anyway, this idea, supported by our senses, in this medium sized
> domain of awareness that Bohm called the explicate order, has been difficult
> to shift. So there is still more work to be done.
>
> And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
>
> don
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 03:04, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell Maturana has done much more than just suggest a
> collective conscious. The Gaia Theory is a scientific theory based on
> Maturana's theories. Although the scientific community in the US has mostly
> ignored it (without denying it) his theories are very popular in the rest of
> the world and are being worked with. Maturana's definition of consciousness
> is very much a part of that and has been quite accepted within a large part
> of the scientific community especially outside of the US.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:46 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I: Lots of people have suggested there is a collective consciousness.
> A suggestion isn't enough to validate a theory. My point is, we need to
> examine whether or not, why and how of BD's effectiveness. Not to mention
> setting it in the context of current global issues. An individual's
> thoughts are important and necessary to the individual, because s/he has to
> cope with living on a daily basis. There are topics and subtopics galore
> here.
>
> If you want to start with collective consciousness, let's ask what the
> difference between that and social meanings is. And prior to that, we have
> to come to an understanding of what consciousness is. That's still up for
> grabs.
>
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 8:15 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that
> > what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors
> > of global problems.
> >
> > I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is correct
> > and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work
> > suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is
> > instantly made available to others. So I'm not so quick to invalidate the
> > importance and impact of an individuals thoughts.
> >
> > At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to work
> > with the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of creating some
> > observable changes in the near future. But I do think what is being
> > discussed here is an important aspect of that. My own personal thinking in
> > this area is that for radical results to occur the general public will need
> > to change from their outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to
> > happen is for science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the
> > source.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> >
> > I accepted that long ago.
> >
> > I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that
> > what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors
> > of global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue
> > as prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The
> > propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with
> > the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm
> > applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I
> > don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he
> > hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated.
> > Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order
> > is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into
> > the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And
> > for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't
> > consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
> >
> > This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be
> > asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I
> > shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is
> > > illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an
> > > unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an
> > > individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from
> > > more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up
> > > with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which
> > > are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together.
> > > Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
> > >
> > > Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far
> > > as I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and
> > > so both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's
> > > ideas about virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do
> > > exist at once. What good would computers be without the virtual reality
> > > that is a part of them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life.
> > > Manifest = explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order
> > > does not meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I
> > > think of "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at
> > > the same time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
> > >
> > > For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted
> > > that long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the
> > > implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said
> > > the explicate unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more
> > > attention to what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that
> > > order works. And I would guess that the mind is part of the
> > > implicate/virtual (mind as opposed to brain).
> > >
> > > Susan
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/b5498883/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 16:01:08 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:03:35 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <3F0D11E0-E93A-4791-B664-F878ABE80715@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F>
<C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<007e01c832f1$81e49ed0$b5c16018@DL01>
<3F0D11E0-E93A-4791-B664-F878ABE80715@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <c47283890711300701i4c1c631cq76acc80137b29eb6@mail.gmail.com>
I: All that may soon be obsolete. TV last night segmented a scientist in
California who is creating a new species of life in his DNA laboratory. He
claims the new species will cure the climate-global warming, pollution
problems.
On Nov 30, 2007 5:47 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> It might be that women would have some insight into that before men. --
> dl
>
>
>
> Here is where your Greeks might come in. Have you ever read Lysistrata by
> Aristophanes? If it could have worked back then, why not now?
> don
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 01:37, Don Lay wrote:
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:15 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that
> what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors
> of global problems.
>
> I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is correct
> and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work
> suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is
> instantly made available to others. So I'm not so quick to invalidate the
> importance and impact of an individuals thoughts.
>
> At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to work with
> the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of creating some observable
> changes in the near future. But I do think what is being discussed here is
> an important aspect of that. My own personal thinking in this area is that
> for radical results to occur the general public will need to change from
> their outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is for
> science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the source.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I accepted that long ago.
>
> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that
> what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors
> of global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue
> as prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The
> propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with
> the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm
> applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I
> don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he
> hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated.
> Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order
> is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into
> the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And
> for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't
> consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
>
> This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be
> asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I
> shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is
> > illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an
> > unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an
> > individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from
> > more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up
> > with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which
> > are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together.
> > Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
> >
> > Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far as
> > I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and so
> > both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's ideas
> > about virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do exist at
> > once. What good would computers be without the virtual reality that is a
> > part of them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest =
> > explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order does not
> > meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of
> > "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at the same
> > time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
> >
> > For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted that
> > long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the
> > implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said
> > the explicate unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more
> > attention to what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that
> > order works. And I would guess that the mind is part of the
> > implicate/virtual (mind as opposed to brain).
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/b0ffbbdb/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 30 16:13:57 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:16:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com><00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME><31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<c47283890711300656p427cb673s6ebfe2d480d8403d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004801c83363$a1f50f30$b676480c@HOME>
I: As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
I think it's possible that this could be as much of a part of billiard ball thinking (acting and pretending) as anything else. Looking at outer effects and thinking of them as absolute. Time is a human construct. Thinking of it as an absolute might be part of the problem.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
I: I know you would have, Don. Maybe the collaborative thinking of dialogue could come a little closer.
As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
And while I respect the role of individual meaning, I believe that is where we must not 'act & pretend'.
On Nov 30, 2007 6:19 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I'm afraid that neither Gaia theory, Maturana, nor Bohm has had much support from the scientific community inside or outside the US. They have fairly wide spread support from environmentalists, religious and spiritual thinkers and some artists plus, of course, people like us. But I am not certain how to define that last group. But science is a world unto itself. It has its own high priests and fixed purposes and even its own palace guard.
Take consciousness, for example. The scientific community is interested primarily in the material side of the question and the most highly regarded philosophers of mind work from materialist premises. Science is based on "evidence" which is narrowly defined by certain types of experiment. The idea of a universal consciousness, know in the trade as panpsychism, is scoffed at. This is one of the things that Bohm and probably Maturana are accused of. Ideas like Jung's collective unconscious or a cultural consciousness of shared meaning, or Rupert Sheldrake's formative causation are all pretty much ignored by big science and the foundations that fund it all. Which is why, Bohm said that, if dialogue was to get anywhere it had to grow as a grass roots sort of enterprise. And here there is something of a beginning. Not in any formal sense but thinking of dialogue as an attitude. The problem may be that it isn't growing fast enough. And that may be caused by the underlying assumptions that tacitly rule Western culture.
On this last topic Bohm said that for over two hundred years the common belief from science on down had it that the world was made up of a lot of separate things - billiard balls bouncing off of one another. And that idea burrowed deeply into the common consciousness, or value system of the wes - early on. We could say it is all Newton's fault, although he didn't like it either. Anyway, this idea, supported by our senses, in this medium sized domain of awareness that Bohm called the explicate order, has been difficult to shift. So there is still more work to be done.
And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/ee4a0a00/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 16:29:53 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:32:20 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <004801c83363$a1f50f30$b676480c@HOME>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com>
<00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME>
<31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<c47283890711300656p427cb673s6ebfe2d480d8403d@mail.gmail.com>
<004801c83363$a1f50f30$b676480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890711300729i76140398iab131bb3644e0d1a@mail.gmail.com>
I: All due respect, i think that's an illusion or a misunderstanding of
time. I'm not speaking of time as a numerical division of day and night
time-space that moves to a steady beat. I'm speaking of how the world has
changed, and the rate of speed/tempo of that change, in relationship to what
is facing us now.
On Nov 30, 2007 10:13 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I: As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
>
> I think it's possible that this could be as much of a part of billiard
> ball thinking (acting and pretending) as anything else. Looking at outer
> effects and thinking of them as absolute. Time is a human construct.
> Thinking of it as an absolute might be part of the problem.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 7:56 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
>
> I: I know you would have, Don. Maybe the collaborative thinking of
> dialogue could come a little closer.
>
> As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
>
> And while I respect the role of individual meaning, I believe that is
> where we must not 'act & pretend'.
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 6:19 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid that neither Gaia theory, Maturana, nor Bohm has had much
> > support from the scientific community inside or outside the US. They have
> > fairly wide spread support from environmentalists, religious and spiritual
> > thinkers and some artists plus, of course, people like us. But I am not
> > certain how to define that last group. But science is a world unto itself.
> > It has its own high priests and fixed purposes and even its own palace
> > guard.
> > Take consciousness, for example. The scientific community is interested
> > primarily in the material side of the question and the most highly regarded
> > philosophers of mind work from materialist premises. Science is based on
> > "evidence" which is narrowly defined by certain types of experiment. The
> > idea of a universal consciousness, know in the trade as panpsychism, is
> > scoffed at. This is one of the things that Bohm and probably Maturana are
> > accused of. Ideas like Jung's collective unconscious or a cultural
> > consciousness of shared meaning, or Rupert Sheldrake's formative causation
> > are all pretty much ignored by big science and the foundations that fund it
> > all. Which is why, Bohm said that, if dialogue was to get anywhere it had to
> > grow as a grass roots sort of enterprise. And here there is something of a
> > beginning. Not in any formal sense but thinking of dialogue as an attitude.
> > The problem may be that it isn't growing fast enough. And that may be caused
> > by the underlying assumptions that tacitly rule Western culture.
> >
> > On this last topic Bohm said that for over two hundred years the common
> > belief from science on down had it that the world was made up of a lot of
> > separate things - billiard balls bouncing off of one another. And that idea
> > burrowed deeply into the common consciousness, or value system of the wes -
> > early on. We could say it is all Newton's fault, although he didn't like it
> > either. Anyway, this idea, supported by our senses, in this medium sized
> > domain of awareness that Bohm called the explicate order, has been difficult
> > to shift. So there is still more work to be done.
> >
> > And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
> >
> > don
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/4b23e6d5/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 30 16:31:52 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:34:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <c47283890711300701i4c1c631cq76acc80137b29eb6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F>
<C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<007e01c832f1$81e49ed0$b5c16018@DL01>
<3F0D11E0-E93A-4791-B664-F878ABE80715@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<c47283890711300701i4c1c631cq76acc80137b29eb6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C5590105-F378-435C-B6E2-EB1A7C25A67B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
So, do you think they might adopt us as pets?
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 15:01, Irene Darcy wrote:
> I: All that may soon be obsolete. TV last night segmented a
> scientist in California who is creating a new species of life in
> his DNA laboratory. He claims the new species will cure the
> climate-global warming, pollution problems.
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 5:47 AM, Don Factor
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It might be that women would have some insight into that before
>> men. -- dl
>>
>
>
> Here is where your Greeks might come in. Have you ever read
> Lysistrata by Aristophanes? If it could have worked back then, why
> not now?
>
> don
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 01:37, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Susan Clemons
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>
>> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is
>> that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to
>> stem the horrors of global problems.
>>
>> I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is
>> correct and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness,
>> which his work suggests, then everything we think becomes a part
>> of the collective and is instantly made available to others. So
>> I'm not so quick to invalidate the importance and impact of an
>> individuals thoughts.
>>
>> At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to
>> work with the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of
>> creating some observable changes in the near future. But I do
>> think what is being discussed here is an important aspect of
>> that. My own personal thinking in this area is that for radical
>> results to occur the general public will need to change from their
>> outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is
>> for science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the
>> source.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Irene Darcy
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>>
>> I accepted that long ago.
>>
>> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is
>> that what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to
>> stem the horrors of global problems. And in that light, it
>> doesn't seem to me that dialogue as prescribed and developed by
>> K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The propositions can be
>> myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with the
>> process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny
>> Bohm applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely
>> is futile. I don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical
>> effect. I think he hoped for a more 'explicate order', change
>> before we are all annihilated. Changing myself, and it eventually
>> having an effect in the Generative Order is not working. And if
>> the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into the
>> Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle.
>> And for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the
>> results weren't consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
>>
>> This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat
>> may be asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest.
>> I hope so. I shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons
>> <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is
>> illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all
>> parts of an unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such
>> isolated phenomenon as an individual self. But if, we take the
>> trouble to look at the question from more than a single
>> perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up with an
>> explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of
>> which are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest
>> together. Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
>>
>> Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as
>> far as I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist
>> at once and so both are "real" in the sense of having existence.
>> I think William's ideas about virtuality take care of this very
>> well and show how both do exist at once. What good would
>> computers be without the virtual reality that is a part of them?
>> The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest =
>> explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order
>> does not meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same
>> time. I think of "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and
>> explicate/manifest at the same time. So there is no need for the
>> idea of "illusion" at all.
>>
>> For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted
>> that long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote
>> for the implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be
>> saying when he said the explicate unfolds from the implicate.
>> This, to me means paying far more attention to what kind of order
>> exists within the implicate and how that order works. And I would
>> guess that the mind is part of the implicate/virtual (mind as
>> opposed to brain).
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/3a127bd9/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 16:38:42 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:41:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <C5590105-F378-435C-B6E2-EB1A7C25A67B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F>
<C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<007e01c832f1$81e49ed0$b5c16018@DL01>
<3F0D11E0-E93A-4791-B664-F878ABE80715@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<c47283890711300701i4c1c631cq76acc80137b29eb6@mail.gmail.com>
<C5590105-F378-435C-B6E2-EB1A7C25A67B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <c47283890711300738v52ceaa49jb926da1e1108d35d@mail.gmail.com>
I: Funny!
Well, who knows. Shall we let our imagination play?
If you were one of 'them', would you?
Interesting they are going to 'save' the planet. "Savior".
Maybe you'll get to meet the scientist when you get to
California, and can tell us more.
On Nov 30, 2007 10:31 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> So, do you think they might adopt us as pets?
> don
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 15:01, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> I: All that may soon be obsolete. TV last night segmented a scientist in
> California who is creating a new species of life in his DNA laboratory. He
> claims the new species will cure the climate-global warming, pollution
> problems.
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 5:47 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > It might be that women would have some insight into that before men.
> > -- dl
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is where your Greeks might come in. Have you ever read Lysistrata
> > by Aristophanes? If it could have worked back then, why not now?
> > don
> >
> > On 30 Nov 2007, at 01:37, Don Lay wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:15 PM
> > *Subject: * Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> >
> > I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that
> > what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors
> > of global problems.
> >
> > I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is correct
> > and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work
> > suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is
> > instantly made available to others. So I'm not so quick to invalidate the
> > importance and impact of an individuals thoughts.
> >
> > At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to work
> > with the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of creating some
> > observable changes in the near future. But I do think what is being
> > discussed here is an important aspect of that. My own personal thinking in
> > this area is that for radical results to occur the general public will need
> > to change from their outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to
> > happen is for science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the
> > source.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
> > * Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> >
> > I accepted that long ago.
> >
> > I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that
> > what "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors
> > of global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue
> > as prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The
> > propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with
> > the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm
> > applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I
> > don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he
> > hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated.
> > Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order
> > is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into
> > the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And
> > for those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't
> > consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
> >
> > This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be
> > asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I
> > shall look for ways to support such inquiry.
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is
> > > illusory" because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an
> > > unbroken whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an
> > > individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from
> > > more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up
> > > with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which
> > > are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together.
> > > Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
> > >
> > > Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far
> > > as I am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and
> > > so both are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's
> > > ideas about virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do
> > > exist at once. What good would computers be without the virtual reality
> > > that is a part of them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life.
> > > Manifest = explicate order. But the fact that there is an explicate order
> > > does not meant that the implicate order does not exist at the same time. I
> > > think of "reality" as being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at
> > > the same time. So there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
> > >
> > > For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted
> > > that long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the
> > > implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said
> > > the explicate unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more
> > > attention to what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that
> > > order works. And I would guess that the mind is part of the
> > > implicate/virtual (mind as opposed to brain).
> > >
> > > Susan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/ed5836f7/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 30 16:41:04 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:43:31 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com><00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME><31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk><c47283890711300656p427cb673s6ebfe2d480d8403d@mail.gmail.com><004801c83363$a1f50f30$b676480c@HOME>
<c47283890711300729i76140398iab131bb3644e0d1a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006601c83367$6b234220$b676480c@HOME>
All change is relative to context and context is dependent on individual perception. The tempo of change has little to do with whether a change is perceived as negative/positive. Negative/positive are also human constructs and are relative to individual perception. If the implicate is the source then the implications you imagine to be present within any situation could determine the effects. Our emotional and psychological state could be as much of a determining factor as anything.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: All due respect, i think that's an illusion or a misunderstanding of time. I'm not speaking of time as a numerical division of day and night time-space that moves to a steady beat. I'm speaking of how the world has changed, and the rate of speed/tempo of that change, in relationship to what is facing us now.
On Nov 30, 2007 10:13 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I: As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
I think it's possible that this could be as much of a part of billiard ball thinking (acting and pretending) as anything else. Looking at outer effects and thinking of them as absolute. Time is a human construct. Thinking of it as an absolute might be part of the problem.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
I: I know you would have, Don. Maybe the collaborative thinking of dialogue could come a little closer.
As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
And while I respect the role of individual meaning, I believe that is where we must not 'act & pretend'.
On Nov 30, 2007 6:19 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I'm afraid that neither Gaia theory, Maturana, nor Bohm has had much support from the scientific community inside or outside the US. They have fairly wide spread support from environmentalists, religious and spiritual thinkers and some artists plus, of course, people like us. But I am not certain how to define that last group. But science is a world unto itself. It has its own high priests and fixed purposes and even its own palace guard.
Take consciousness, for example. The scientific community is interested primarily in the material side of the question and the most highly regarded philosophers of mind work from materialist premises. Science is based on "evidence" which is narrowly defined by certain types of experiment. The idea of a universal consciousness, know in the trade as panpsychism, is scoffed at. This is one of the things that Bohm and probably Maturana are accused of. Ideas like Jung's collective unconscious or a cultural consciousness of shared meaning, or Rupert Sheldrake's formative causation are all pretty much ignored by big science and the foundations that fund it all. Which is why, Bohm said that, if dialogue was to get anywhere it had to grow as a grass roots sort of enterprise. And here there is something of a beginning. Not in any formal sense but thinking of dialogue as an attitude. The problem may be that it isn't growing fast enough. And that may be caused by the underlying assumptions that tacitly rule Western culture.
On this last topic Bohm said that for over two hundred years the common belief from science on down had it that the world was made up of a lot of separate things - billiard balls bouncing off of one another. And that idea burrowed deeply into the common consciousness, or value system of the wes - early on. We could say it is all Newton's fault, although he didn't like it either. Anyway, this idea, supported by our senses, in this medium sized domain of awareness that Bohm called the explicate order, has been difficult to shift. So there is still more work to be done.
And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/23b548e6/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 16:45:54 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:48:21 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <006601c83367$6b234220$b676480c@HOME>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com>
<00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME>
<31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<c47283890711300656p427cb673s6ebfe2d480d8403d@mail.gmail.com>
<004801c83363$a1f50f30$b676480c@HOME>
<c47283890711300729i76140398iab131bb3644e0d1a@mail.gmail.com>
<006601c83367$6b234220$b676480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890711300745k5009e2eg6c727f3dbedf0dde@mail.gmail.com>
I: This sounds about as fragmented as anything I've ever heard.
We have brilliant sunshine with a storm moving in. Am off on my bike to the
park.
Have a great day.
On Nov 30, 2007 10:41 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> All change is relative to context and context is dependent on individual
> perception. The tempo of change has little to do with whether a change is
> perceived as negative/positive. Negative/positive are also human constructs
> and are relative to individual perception. If the implicate is the source
> then the implications you imagine to be present within any situation could
> determine the effects. Our emotional and psychological state could be as
> much of a determining factor as anything.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 8:29 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I: All due respect, i think that's an illusion or a misunderstanding of
> time. I'm not speaking of time as a numerical division of day and night
> time-space that moves to a steady beat. I'm speaking of how the world has
> changed, and the rate of speed/tempo of that change, in relationship to what
> is facing us now.
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 10:13 AM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I: As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
> >
> > I think it's possible that this could be as much of a part of billiard
> > ball thinking (acting and pretending) as anything else. Looking at outer
> > effects and thinking of them as absolute. Time is a human construct.
> > Thinking of it as an absolute might be part of the problem.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 7:56 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
> >
> > And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
> >
> > I: I know you would have, Don. Maybe the collaborative thinking of
> > dialogue could come a little closer.
> >
> > As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
> >
> > And while I respect the role of individual meaning, I believe that is
> > where we must not 'act & pretend'.
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2007 6:19 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm afraid that neither Gaia theory, Maturana, nor Bohm has had much
> > > support from the scientific community inside or outside the US. They have
> > > fairly wide spread support from environmentalists, religious and spiritual
> > > thinkers and some artists plus, of course, people like us. But I am not
> > > certain how to define that last group. But science is a world unto itself.
> > > It has its own high priests and fixed purposes and even its own palace
> > > guard.
> > > Take consciousness, for example. The scientific community is
> > > interested primarily in the material side of the question and the most
> > > highly regarded philosophers of mind work from materialist premises. Science
> > > is based on "evidence" which is narrowly defined by certain types of
> > > experiment. The idea of a universal consciousness, know in the trade as
> > > panpsychism, is scoffed at. This is one of the things that Bohm and probably
> > > Maturana are accused of. Ideas like Jung's collective unconscious or a
> > > cultural consciousness of shared meaning, or Rupert Sheldrake's formative
> > > causation are all pretty much ignored by big science and the foundations
> > > that fund it all. Which is why, Bohm said that, if dialogue was to get
> > > anywhere it had to grow as a grass roots sort of enterprise. And here there
> > > is something of a beginning. Not in any formal sense but thinking of
> > > dialogue as an attitude. The problem may be that it isn't growing fast
> > > enough. And that may be caused by the underlying assumptions that tacitly
> > > rule Western culture.
> > >
> > > On this last topic Bohm said that for over two hundred years the
> > > common belief from science on down had it that the world was made up of a
> > > lot of separate things - billiard balls bouncing off of one another. And
> > > that idea burrowed deeply into the common consciousness, or value system of
> > > the wes - early on. We could say it is all Newton's fault, although he
> > > didn't like it either. Anyway, this idea, supported by our senses, in this
> > > medium sized domain of awareness that Bohm called the explicate order, has
> > > been difficult to shift. So there is still more work to be done.
> > >
> > > And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
> > >
> > > don
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/d6e07a59/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 30 16:52:45 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:55:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <004801c83363$a1f50f30$b676480c@HOME>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com><00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME><31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<c47283890711300656p427cb673s6ebfe2d480d8403d@mail.gmail.com>
<004801c83363$a1f50f30$b676480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <1993D255-C526-4581-990B-D48A29872FB1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Well, I don't think you can do away with time altogether. I mean, we
each have a life span and we don't know until, perhaps. we are close
to its end what that really amounts to. We may have our beliefs about
what happens after, but we won't know for sure, until the after
becomes the now, if it does. So it seems to me to be more coherent to
behave as if the whole thing was limited. But one thing is certain:
one thing does follow another. Trying to understand causality via
time or time via causality, is probably not the only way to view it,
though. But taking the idea that there is only the present moment is
too gross a reduction. All we have is our perception and/or our
cognitive functions which include memory. We may know that they are
far from perfect in how they guide us moment by moment but they have
done a good enough job - if good is the right word - to allow our
species to multiply and prosper. But just as one thing follows
another that prosperous state may be coming to an end what might
follow, even if it is just a temporary dip in the process, remains
unknown. I still feel though, a certain pressure to keep seeking a
new vision.
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 15:13, Susan Clemons wrote:
> I: As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
>
> I think it's possible that this could be as much of a part of
> billiard ball thinking (acting and pretending) as anything else.
> Looking at outer effects and thinking of them as absolute. Time is
> a human construct. Thinking of it as an absolute might be part of
> the problem.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Irene Darcy
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
>
> I: I know you would have, Don. Maybe the collaborative thinking
> of dialogue could come a little closer.
>
> As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
>
> And while I respect the role of individual meaning, I believe that
> is where we must not 'act & pretend'.
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 6:19 AM, Don Factor
> <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm afraid that neither Gaia theory, Maturana, nor Bohm has had
> much support from the scientific community inside or outside the
> US. They have fairly wide spread support from environmentalists,
> religious and spiritual thinkers and some artists plus, of course,
> people like us. But I am not certain how to define that last group.
> But science is a world unto itself. It has its own high priests and
> fixed purposes and even its own palace guard.
>
> Take consciousness, for example. The scientific community is
> interested primarily in the material side of the question and the
> most highly regarded philosophers of mind work from materialist
> premises. Science is based on "evidence" which is narrowly defined
> by certain types of experiment. The idea of a universal
> consciousness, know in the trade as panpsychism, is scoffed at.
> This is one of the things that Bohm and probably Maturana are
> accused of. Ideas like Jung's collective unconscious or a cultural
> consciousness of shared meaning, or Rupert Sheldrake's formative
> causation are all pretty much ignored by big science and the
> foundations that fund it all. Which is why, Bohm said that, if
> dialogue was to get anywhere it had to grow as a grass roots sort
> of enterprise. And here there is something of a beginning. Not in
> any formal sense but thinking of dialogue as an attitude. The
> problem may be that it isn't growing fast enough. And that may be
> caused by the underlying assumptions that tacitly rule Western
> culture.
>
> On this last topic Bohm said that for over two hundred years the
> common belief from science on down had it that the world was made
> up of a lot of separate things - billiard balls bouncing off of one
> another. And that idea burrowed deeply into the common
> consciousness, or value system of the wes - early on. We could say
> it is all Newton's fault, although he didn't like it either.
> Anyway, this idea, supported by our senses, in this medium sized
> domain of awareness that Bohm called the explicate order, has been
> difficult to shift. So there is still more work to be done.
>
> And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
>
> don
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/b5623576/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 30 16:54:43 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:57:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <c47283890711300738v52ceaa49jb926da1e1108d35d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F>
<C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<007e01c832f1$81e49ed0$b5c16018@DL01>
<3F0D11E0-E93A-4791-B664-F878ABE80715@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<c47283890711300701i4c1c631cq76acc80137b29eb6@mail.gmail.com>
<C5590105-F378-435C-B6E2-EB1A7C25A67B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<c47283890711300738v52ceaa49jb926da1e1108d35d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1F3CBA27-134D-4A45-AE98-FC72F3355136@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 30 Nov 2007, at 15:38, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> Maybe you'll get to meet the scientist when you get to
> California, and can tell us more.
Only if he is elderly or gay. They are almost the only other people
in our
neck of the sand dunes.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/65d981a4/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 30 17:06:09 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 30 17:08:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com><00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME><31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk><c47283890711300656p427cb673s6ebfe2d480d8403d@mail.gmail.com><004801c83363$a1f50f30$b676480c@HOME>
<1993D255-C526-4581-990B-D48A29872FB1@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <008401c8336a$ec3008a0$b676480c@HOME>
No, doing away with time altogether doesn't seem to be any better of an answer than anything else. And to ignore the idea of limitations doesn't seem any more advisable. However, none of that means that time is linear in nature or that it may behave in a completely different way than we assume it does. And realizing that the type or kind of prosperity we have enjoyed may not be the best form of prosperity we can enjoy doesn't mean that our prosperity is coming to an end. It simply means that change is inevitable. To continue seeking a new vision seems to be very much in line with recognizing that change is inevitable.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
Well, I don't think you can do away with time altogether. I mean, we each have a life span and we don't know until, perhaps. we are close to its end what that really amounts to. We may have our beliefs about what happens after, but we won't know for sure, until the after becomes the now, if it does. So it seems to me to be more coherent to behave as if the whole thing was limited. But one thing is certain: one thing does follow another. Trying to understand causality via time or time via causality, is probably not the only way to view it, though. But taking the idea that there is only the present moment is too gross a reduction. All we have is our perception and/or our cognitive functions which include memory. We may know that they are far from perfect in how they guide us moment by moment but they have done a good enough job - if good is the right word - to allow our species to multiply and prosper. But just as one thing follows another that prosperous state may be coming to an end what might follow, even if it is just a temporary dip in the process, remains unknown. I still feel though, a certain pressure to keep seeking a new vision.
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 15:13, Susan Clemons wrote:
I: As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
I think it's possible that this could be as much of a part of billiard ball thinking (acting and pretending) as anything else. Looking at outer effects and thinking of them as absolute. Time is a human construct. Thinking of it as an absolute might be part of the problem.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
I: I know you would have, Don. Maybe the collaborative thinking of dialogue could come a little closer.
As you mention, time is a factor. It's running out.
And while I respect the role of individual meaning, I believe that is where we must not 'act & pretend'.
On Nov 30, 2007 6:19 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I'm afraid that neither Gaia theory, Maturana, nor Bohm has had much support from the scientific community inside or outside the US. They have fairly wide spread support from environmentalists, religious and spiritual thinkers and some artists plus, of course, people like us. But I am not certain how to define that last group. But science is a world unto itself. It has its own high priests and fixed purposes and even its own palace guard.
Take consciousness, for example. The scientific community is interested primarily in the material side of the question and the most highly regarded philosophers of mind work from materialist premises. Science is based on "evidence" which is narrowly defined by certain types of experiment. The idea of a universal consciousness, know in the trade as panpsychism, is scoffed at. This is one of the things that Bohm and probably Maturana are accused of. Ideas like Jung's collective unconscious or a cultural consciousness of shared meaning, or Rupert Sheldrake's formative causation are all pretty much ignored by big science and the foundations that fund it all. Which is why, Bohm said that, if dialogue was to get anywhere it had to grow as a grass roots sort of enterprise. And here there is something of a beginning. Not in any formal sense but thinking of dialogue as an attitude. The problem may be that it isn't growing fast enough. And that may be caused by the underlying assumptions that tacitly rule Western culture.
On this last topic Bohm said that for over two hundred years the common belief from science on down had it that the world was made up of a lot of separate things - billiard balls bouncing off of one another. And that idea burrowed deeply into the common consciousness, or value system of the wes - early on. We could say it is all Newton's fault, although he didn't like it either. Anyway, this idea, supported by our senses, in this medium sized domain of awareness that Bohm called the explicate order, has been difficult to shift. So there is still more work to be done.
And if I could tell you what it is, I would have already done it.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/adb945b8/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Fri Nov 30 19:43:40 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 30 19:46:33 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm quotes on Self
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com><00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME><31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<1E75CB57-AF6E-4845-8545-951EB6DB2044@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <006601c83380$ee17d970$b5c16018@DL01>
I have to think of myself as something, to think of myself. -- A Funny random Bohm quote
Of course. The language structure, the SOS, requires a locality-kind of thing to act or pretend upon another locality-kind of thing. Thus, using the SOS, I use a fixed image that is different from all other images.
It seems important to keep in mind that the image identity has limited meaning. One way to keep that in mind is to talk about the imaginary self image in such a way that it is clear that the image is not identical with what, in language use, it identifies.
Maybe that's part of the reason Bohm says the self is a map without a territory. That is, he is aware that image use is a use of imagination. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/76f26832/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Fri Nov 30 19:29:49 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Fri Nov 30 20:42:41 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <C5590105-F378-435C-B6E2-EB1A7C25A67B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4750569D.000001.03040@VAIO-584793128F>
>I: All that may soon be obsolete. TV last night segmented a scientist in
>California who is creating a new species of life in his DNA laboratory.
>He claims the new species will cure the climate-global warming,
>pollution problems.
I hope that Californian scientist will make them vegetarians, or else they
might make saucages out of us.
Also, i wonder how they would react when they hear the Christian teaching
about God as the Creator of life.
-------Original Message-------
From: Don Factor
Date: 30.11.2007 16:32:01
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
So, do you think they might adopt us as pets?
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 15:01, Irene Darcy wrote:
I: All that may soon be obsolete. TV last night segmented a scientist in
California who is creating a new species of life in his DNA laboratory. He
claims the new species will cure the climate-global warming, pollution
problems.
On Nov 30, 2007 5:47 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It might be that women would have some insight into that before men. -- dl
Here is where your Greeks might come in. Have you ever read Lysistrata by
Aristophanes? If it could have worked back then, why not now?
don
On 30 Nov 2007, at 01:37, Don Lay wrote:
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what "I
, or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of global
problems.
I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is correct and
there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work suggests
then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is instantly
made available to others. So I'm not so quick to invalidate the importance
and impact of an individuals thoughts.
At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to work with
the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of creating some observable
changes in the near future. But I do think what is being discussed here is
an important aspect of that. My own personal thinking in this area is that
for radical results to occur the general public will need to change from
their outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is for
science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the source.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I accepted that long ago.
I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what "I
, or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of global
problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue as
prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The
propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with
the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm
applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I
don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he
hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated.
Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order
is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into
the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And for
those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't
consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be
asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I shall
look for ways to support such inquiry.
On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is illusory"
because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an unbroken
whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an
individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from
more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up
with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which
are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together.
Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far as I am
concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and so both
are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's ideas about
virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do exist at once.
What good would computers be without the virtual reality that is a part of
them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest = explicate
order. But the fact that there is an explicate order does not meant that the
implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of "reality" as
being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at the same time. So
there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted that long
ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the implicate. I
think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said the explicate
unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more attention to
what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that order works. And
I would guess that the mind is part of the implicate/virtual (mind as
opposed to brain).
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/0ba00122/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 30 21:06:33 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 30 21:09:02 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm quotes on Self
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com><00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME><31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk><1E75CB57-AF6E-4845-8545-951EB6DB2044@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<006601c83380$ee17d970$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <00bd01c8338c$81e33bd0$b676480c@HOME>
I'm not sure I would agree with Bohm or you on this one dl. We really don't have to think of ourself as an "image" or "thing" to think of ourself at all. When I am aware of myself and use my imagination in conjunction with self the "self" I am aware of is something more like a feeling tone. There's no image of self at all, no fixed body, no fixed "anything" just a feeling of presence and the awareness of being conscious. To my way of thinking the SOS occurs within language and is a structure of language, and mainly within Western languages. The only time I'm aware of myself as an image is if there is some kind of social value I feel it could be advantageous to acknowledge.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm quotes on Self
I have to think of myself as something, to think of myself. -- A Funny random Bohm quote
Of course. The language structure, the SOS, requires a locality-kind of thing to act or pretend upon another locality-kind of thing. Thus, using the SOS, I use a fixed image that is different from all other images.
It seems important to keep in mind that the image identity has limited meaning. One way to keep that in mind is to talk about the imaginary self image in such a way that it is clear that the image is not identical with what, in language use, it identifies.
Maybe that's part of the reason Bohm says the self is a map without a territory. That is, he is aware that image use is a use of imagination. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/96aafb20/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Fri Nov 30 21:55:51 2007
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Fri Nov 30 21:58:19 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <1E75CB57-AF6E-4845-8545-951EB6DB2044@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com>
<00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME>
<31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<1E75CB57-AF6E-4845-8545-951EB6DB2044@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <E510AA81-6A9C-4496-BCB9-1F1ABDD06F6A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
> "Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder,
> spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human
> spirit." e.e. cummings (1894-1962)
Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it
says rings true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered
pretty much as they guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is
necessary for any kind of happiness or success in life. A sick ego,
that is one that is is either overblown or one that doesn't value
him or herself doesn't get anywhere in life and is usually pretty
miserable. And all the acting and pretending in the world won't help.
To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about a concept that
doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory - then
what have you got? Not much, I'd say. For instance, I think Bohm
must have had a very healthy ego for him to have accomplished all he
did - against great odds where the people who counted in his world
refused to listen to him. Of course, he also suffered from a cyclical
disorder that left him from time to time in deep doubt about his life
work. But that is quite a bit different from deeming oneself as
something - or maybe nothing - that has its meaning and value
fundamentally in the implicate and is thus spread out invisibly over
time and space with no center and no stable relationship with the
explicate world which is where acting and pretending is the whole
business. I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from
suicide, or a pretty extreme ego trip.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/8b64ab12/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 22:03:52 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Nov 30 22:06:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <E510AA81-6A9C-4496-BCB9-1F1ABDD06F6A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com>
<009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME>
<c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com>
<00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME>
<31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<1E75CB57-AF6E-4845-8545-951EB6DB2044@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<E510AA81-6A9C-4496-BCB9-1F1ABDD06F6A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <c47283890711301303l322c58eu9947fc53a02f4b00@mail.gmail.com>
I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty
extreme ego trip.
I: Yes. This is what makes me feel concerned. Worried.
On Nov 30, 2007 3:55 PM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
>
> "Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous
> delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." e.e. cummings
> (1894-1962)
>
>
> Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it says
> rings true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered pretty much as
> they guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is necessary for any kind of
> happiness or success in life. A sick ego, that is one that is is either
> overblown or one that doesn't value him or herself doesn't get anywhere in
> life and is usually pretty miserable. And all the acting and pretending in
> the world won't help. To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about
> a concept that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory -
> then what have you got? Not much, I'd say. For instance, I think Bohm must
> have had a very healthy ego for him to have accomplished all he did -
> against great odds where the people who counted in his world refused to
> listen to him. Of course, he also suffered from a cyclical disorder that
> left him from time to time in deep doubt about his life work. But that is
> quite a bit different from deeming oneself as something - or maybe nothing -
> that has its meaning and value fundamentally in the implicate and is thus
> spread out invisibly over time and space with no center and no stable
> relationship with the explicate world which is where acting and pretending
> is the whole business. I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from
> suicide, or a pretty extreme ego trip.
>
> don
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/7210bace/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 22:11:05 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Nov 30 22:13:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <4750569D.000001.03040@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <C5590105-F378-435C-B6E2-EB1A7C25A67B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<4750569D.000001.03040@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <c47283890711301311w33886297p6331d62c02dabf1a@mail.gmail.com>
I: Check it out for yourself.
His name is Craig Venter. Lots of stuff comes up when you Google him.
There was a segment on Nightline last night. Also see:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299857,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
You might be interested in a current exhibit the NYPL has. Mugshots of Bush
& Company as protest. Also on Channel 7 news last night. Many people
interview, and all were both amused and sympathetic to the exhibit.
On Nov 30, 2007 1:29 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
> >I: All that may soon be obsolete. TV last night segmented a scientist
> in
> >California who is creating a new species of life in his DNA laboratory.
> >He claims the new species will cure the climate-global warming,
> >pollution problems.
>
> I hope that Californian scientist will make them vegetarians, or else they
> might make saucages out of us.
> Also, i wonder how they would react when they hear the Christian teaching
> about God as the Creator of life.
>
>
>
> *-------Original Message-------*
>
> *From:* Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> *Date:* 30.11.2007 16:32:01
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> So, do you think they might adopt us as pets?
> don
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 15:01, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> I: All that may soon be obsolete. TV last night segmented a scientist in
> California who is creating a new species of life in his DNA laboratory. He
> claims the new species will cure the climate-global warming, pollution
> problems.
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 5:47 AM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> It might be that women would have some insight into that before men. --
> dl
>
> Here is where your Greeks might come in. Have you ever read Lysistrata by
> Aristophanes? If it could have worked back then, why not now?
> don
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 01:37, Don Lay wrote:
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:15 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what
> "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of
> global problems.
> I'm not sure I would completely agree with this. If Maturana is correct
> and there is such a thing as a collective consciousness, which his work
> suggests, then everything we think becomes a part of the collective and is
> instantly made available to others. So I'm not so quick to invalidate the
> importance and impact of an individuals thoughts.
> At the same time I understand that the nature of dialogue is to work with
> the larger socio-cultural realm with the hopes of creating some observable
> changes in the near future. But I do think what is being discussed here is
> an important aspect of that. My own personal thinking in this area is that
> for radical results to occur the general public will need to change from
> their outer cause and effect thinking. One way for that to happen is for
> science to acknowledge that the implicate/virtual order is the source.
> Susan
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I accepted that long ago.
>
> I: Everything here is excellent, as far as it goes. My point is that what
> "I", or anyone on our list, accepts isn't enough to stem the horrors of
> global problems. And in that light, it doesn't seem to me that dialogue as
> prescribed and developed by K&DB is sufficient into itself. Why? The
> propositions can be myriad. But until and unless we who are acquainted with
> the process examine said process with the same unrelenting scrutiny Bohm
> applied to everything he did, all our 'dialogue' most likely is futile. I
> don't think he (B) was content with the metaphysical effect. I think he
> hoped for a more 'explicate order', change before we are all annihilated.
> Changing myself, and it eventually having an effect in the Generative Order
> is not working. And if the world and all in it vanish and are consumed into
> the Generative Order, we're still up !@#$'@ creek without a paddle. And for
> those who need a quote - Bohm himself said that if the results weren't
> consistent with the aim, back to the drawing board!
>
> This is what I hope the April conference addresses. It seems Peat may be
> asking the same question. Maybe Hiley, and all the rest. I hope so. I shall
> look for ways to support such inquiry.
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Don F.: So we find ourselves saying things like, "the self is illusory"
> because there is a point of view that says we are all parts of an unbroken
> whole therefore their cannot be any such isolated phenomenon as an
> individual self. But if, we take the trouble to look at the question from
> more than a single perspective - a "both and" perspective - we can come up
> with an explicate order, for example, and an implicate order, both of which
> are actual and necessary but cannot really be made manifest together.
> Actually, you can't, make the implicate manifest at all.
> Susan: This is the important part and this is the connection as far as I
> am concerned. Both the implicate and the explicate exist at once and so both
> are "real" in the sense of having existence. I think William's ideas about
> virtuality take care of this very well and show how both do exist at once.
> What good would computers be without the virtual reality that is a part of
> them? The same seems true to me for any aspect of life. Manifest = explicate
> order. But the fact that there is an explicate order does not meant that the
> implicate order does not exist at the same time. I think of "reality" as
> being both implicate/virtual and explicate/manifest at the same time. So
> there is no need for the idea of "illusion" at all.
> For me the question is not about both existing at once, I accepted that
> long ago. The question is, which one is the source. I vote for the
> implicate. I think this is also what Bohm seemed to be saying when he said
> the explicate unfolds from the implicate. This, to me means paying far more
> attention to what kind of order exists within the implicate and how that
> order works. And I would guess that the mind is part of the
> implicate/virtual (mind as opposed to brain).
> Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/041c2a06/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Fri Nov 30 22:39:25 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Fri Nov 30 22:42:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm quotes on Self
References: <00bd01c8338c$81e33bd0$b676480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <4750830D.000001.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
>...We really don't have to think of ourself as an "image" or "thing" to
think of ourself
>at all. When I am aware of myself and use my imagination in conjunction
with self
>the "self" I am aware of is something more like a feeling tone. There's no
image of
>self at all, no fixed body, no fixed "anything" just a feeling of presence
and the
>awareness of being conscious.
Or the feeling of hurt.
He: "I didn't say anything".
She: "You don't have to say anything. It's the way you don't speak. It's the
way you don't look. It's the way you don't hear my tears when you're not
there."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/fab49e50/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Fri Nov 30 22:39:40 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Nov 30 22:42:12 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <DBAF0BA5-46FF-4DB9-8516-4F5CB25BAEDD@donfactor.demon.co.uk><474DCDB9.000001.01000@VAIO-584793128F><C74FC436-0095-4DE6-8079-4F51EC0BB7CA@donfactor.demon.co.uk><006f01c832c3$ff80ecf0$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291652m101fb735hd22a3d668a7678dd@mail.gmail.com><009e01c832ee$76590590$da76480c@HOME><c47283890711291746i63e377ecod8dcc505ef707424@mail.gmail.com><00b701c832fd$c67d6340$da76480c@HOME><31104423-D50B-48B6-A62A-ED71B7531EC9@donfactor.demon.co.uk><1E75CB57-AF6E-4845-8545-951EB6DB2044@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<E510AA81-6A9C-4496-BCB9-1F1ABDD06F6A@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <008701c83399$83c444f0$b5c16018@DL01>
But if the whole thing is about a concept that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory - then what have you got? -- df
Again, my interest is in exploring the meaning of db/thought, and presently the meaning of db/thought regarding self image and the significance of quantum discoveries for the way language and thought functions.
Maybe Bohm's ideas language, self, actuality, etc, are worth exploring, worth talking about. There are lots of people seem to feel that way.
If you are claiming that Bohm was the victim of depression, insanity, etc., what you say might be worth exploring also. However, the quotes regarding self and territory appear to be the understanding of someone having given attention to, e.g., Korzybski.
Is it also claimed that Korzybski is also insane? Bohm gives attention to other serious thinkers -- Piaget for example. Were they all insane? -- dl
From: Don Factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
"Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." e.e. cummings (1894-1962)
Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it says rings true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered pretty much as they guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is necessary for any kind of happiness or success in life. A sick ego, that is one that is is either overblown or one that doesn't value him or herself doesn't get anywhere in life and is usually pretty miserable. And all the acting and pretending in the world won't help. To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about a concept that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory - then what have you got? Not much, I'd say. For instance, I think Bohm must have had a very healthy ego for him to have accomplished all he did - against great odds where the people who counted in his world refused to listen to him. Of course, he also suffered from a cyclical disorder that left him from time to time in deep doubt about his life work. But that is quite a bit different from deeming oneself as something - or maybe nothing - that has its meaning and value fundamentally in the implicate and is thus spread out invisibly over time and space with no center and no stable relationship with the explicate world which is where acting and pretending is the whole business. I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty extreme ego trip.
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/c51f38f9/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Fri Nov 30 23:05:08 2007
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Fri Nov 30 23:07:44 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
References: <c47283890711301303l322c58eu9947fc53a02f4b00@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47508914.000003.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
Mr. Lay seems to be addicted to an illusion of what he thinks is "deep".
This is what he said on 29.11.2007:
"I find deep peace in deep awareness, a selfless experience in the sense of
experience that I describe as being prior to and therefore more fundamental
than the social, personal reality. I like the idea of ontic actuality ...
maybe sameness as this that is."
-------Original Message-------
From: Irene Darcy
Date: 30.11.2007 22:04:18
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty
extreme ego trip.
I: Yes. This is what makes me feel concerned. Worried.
On Nov 30, 2007 3:55 PM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
"Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous
delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." e.e. cummings
(1894-1962)
Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it says rings
true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered pretty much as they
guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is necessary for any kind of happiness
or success in life. A sick ego, that is one that is is either overblown or
one that doesn't value him or herself doesn't get anywhere in life and is
usually pretty miserable. And all the acting and pretending in the world won
t help. To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about a concept
that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory - then what
have you got? Not much, I'd say. For instance, I think Bohm must have had a
very healthy ego for him to have accomplished all he did - against great
odds where the people who counted in his world refused to listen to him. Of
course, he also suffered from a cyclical disorder that left him from time to
time in deep doubt about his life work. But that is quite a bit different
from deeming oneself as something - or maybe nothing - that has its meaning
and value fundamentally in the implicate and is thus spread out invisibly
over time and space with no center and no stable relationship with the
explicate world which is where acting and pretending is the whole business.
I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty
extreme ego trip.
don
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/5d1980f2/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 23:21:37 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Nov 30 23:24:11 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
In-Reply-To: <47508914.000003.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <c47283890711301303l322c58eu9947fc53a02f4b00@mail.gmail.com>
<47508914.000003.00804@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <c47283890711301421u2795788cy96be3537016f9cbc@mail.gmail.com>
I: How would a person function daily in ordinary reality and appear
'normal' if they felt they had no 'self'; no 'I-dentity'?
On Nov 30, 2007 5:05 PM, william <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
> Mr. Lay seems to be addicted to an illusion of what he thinks is
> "deep". This is what he said on 29.11.2007:
> "I find deep peace in deep awareness, a *selfless experience* in the sense
> of experience that I describe as being prior to and therefore more
> fundamental than the social, personal reality. I like the idea of *ontic
> actuality* ... maybe sameness as this that is."
>
>
> *-------Original Message-------*
>
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *Date:* 30.11.2007 22:04:18
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Random Bohm quotes on Image
>
> I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from suicide, or a pretty
> extreme ego trip.
>
> I: Yes. This is what makes me feel concerned. Worried.
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 3:55 PM, Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:24, Don Factor wrote:
>
> "Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous
> delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." e.e. cummings
> (1894-1962)
>
> Don, what do you make of the quote that I posted earlier? What it says
> rings true to me. I know that psychologists have discovered pretty much as
> they guessed it would that a "healthy ego" is necessary for any kind of
> happiness or success in life. A sick ego, that is one that is is either
> overblown or one that doesn't value him or herself doesn't get anywhere in
> life and is usually pretty miserable. And all the acting and pretending in
> the world won't help. To me this is obvious. But if the whole thing is about
> a concept that doesn't refer to anything real - a map without a territory -
> then what have you got? Not much, I'd say. For instance, I think Bohm must
> have had a very healthy ego for him to have accomplished all he did -
> against great odds where the people who counted in his world refused to
> listen to him. Of course, he also suffered from a cyclical disorder that
> left him from time to time in deep doubt about his life work. But that is
> quite a bit different from deeming oneself as something - or maybe nothing -
> that has its meaning and value fundamentally in the implicate and is thus
> spread out invisibly over time and space with no center and no stable
> relationship with the explicate world which is where acting and pretending
> is the whole business. I mean, that would seem to be only a step away from
> suicide, or a pretty extreme ego trip.
>
> don
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
> ------------------------------
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071130/637d9a87/attachment.html