From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 30 00:22:58 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Tue Oct 31 01:24:38 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <45451F6F.000003.01404@VAIO-584793128F> References: <006801c6fb66$899cabe0$7755153f@DL01> <45451F6F.000003.01404@VAIO-584793128F> Message-ID: <AEBD1DE3-1FBB-4E3F-B410-680EBE8D2628@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Of course, the individual herself could be the observer. Which reminds me of the thought experiment that I described a couple of years ago. Consider a child born from a test tube into an environment where she is fed and kept clean automatically. She lives in an environment that has only a constant dim light and a constant temperature with no other form of stimulation - nothing to look at, no sound, just a plain blank environment like the inside of a pingpong ball. The question is then what this individual being becomes as she grows up? Would she be anything that could be recognised as human? What if there were observers who remained unseen and unheard by the subject? How would they describe her? Would their observation have any effect on her? Would she be able to make sounds? Would she need to? My own speculation would be that this creature would be able to perceive herself but with nothing to compare herself with, she could only depend on her own bodily sensations for meaning but she wouldn't be able to conceptualise herself without a language or means of describing any differences. This leads me back to the idea that each of us is an organism that is an inseparable part of an ecosystem that keeps him/her alive but beyond that there needs to also be some further sort of information that causes life to continue - this information would consist of differences that make a difference as Bateson described it. Without the information, without any external stimulation, I suspect that the body-mind would just wither away. don On 29 Oct 2006, at 21:38, william wrote: > >Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably identical > >to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is > >included in her composite of countless aspects, each one influencing > >how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self-image etc. So I would > >say Lynne is not only identical to, but immeasurably more than what > >you see._R > > > This looks like a significant insight to me. It's another way of > saying that identity is a form of attribution. I tend to agree that > a person is what you and me and everybody else thinks of it. If > nobody thinks anything then there would be no such person. So, > attribution is the key factor. People are what everybody else think > of them. Thought is the creator of identity. And therefore the > image is of utmost importance. I think, almost everybody grasps > this significance intuitively, and "acts/pretends" accordingly, and > quite rightly so... > > william > > > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Don Lay > Date: 29.10.2006 15:29:10 > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole > > Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in > your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say > Lynne. > Don L: I suspect no one or no thingk is limited to what just > thought, to just a mechanical system. It seems demaning to treat > people as if they are only what I think they are. > > My sense is that people, as any region of the universe, are not > identical to a thought or social system; that ultimately, it is can > be demaning to those identified, especially if the identification, > personification is mechanical. -- dbl > > > http://home1.gte.net/donlay > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:41 AM > Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole > > Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in > your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say > Lynne. > > The irrelevance to your question is highlighted in the quiry; Is > the sky a whole range of OTHER colors besides the ones visible to > the human eye? > > Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably > identical to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as > Lynne is included in her composite of countless aspects, each one > influencing how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self-image > etc. So I would say Lynne is not only identical to, but > immeasurably more than what you see._R > . > From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole > To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> > . > dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think when > I say Lynne? > . > . > > > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061029/28f0b795/attachment.html From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 01:56:30 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Tue Oct 31 02:58:10 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <AEBD1DE3-1FBB-4E3F-B410-680EBE8D2628@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <BAY22-F149E1858F7082A5D912F7BA5FA0@phx.gbl> Couldn't we consider Helen Keller's story a close parallel? I read somewhere that she was like a wild animal until Anne Sullivan conveyed to her that she could use words to form concepts and link things. Also, research shows that babies deprived of touch simply die. k >From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:22:58 +0000 > >Of course, the individual herself could be the observer. Which reminds me >of the thought experiment that I described a couple of years ago. > >Consider a child born from a test tube into an environment where she is >fed and kept clean automatically. She lives in an environment that has >only a constant dim light and a constant temperature with no other form >of stimulation - nothing to look at, no sound, just a plain blank >environment like the inside of a pingpong ball. The question is then what >this individual being becomes as she grows up? Would she be anything that >could be recognised as human? What if there were observers who remained >unseen and unheard by the subject? How would they describe her? Would >their observation have any effect on her? Would she be able to make >sounds? Would she need to? > >My own speculation would be that this creature would be able to perceive >herself but with nothing to compare herself with, she could only depend on >her own bodily sensations for meaning but she wouldn't be able to >conceptualise herself without a language or means of describing any >differences. > >This leads me back to the idea that each of us is an organism that is an >inseparable part of an ecosystem that keeps him/her alive but beyond that >there needs to also be some further sort of information that causes life >to continue - this information would consist of differences that make a >difference as Bateson described it. Without the information, without any >external stimulation, I suspect that the body-mind would just wither >away. >don > >On 29 Oct 2006, at 21:38, william wrote: > >> >Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably identical >> >to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is >> >included in her composite of countless aspects, each one influencing >> >how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self-image etc. So I would >> >say Lynne is not only identical to, but immeasurably more than what >> >you see._R >> >> >>This looks like a significant insight to me. It's another way of saying >>that identity is a form of attribution. I tend to agree that a person is >>what you and me and everybody else thinks of it. If nobody thinks >>anything then there would be no such person. So, attribution is the key >>factor. People are what everybody else think of them. Thought is the >>creator of identity. And therefore the image is of utmost importance. I >>think, almost everybody grasps this significance intuitively, and >>"acts/pretends" accordingly, and quite rightly so... >> >>william >> >> >> >> >>-------Original Message------- >> >>From: Don Lay >>Date: 29.10.2006 15:29:10 >>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >> >>Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your >>minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. >>Don L: I suspect no one or no thingk is limited to what just thought, to >>just a mechanical system. It seems demaning to treat people as if they >>are only what I think they are. >> >>My sense is that people, as any region of the universe, are not identical >>to a thought or social system; that ultimately, it is can be demaning to >>those identified, especially if the identification, personification is >>mechanical. -- dbl >> >> >>http://home1.gte.net/donlay >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com >>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:41 AM >>Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >> >>Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your >>minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. >> >>The irrelevance to your question is highlighted in the quiry; Is the sky >>a whole range of OTHER colors besides the ones visible to the human eye? >> >>Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably identical to >>what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is included in >>her composite of countless aspects, each one influencing how she is seen >>by others and Lynnes own self-image etc. So I would say Lynne is not only >>identical to, but immeasurably more than what you see._R >>. >>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> >>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> >>. >>dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think when I say >>Lynne? >>. >>. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>info: >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >>dialogue facilitator: >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>admin@david-bohm.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>info: >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >>dialogue facilitator: >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>admin@david-bohm.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 02:34:50 2006 From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl) Date: Tue Oct 31 03:36:30 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <AEBD1DE3-1FBB-4E3F-B410-680EBE8D2628@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20061030013450.44350.qmail@web62415.mail.re1.yahoo.com> There is an old documentary film made in US back from 1970 regarding psychological conditioning. The name of the film I believe is ?The blue eyes and the brown eyes.? It was an experiment taken by elementary teacher showing how short time is necessary to bring about radical change in the behavior of children. Children were divided into two groups of about ten children in each group about 9 years of age. Groups were divided by the color of children eyes. Each group was labeled as either inferior or superior. The first a few days the blue eyes children were superior to the brown eyes children in regards to take first break, lunch, resets and being so called better children psychologically. Then after a few days the children were surprised by learning that the children with blue eyes were actually inferior to the brown eyes children by mistake made by a school teacher, and that brown eyes children are superior and better children over the blue eyes children. This again meant that brown eyes children were treated exactly like blue eyes children for a few days. When comparing learning capabilities and behavior of children from each group for couple of days the results were alarming. Children from one group presented higher grades, attention, and wellbeing and overall outperform the other group not only physically but as well psychologically. On the other hand the other group presented with lack of attention, lower grades and depressions. There is also another film, which I don?t remember the title but nevertheless this film is closely similar to the example Don made. There was a man who was held in a prison for most of his natural life, and at the end of it he was freed. He was unable to function in society, and had no understanding of the outside world what so ever. There was this curiosity to learn but also the lack of understanding made it very challenging and there was missing this so called experience, which is the key element to feelings and connection to thought process. Very interesting material I would say. Fanda Fanda Plessl e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business (http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com) From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 03:15:49 2006 From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl) Date: Tue Oct 31 04:17:33 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] love In-Reply-To: <DE7EA1D7-55F8-44AF-BC64-34E55CD0DF4A@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20061030021550.50241.qmail@web62407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Don We are proposing a kind of collective inquiry not only into the Content of what each of us says, thinks and feels but also into the Underlying Motivations, assumptions and beliefs that lead us to do so. Fanda I would bring back a few important points that J.K. and D.B. made long time ago regarding investigation into anything and everything, and what is necessary if one or many have this passion or call it what you like in bringing radical change in our own lives or in the lives of many. To take a part or to be a part of something greater then myself, I must inquire into something more then just my own believes, assumptions and theories I have. This something more means many things. First I must start from seeing something as being valid and important or necessary, which brings me to deeper inquiry. Some would call it faith, believe or strictly moving from one evidence or prove to another. As for J.K. it was not a question of prove or evidence but simply because it is so without any explanations. Maybe there was some kind of insight leading to another insight and then to another, which brought overall the mind looking through different dimension of life then another, who really knows. It was this different or new mind overall seeing thing from different perspective that brought D.B. to J.K. It was J.K. passion for life and living, and it is easiness and simplicity no matter right or wrong that has it is own weight and value in our hearts and minds. As for D.B. work and life, which brought to many of us deeper meaning of life and living and has it is own greatness and beauty within. Fanda Fanda Plessl e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com/preview) From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 30 10:34:57 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Tue Oct 31 11:36:45 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F149E1858F7082A5D912F7BA5FA0@phx.gbl> References: <BAY22-F149E1858F7082A5D912F7BA5FA0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <D462A4C1-BAFD-4FE7-8F81-43C83BD53372@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Yes. There is a short video on the web with scenes from the Helen Keller film and Bohm's voice over. V interesting. http://www.anemptyexistence.com/eternalfrontier/index7.html don On 30 Oct 2006, at 00:56, Morgan Jett wrote: > Couldn't we consider Helen Keller's story a close parallel? I read > somewhere that she was like a wild animal until Anne Sullivan > conveyed to her that she could use words to form concepts and link > things. Also, research shows that babies deprived of touch simply > die. k > > >> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> >> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:22:58 +0000 >> >> Of course, the individual herself could be the observer. Which >> reminds me of the thought experiment that I described a couple of >> years ago. >> >> Consider a child born from a test tube into an environment >> where she is fed and kept clean automatically. She lives in an >> environment that has only a constant dim light and a constant >> temperature with no other form of stimulation - nothing to look >> at, no sound, just a plain blank environment like the inside of a >> pingpong ball. The question is then what this individual being >> becomes as she grows up? Would she be anything that could be >> recognised as human? What if there were observers who remained >> unseen and unheard by the subject? How would they describe her? >> Would their observation have any effect on her? Would she be able >> to make sounds? Would she need to? >> >> My own speculation would be that this creature would be able to >> perceive herself but with nothing to compare herself with, she >> could only depend on her own bodily sensations for meaning but >> she wouldn't be able to conceptualise herself without a language >> or means of describing any differences. >> >> This leads me back to the idea that each of us is an organism that >> is an inseparable part of an ecosystem that keeps him/her alive >> but beyond that there needs to also be some further sort of >> information that causes life to continue - this information would >> consist of differences that make a difference as Bateson >> described it. Without the information, without any external >> stimulation, I suspect that the body-mind would just wither away. >> don >> >> On 29 Oct 2006, at 21:38, william wrote: >> >>> >Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably >>> identical >>> >to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is >>> >included in her composite of countless aspects, each one >>> influencing >>> >how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self-image etc. So I would >>> >say Lynne is not only identical to, but immeasurably more than what >>> >you see._R >>> >>> >>> This looks like a significant insight to me. It's another way of >>> saying that identity is a form of attribution. I tend to agree >>> that a person is what you and me and everybody else thinks of >>> it. If nobody thinks anything then there would be no such >>> person. So, attribution is the key factor. People are what >>> everybody else think of them. Thought is the creator of >>> identity. And therefore the image is of utmost importance. I >>> think, almost everybody grasps this significance intuitively, >>> and "acts/pretends" accordingly, and quite rightly so... >>> >>> william >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------Original Message------- >>> >>> From: Don Lay >>> Date: 29.10.2006 15:29:10 >>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>> >>> Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES >>> in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when >>> you say Lynne. >>> Don L: I suspect no one or no thingk is limited to what just >>> thought, to just a mechanical system. It seems demaning to treat >>> people as if they are only what I think they are. >>> >>> My sense is that people, as any region of the universe, are not >>> identical to a thought or social system; that ultimately, it is >>> can be demaning to those identified, especially if the >>> identification, personification is mechanical. -- dbl >>> >>> >>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com >>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:41 AM >>> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>> >>> Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES >>> in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when >>> you say Lynne. >>> >>> The irrelevance to your question is highlighted in the quiry; Is >>> the sky a whole range of OTHER colors besides the ones visible >>> to the human eye? >>> >>> Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably >>> identical to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as >>> Lynne is included in her composite of countless aspects, each >>> one influencing how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self- >>> image etc. So I would say Lynne is not only identical to, but >>> immeasurably more than what you see._R >>> . >>> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> >>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> >>> . >>> dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think >>> when I say Lynne? >>> . >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> info: >>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>> >>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>> >>> dialogue facilitator: >>> facilitator@david-bohm.net >>> >>> Administrator of the mailing list: >>> admin@david-bohm.net >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> info: >>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>> >>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>> >>> dialogue facilitator: >>> facilitator@david-bohm.net >>> >>> Administrator of the mailing list: >>> admin@david-bohm.net >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> info: >> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >> dialogue facilitator: >> facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >> Administrator of the mailing list: >> admin@david-bohm.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https:// > voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 30 12:23:49 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:25:46 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <D462A4C1-BAFD-4FE7-8F81-43C83BD53372@donfactor.demon.co.uk> References: <BAY22-F149E1858F7082A5D912F7BA5FA0@phx.gbl> <D462A4C1-BAFD-4FE7-8F81-43C83BD53372@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <77E2341C-5363-49D1-A220-B410B9275703@donfactor.demon.co.uk> I just ran across this. it seems relevant to our consideration of self, persona, etc. "Are patients in a coma conscious? No one knows, but Damasio thinks not. Consciousness, he explained, includes not only brain activity but a sense of self. So even though stimulation can activate parts of the brain of comatose patients, they probably do not have a sense of self." from Psychiatry online. So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of consciousness, at least according to Damasio who is one of the major figures in neuroscience. don On 30 Oct 2006, at 09:34, Don Factor wrote: > Yes. There is a short video on the web with scenes from the Helen > Keller film and Bohm's voice over. V interesting. > > > http://www.anemptyexistence.com/eternalfrontier/index7.html > > don > > On 30 Oct 2006, at 00:56, Morgan Jett wrote: >> Couldn't we consider Helen Keller's story a close parallel? I >> read somewhere that she was like a wild animal until Anne Sullivan >> conveyed to her that she could use words to form concepts and link >> things. Also, research shows that babies deprived of touch simply >> die. k >> >> >>> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> >>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:22:58 +0000 >>> >>> Of course, the individual herself could be the observer. Which >>> reminds me of the thought experiment that I described a couple >>> of years ago. >>> >>> Consider a child born from a test tube into an environment >>> where she is fed and kept clean automatically. She lives in an >>> environment that has only a constant dim light and a constant >>> temperature with no other form of stimulation - nothing to look >>> at, no sound, just a plain blank environment like the inside of >>> a pingpong ball. The question is then what this individual being >>> becomes as she grows up? Would she be anything that could be >>> recognised as human? What if there were observers who remained >>> unseen and unheard by the subject? How would they describe her? >>> Would their observation have any effect on her? Would she be >>> able to make sounds? Would she need to? >>> >>> My own speculation would be that this creature would be able to >>> perceive herself but with nothing to compare herself with, she >>> could only depend on her own bodily sensations for meaning but >>> she wouldn't be able to conceptualise herself without a language >>> or means of describing any differences. >>> >>> This leads me back to the idea that each of us is an organism >>> that is an inseparable part of an ecosystem that keeps him/her >>> alive but beyond that there needs to also be some further sort >>> of information that causes life to continue - this information >>> would consist of differences that make a difference as Bateson >>> described it. Without the information, without any external >>> stimulation, I suspect that the body-mind would just wither away. >>> don >>> >>> On 29 Oct 2006, at 21:38, william wrote: >>> >>>> >Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably >>>> identical >>>> >to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is >>>> >included in her composite of countless aspects, each one >>>> influencing >>>> >how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self-image etc. So I >>>> would >>>> >say Lynne is not only identical to, but immeasurably more than >>>> what >>>> >you see._R >>>> >>>> >>>> This looks like a significant insight to me. It's another way >>>> of saying that identity is a form of attribution. I tend to >>>> agree that a person is what you and me and everybody else >>>> thinks of it. If nobody thinks anything then there would be no >>>> such person. So, attribution is the key factor. People are what >>>> everybody else think of them. Thought is the creator of >>>> identity. And therefore the image is of utmost importance. I >>>> think, almost everybody grasps this significance intuitively, >>>> and "acts/pretends" accordingly, and quite rightly so... >>>> >>>> william >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------Original Message------- >>>> >>>> From: Don Lay >>>> Date: 29.10.2006 15:29:10 >>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>>> >>>> Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES >>>> in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when >>>> you say Lynne. >>>> Don L: I suspect no one or no thingk is limited to what just >>>> thought, to just a mechanical system. It seems demaning to >>>> treat people as if they are only what I think they are. >>>> >>>> My sense is that people, as any region of the universe, are not >>>> identical to a thought or social system; that ultimately, it is >>>> can be demaning to those identified, especially if the >>>> identification, personification is mechanical. -- dbl >>>> >>>> >>>> http://home1.gte.net/donlay >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com >>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>>> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:41 AM >>>> Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>>> >>>> Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES >>>> in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when >>>> you say Lynne. >>>> >>>> The irrelevance to your question is highlighted in the quiry; >>>> Is the sky a whole range of OTHER colors besides the ones >>>> visible to the human eye? >>>> >>>> Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably >>>> identical to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as >>>> Lynne is included in her composite of countless aspects, each >>>> one influencing how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self- >>>> image etc. So I would say Lynne is not only identical to, but >>>> immeasurably more than what you see._R >>>> . >>>> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> >>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> >>>> . >>>> dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think >>>> when I say Lynne? >>>> . >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> info: >>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>>> >>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>> dialogue facilitator: >>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>> Administrator of the mailing list: >>>> admin@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> info: >>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>>> >>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>> dialogue facilitator: >>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>> Administrator of the mailing list: >>>> admin@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> info: >>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>> >>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>> >>> dialogue facilitator: >>> facilitator@david-bohm.net >>> >>> Administrator of the mailing list: >>> admin@david-bohm.net >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https:// >> voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx >> >> _______________________________________________ >> info: >> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >> dialogue facilitator: >> facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >> Administrator of the mailing list: >> admin@david-bohm.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Oct 30 12:53:30 2006 From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:55:29 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <20061031110002.CC9D824349@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org> Message-ID: <OF05FE77E9.11493F8D-ON85257217.00412D01-85257217.004152F7@dialogos.com> Rodger __hi Don L, are you intending to semantically alter what I had written or were you just waiting to answer your own -thus rhetorical- questions? _R . From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> . Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. Don L: I suspect no one or no thingk is limited to what just thought, to just a mechanical system. It seems demaning to treat people as if they are only what I think they are. My sense is that people, as any region of the universe, are not identical to a thought or social system; that ultimately, it is can be demaning to those identified, especially if the identification, personification is mechanical. . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/6a75abdb/attachment.html From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Oct 30 13:17:31 2006 From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com) Date: Tue Oct 31 14:37:03 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <20061031110002.CC9D824349@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org> Message-ID: <OFF62FC701.2CC4AADB-ON85257217.00416067-85257217.00438591@dialogos.com> Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive -- they are only indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life. Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language or level of education over another, as being more able to express new meaning? When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond the range of emotion for the man, is she viewed as being irrational by the man? Intent alone, to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony needs to be already happening on much deeper levels. Levels not effected by ripples of learning taking place closer to the surface. In this same way, Dialogue is not about the topics or content being learned - ripples on the surface - so much as the deeper levels of understanding-accord which unfold through the process, no matter what. _R . From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org . it mainly relates to the persons intent. It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough. k . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/0006bb24/attachment.html From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Oct 30 13:35:10 2006 From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com) Date: Tue Oct 31 14:37:06 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <20061031110002.CC9D824349@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org> Message-ID: <OF7121C7B4.AA4FCDA1-ON85257217.004392DD-85257217.00452375@dialogos.com> Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive -- they are only indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life. Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language, or level of education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning? When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond the range of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man? Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony either is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love. Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen closer to the surface. In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right topics to learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining understanding of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R . . From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org . it mainly relates to the persons intent. It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough. k . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/62c5e856/attachment.html From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Oct 30 13:48:30 2006 From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com) Date: Tue Oct 31 14:50:26 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] love In-Reply-To: <20061031110002.CC9D824349@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org> Message-ID: <OF39937D49.7D517C92-ON85257217.00462474-85257217.00465BBF@dialogos.com> Rodger __hi F, I think the insight plays the part of evidence in faith._R . . Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:15:49 -0800 (PST) From: "Mr. Frantisek Plessl" <frantisekplessl@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] love To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org . Fanda As for J.K. it was not a question of prove or evidence but simply because it is so without any explanations. Maybe there was some kind of insight . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/277ae079/attachment.html From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 30 13:50:20 2006 From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay) Date: Tue Oct 31 14:52:31 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole References: <OF05FE77E9.11493F8D-ON85257217.00412D01-85257217.004152F7@dialogos.com> Message-ID: <00d001c6fc22$015f53b0$a219153f@DL01> Rodger __hi Don L, are you intending to semantically alter what I had written or were you just waiting to answer your own -thus rhetorical- questions? _R The meaning of what you "had written" was/is unclear. _D* * A variant identity of dible, dable, double, dbl and donl. -- Don L http://home1.gte.net/donlay ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 6:53 AM Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole Rodger __hi Don L, are you intending to semantically alter what I had written or were you just waiting to answer your own -thus rhetorical- questions? _R . From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> . Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. Don L: I suspect no one or no thingk is limited to what just thought, to just a mechanical system. It seems demaning to treat people as if they are only what I think they are. My sense is that people, as any region of the universe, are not identical to a thought or social system; that ultimately, it is can be demaning to those identified, especially if the identification, personification is mechanical. . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net dialogue facilitator: facilitator@david-bohm.net Administrator of the mailing list: admin@david-bohm.net _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/fe528974/attachment.html From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 30 13:58:39 2006 From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt) Date: Tue Oct 31 15:02:46 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <E40175CF-E1F7-4BD7-BF7B-6F5DC38D2106@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <C16BA77F.35C3%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> Hi Rogier, I too, more often than not, choose to remain at the edge of these discussions ... I find something of what I am seeking some of the time ... Love means so many different things to so many people ... But when I read your message, and I do remember your earlier message, I have a sense of recognition, a glimmer of hope ... A tendril of the possibility of what a society or community with a culture of ?love? would look like and feel like rather than the culture of ?fear? that pervades. I do think that ?love? is the medium that connects the uniqueness of the individual within the whole ... when we participate through ?love? or in ?love? the whole unfolds within us ... Our consciousness expands and deepens and our experiences too. Then dialogue more easily occurs ... I have wondered about some of the discussions here, finding them sometimes rather ?heady? and wondered where the language from the heart is ... This for me is what I call ?love? in its widest definition. I?m unsure whether I have found a way to both connect with you and say what I have wanted to. I nearly responded last time ... I?m glad I have done this time. Gill on 29/10/06 01:41, Rogier Gregoire at gregoire@mindspring.com wrote: > I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it a > dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community to > come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same time > too precise to easily fit into the?epistemological effort to embrace David > Bohms?pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following paradigm as a > premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to respond or > react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm by > Meher Baba as originally posted: > > We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals, who > have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole, on the > other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them.? > > And the Corollary: > ? > It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others which > alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the whole). > > Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a universal > experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least > available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an?ephemeral > but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the participants > on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience, > reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral > nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the game > of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. > > I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add my view > of it and would like His statement considered rather than to trouble > yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some > recognition of this posting. > Rogier Gregoire > > > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/17cb70c0/attachment.html From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 30 14:20:56 2006 From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay) Date: Tue Oct 31 15:23:08 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole References: <OF05FE77E9.11493F8D-ON85257217.00412D01-85257217.004152F7@dialogos.com> Message-ID: <00fd01c6fc26$47c4e280$a219153f@DL01> Rodger __hi Don L, are you intending to semantically alter what I had written or were you just waiting to answer your own -thus rhetorical- questions? _R Don L: Interesting question coming from you. No, Maybe and Uncertain. I'm trying to see the relevance of what you wrote regarding identity, sameness. You wrote: Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. It is unclear what YOU know about MY " MINDS EYE". Does my mind's eye (perhaps meaning that I must imagine an eye in the mind seeing an image of Lynne) determine identity? Lynne's identity? Seems to me that all is flux (H), identity is not necessity (B). Thus, Lynne's question, " ... does identity need to be a problem?" interpreted as is identity a problem is answered affirmatively -- when identity words are used. Why? Because they mislead; they activate mental activity causing one to believe some-THINGK is when it aint. Is Rodger identical with the image in my "minds eye"? Must a "mind's eye" be imagined for Rodger to have an identity? -- Donald Britton Lay Heraclitus: All is flux ... There is no sameness ... you cannot step in the same river twice. Bohm: Identity is not necessity (tas). Lynne: ... does identity need to be a problem? dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think when I say Lynne? Is she identical (the same as) what her employer's thought of her when he directs the you-word at her? Is she the same as what her daughter or grand daughter thinks when they observe her? Just exactly what thingk is Lynne always like? What is Lynne identical with? Do such questions suggest there might be what Don F suggests is a categorical problem when the personal identity is used without awareness that it is a man-made or synthetic concept that is useful in a limited way? -- dbl From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com Rodger __hi Don L, are you intending to semantically alter what I had written or were you just waiting to answer your own -thus rhetorical- questions? _R . From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> . Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say Lynne. Don L: I suspect no one or no thingk is limited to what just thought, to just a mechanical system. It seems demaning to treat people as if they are only what I think they are. My sense is that people, as any region of the universe, are not identical to a thought or social system; that ultimately, it is can be demaning to those identified, especially if the identification, personification is mechanical. . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/c60fc8ed/attachment.html From donlay at gte.net Mon Oct 30 14:45:35 2006 From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay) Date: Tue Oct 31 15:47:42 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The Mind's Eye Message-ID: <011801c6fc29$b8d8c330$a219153f@DL01> Some people seem to believe they are what is in someone's mind's eye. And, sometimes it seems they are. When someone says, please pass the salt, and you do -- it seems evidence that you must be identical with the content of their mind's eye because you responded by passing the salt. An interesting "problem" often occurs such that we can begin to behave in a way designed to influence the other's mind's eye, even think that's what we are, our identity. _D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/10d5b431/attachment.html From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 16:13:28 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Tue Oct 31 17:15:16 2006 Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <77E2341C-5363-49D1-A220-B410B9275703@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <BAY22-F5DC971B86F217BE36CF75A5FA0@phx.gbl> There have been cases of people who woke up from comas after many years. One well known one was Black Elk of "Black Elk Speaks". Another was a Navajo girl who merited only a small article in the news. Did anyone ask them if they had a sense of self while in a coma? "Black Elk Speaks", of course, is the accounting of a vision he had during that time. He must have had a sense of self to have had those visions. He states "I saw......" k >From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:23:49 +0000 > >I just ran across this. it seems relevant to our consideration of self, >persona, etc. > >"Are patients in a coma conscious? No one knows, but Damasio thinks not. >Consciousness, he explained, includes not only brain activity but a sense >of self. So even though stimulation can activate parts of the brain of >comatose patients, they probably do not have a sense of self." >from Psychiatry online. > >So a sense of self would appear to be a necessary part of consciousness, >at least according to Damasio who is one of the major figures in >neuroscience. > >don > >On 30 Oct 2006, at 09:34, Don Factor wrote: > >>Yes. There is a short video on the web with scenes from the Helen Keller >>film and Bohm's voice over. V interesting. >> >> >>http://www.anemptyexistence.com/eternalfrontier/index7.html >> >>don >> >>On 30 Oct 2006, at 00:56, Morgan Jett wrote: >>>Couldn't we consider Helen Keller's story a close parallel? I read >>>somewhere that she was like a wild animal until Anne Sullivan conveyed >>>to her that she could use words to form concepts and link things. Also, >>>research shows that babies deprived of touch simply die. k >>> >>> >>>>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> >>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>>>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:22:58 +0000 >>>> >>>>Of course, the individual herself could be the observer. Which reminds >>>>me of the thought experiment that I described a couple of years ago. >>>> >>>>Consider a child born from a test tube into an environment where she >>>>is fed and kept clean automatically. She lives in an environment that >>>>has only a constant dim light and a constant temperature with no >>>>other form of stimulation - nothing to look at, no sound, just a >>>>plain blank environment like the inside of a pingpong ball. The >>>>question is then what this individual being becomes as she grows up? >>>>Would she be anything that could be recognised as human? What if there >>>>were observers who remained unseen and unheard by the subject? How >>>>would they describe her? Would their observation have any effect on >>>>her? Would she be able to make sounds? Would she need to? >>>> >>>>My own speculation would be that this creature would be able to >>>>perceive herself but with nothing to compare herself with, she could >>>>only depend on her own bodily sensations for meaning but she wouldn't >>>>be able to conceptualise herself without a language or means of >>>>describing any differences. >>>> >>>>This leads me back to the idea that each of us is an organism that is >>>>an inseparable part of an ecosystem that keeps him/her alive but >>>>beyond that there needs to also be some further sort of information >>>>that causes life to continue - this information would consist of >>>>differences that make a difference as Bateson described it. Without >>>>the information, without any external stimulation, I suspect that the >>>>body-mind would just wither away. >>>>don >>>> >>>>On 29 Oct 2006, at 21:38, william wrote: >>>> >>>>> >Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably identical >>>>> >to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is >>>>> >included in her composite of countless aspects, each one influencing >>>>> >how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self-image etc. So I would >>>>> >say Lynne is not only identical to, but immeasurably more than what >>>>> >you see._R >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This looks like a significant insight to me. It's another way of >>>>>saying that identity is a form of attribution. I tend to agree that a >>>>>person is what you and me and everybody else thinks of it. If nobody >>>>>thinks anything then there would be no such person. So, attribution >>>>>is the key factor. People are what everybody else think of them. >>>>>Thought is the creator of identity. And therefore the image is of >>>>>utmost importance. I think, almost everybody grasps this significance >>>>>intuitively, and "acts/pretends" accordingly, and quite rightly so... >>>>> >>>>>william >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-------Original Message------- >>>>> >>>>>From: Don Lay >>>>>Date: 29.10.2006 15:29:10 >>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>>>>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>>>> >>>>>Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in >>>>>your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say >>>>>Lynne. >>>>>Don L: I suspect no one or no thingk is limited to what just >>>>>thought, to just a mechanical system. It seems demaning to treat >>>>>people as if they are only what I think they are. >>>>> >>>>>My sense is that people, as any region of the universe, are not >>>>>identical to a thought or social system; that ultimately, it is can >>>>>be demaning to those identified, especially if the identification, >>>>>personification is mechanical. -- dbl >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>http://home1.gte.net/donlay >>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com >>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >>>>>Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:41 AM >>>>>Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>>>> >>>>>Rodger __I think the relevance of this question is answered; YES in >>>>>your minds eye, Lynne is identical to what you think, when you say >>>>>Lynne. >>>>> >>>>>The irrelevance to your question is highlighted in the quiry; Is the >>>>>sky a whole range of OTHER colors besides the ones visible to the >>>>>human eye? >>>>> >>>>>Of an infinite number of aspects to Lynne, one is probably identical >>>>>to what you think when you say Lynne. What YOU see as Lynne is >>>>>included in her composite of countless aspects, each one influencing >>>>>how she is seen by others and Lynnes own self- image etc. So I would >>>>>say Lynne is not only identical to, but immeasurably more than what >>>>>you see._R >>>>>. >>>>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> >>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole >>>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> >>>>>. >>>>>dbl: Question: Is Lynne identical (the same as) what I think when I >>>>>say Lynne? >>>>>. >>>>>. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>info: >>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>>>> >>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>>>> >>>>>dialogue facilitator: >>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net >>>>> >>>>>Administrator of the mailing list: >>>>>admin@david-bohm.net >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>info: >>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>>>> >>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>>>> >>>>>dialogue facilitator: >>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net >>>>> >>>>>Administrator of the mailing list: >>>>>admin@david-bohm.net >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>info: >>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>>> >>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>>dialogue facilitator: >>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>>Administrator of the mailing list: >>>>admin@david-bohm.net >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https:// >>>voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>info: >>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >>> >>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >>> >>>dialogue facilitator: >>>facilitator@david-bohm.net >>> >>>Administrator of the mailing list: >>>admin@david-bohm.net >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>info: >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >>dialogue facilitator: >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>admin@david-bohm.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001 From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 16:20:52 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Tue Oct 31 17:24:02 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <OF7121C7B4.AA4FCDA1-ON85257217.004392DD-85257217.00452375@dialogos.com> Message-ID: <BAY22-F56FE5C07FAEC7D5D4E40DA5FA0@phx.gbl> is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man? K: or the other way around? Or are people who love on any level considered gullible and fair game for whatever in a competitive society? Again, I have to ask if love is really possible in a competitive society. Compassion is, I believe, and I guess that's a form of love. But that's not enough for me. k >From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:35:10 -0500 > > > > > > >Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive -- they are only >indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life. > >Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language, or level of >education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning? > >When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond the range >of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational by the >man? > >Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony either >is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love. >Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen closer to >the surface. > >In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right topics to >learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining understanding >of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R >. >. >From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >. >it mainly relates to the persons intent. > >It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough. k >. >. >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001 From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 16:29:56 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Tue Oct 31 17:31:46 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29The Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <C16BA77F.35C3%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> Message-ID: <BAY22-F16E665B99651ADBFD9CC90A5FA0@phx.gbl> I am glad you responded, too, Gill. Please continue, remind us to speak from the heart. k >From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29The >Indivisible Whole >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:58:39 +0000 > >Hi Rogier, > >I too, more often than not, choose to remain at the edge of these >discussions ... I find something of what I am seeking some of the time ... > >Love means so many different things to so many people ... But when I read >your message, and I do remember your earlier message, I have a sense of >recognition, a glimmer of hope ... A tendril of the possibility of what a >society or community with a culture of Œlove¹ would look like and feel like >rather than the culture of Œfear¹ that pervades. > >I do think that Œlove¹ is the medium that connects the uniqueness of the >individual within the whole ... when we participate through Œlove¹ or in >Œlove¹ the whole unfolds within us ... Our consciousness expands and >deepens >and our experiences too. Then dialogue more easily occurs ... > >I have wondered about some of the discussions here, finding them sometimes >rather Œheady¹ and wondered where the language from the heart is ... This >for me is what I call Œlove¹ in its widest definition. > >I¹m unsure whether I have found a way to both connect with you and say what >I have wanted to. I nearly responded last time ... I¹m glad I have done >this >time. > >Gill > > >on 29/10/06 01:41, Rogier Gregoire at gregoire@mindspring.com wrote: > > > I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it >a > > dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community >to > > come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same >time > > too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace >David > > Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following >paradigm as a > > premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to respond >or > > react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm >by > > Meher Baba as originally posted: > > > > We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals, >who > > have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole, >on the > > other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them. > > > > And the Corollary: > > > > It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others >which > > alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the >whole). > > > > Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a >universal > > experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least > > available experience to such a quest and to even consider such >an ephemeral > > but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the >participants > > on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience, > > reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral > > nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the >game > > of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. > > > > I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add >my view > > of it and would like His statement considered rather than to trouble > > yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some > > recognition of this posting. > > Rogier Gregoire > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > info: > > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > > > dialogue facilitator: > > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > > > Administrator of the mailing list: > > admin@david-bohm.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 16:36:08 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Tue Oct 31 17:37:57 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thinkg Message-ID: <BAY22-F11B8EB72E3B451994153EEA5FA0@phx.gbl> Would someone please explain "thinkg" to me? Thanks, k _________________________________________________________________ Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 30 17:29:18 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Tue Oct 31 18:31:54 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The Mind's Eye In-Reply-To: <011801c6fc29$b8d8c330$a219153f@DL01> References: <011801c6fc29$b8d8c330$a219153f@DL01> Message-ID: <E5549C7D-3FF4-40CC-9A54-E1B8000A0903@donfactor.demon.co.uk> There is a way to interpret quantum theory that says that every time someone does something - anything - the world splits into two. In one world the act was not done and in the other it was. So the world is constantly splitting many worlds. I know it doesn't make sense but it is a way of explaining things that can't be explained using other interpretations. don On 30 Oct 2006, at 13:45, Don Lay wrote: > Some people seem to believe they are what is in someone's mind's > eye. And, sometimes it seems they are. When someone says, please > pass the salt, and you do -- it seems evidence that you must be > identical with the content of their mind's eye because you > responded by passing the salt. > > An interesting "problem" often occurs such that we can begin to > behave in a way designed to influence the other's mind's eye, even > think that's what we are, our identity. _D > > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/3cbf0b43/attachment.html From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 17:31:51 2006 From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays) Date: Tue Oct 31 18:33:37 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole Message-ID: <20061030163151.10903.qmail@web52915.mail.yahoo.com> kathryn, this would be an excellent question in dialogue. anger is always a pointer to something deeper! even if the anger is misunderstand by us or the people experiencing it, it can be a valuable aspect of dialogue. all strong emotions potentially can be. i dont know how far you can get here because of the varying degrees of perceptions and ambiguity about what we are doing and what is possible in the online format. then we have all the assumptions people make about what is said here. is anything personal? the flow of meaning in dialogue is really impersonal, yet something we can all personally potentially take part in. so whatever is said, though it may be partially triggered by something else that is said, is really just a branch on the tree or a drop in the stream or whatever. owen thinks we are refusing to consider Love. i just dont see that as true. that is your interpretation of what is happening. maybe it did or does in fact happen, but not from my perspective. you say the list does not respect a theme. i disagree. we respect all themes! how can you say that? again, it is from your perspective. i dont say this about perspectives to trivialize the content of your message, because all of our perspectives are valid and can be useful. i am glad you posted that message owen. i just want to encourage you, kathryn, to keep up with dialogue because i can tell you have a knack for sensing the flow of meaning and where the energy is. :) kari ----- Original Message ---- From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:04:05 AM Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole Please set me straight if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing from both of you is anger at the group. Is there some way to work through that to get at deeper meaning? k >From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,Issue 29 The >Indivisible Whole >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:04:28 -1200 > >Rogier, >I also sit on the periphery after attempting to explain success in Dialogue >in my home town of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. This list is not willing >to acknowledge our name "Unity in Diversity" as being a key to dialogue. >Bohm was so resistant to rules that this group refuses to consider Love or >even our guides in Mexico for respectful writing (an approach to love). The >list does not even respect a theme and if you wish to communicate with me >it >is necessary to email my address to avoid disruption by independent egos. > >On 10/28/06, Rogier Gregoire <gregoire@mindspring.com> wrote: >> >>I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it a >>dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community to >>come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same >>time >>too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace David >>Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following paradigm >>as >>a premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to respond >>or >>react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm by >>Meher Baba as originally posted: >>We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals, who >>have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole, on >>the other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them. >> >>And the Corollary: >> >>It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others which >>alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the >>whole). >> >>Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a universal >>experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least >>available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an >>ephemeral >>but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the >>participants >>on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience, >>reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral >>nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the >>game >>of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. >> >>I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add my >>view of it and would like His statement considered rather than to trouble >>yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some >>recognition of this posting. >>Rogier Gregoire >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>info: >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >>dialogue facilitator: >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>admin@david-bohm.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> > > >-- >We are connected > >Owen >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline _______________________________________________ info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net dialogue facilitator: facilitator@david-bohm.net Administrator of the mailing list: admin@david-bohm.net _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/08fe2ddb/attachment.html From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 30 17:37:36 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Tue Oct 31 18:40:25 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thinkg In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F11B8EB72E3B451994153EEA5FA0@phx.gbl> References: <BAY22-F11B8EB72E3B451994153EEA5FA0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <59BC4418-C420-4879-8F04-1D14E9FB1300@donfactor.demon.co.uk> thingk was a coinage introduced by the notorious Peter Krauss, our first serious troll. It seemed to be a good idea. it means that since a thing is a product of thought - that is, it is always the product of a distinction - it ought to be called a combination of thing and think. Somewhere along the line someone else, I can't recall who, started making distinctions between thingk and thinkg but that was a step too far for me. Anyway, its not a bad mnemonic. don On 30 Oct 2006, at 15:36, Morgan Jett wrote: > Would someone please explain "thinkg" to me? Thanks, k > > _________________________________________________________________ > Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https:// > voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx > > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: > facilitator@david-bohm.net > > Administrator of the mailing list: > admin@david-bohm.net > > _______________________________________________ > > From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 17:45:02 2006 From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays) Date: Tue Oct 31 18:46:54 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language Message-ID: <20061030164503.48296.qmail@web52912.mail.yahoo.com> I'm confused. Normally when I see "K" I think Krishnamurti. Who is "K" here? And, I think it is interesting that compassion isn't enough for you. Why do we have to split love and compassion? I really don't see any difference myself! Is one of our definitions larger/smaller? kari ----- Original Message ---- From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:20:52 AM Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man? K: or the other way around? Or are people who love on any level considered gullible and fair game for whatever in a competitive society? Again, I have to ask if love is really possible in a competitive society. Compassion is, I believe, and I guess that's a form of love. But that's not enough for me. k >From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:35:10 -0500 > > > > > > >Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive -- they are only >indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life. > >Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language, or level of >education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning? > >When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond the range >of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational by the >man? > >Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony either >is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love. >Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen closer to >the surface. > >In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right topics to >learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining understanding >of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R >. >. >From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >. >it mainly relates to the persons intent. > >It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough. k >. >. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/1972300d/attachment.html From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 17:50:44 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Tue Oct 31 18:52:33 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole In-Reply-To: <20061030163151.10903.qmail@web52915.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <BAY22-F218493FD051DB035D08ACA5FA0@phx.gbl> I will, Kari. There are other things in your post I most likely will respond to, but I need time to live with them first. k >From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,Issue 29 The >Indivisible Whole >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:31:51 -0800 (PST) > >kathryn, >this would be an excellent question in dialogue. anger is always a pointer >to something deeper! even if the anger is misunderstand by us or the people >experiencing it, it can be a valuable aspect of dialogue. all strong >emotions potentially can be. i dont know how far you can get here because >of the varying degrees of perceptions and ambiguity about what we are doing >and what is possible in the online format. then we have all the assumptions >people make about what is said here. is anything personal? the flow of >meaning in dialogue is really impersonal, yet something we can all >personally potentially take part in. so whatever is said, though it may be >partially triggered by something else that is said, is really just a branch >on the tree or a drop in the stream or whatever. owen thinks we are >refusing to consider Love. i just dont see that as true. that is your >interpretation of what is happening. maybe it did or does in fact happen, >but not from my perspective. you say the > list does not respect a theme. i disagree. we respect all themes! how can >you say that? again, it is from your perspective. i dont say this about >perspectives to trivialize the content of your message, because all of our >perspectives are valid and can be useful. i am glad you posted that message >owen. > >i just want to encourage you, kathryn, to keep up with dialogue because i >can tell you have a knack for sensing the flow of meaning and where the >energy is. :) > >kari > > > >----- Original Message ---- >From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:04:05 AM >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The >Indivisible Whole > > >Please set me straight if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing from both of you >is anger at the group. Is there some way to work through that to get at >deeper meaning? k > > > >From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20,Issue 29 >The > >Indivisible Whole > >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:04:28 -1200 > > > >Rogier, > >I also sit on the periphery after attempting to explain success in >Dialogue > >in my home town of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. This list is not >willing > >to acknowledge our name "Unity in Diversity" as being a key to dialogue. > >Bohm was so resistant to rules that this group refuses to consider Love >or > >even our guides in Mexico for respectful writing (an approach to love). >The > >list does not even respect a theme and if you wish to communicate with me > >it > >is necessary to email my address to avoid disruption by independent egos. > > > >On 10/28/06, Rogier Gregoire <gregoire@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> > >>I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it >a > >>dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community >to > >>come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same > >>time > >>too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace >David > >>Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following >paradigm > >>as > >>a premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to respond > >>or > >>react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm >by > >>Meher Baba as originally posted: > >>We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals, >who > >>have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole, >on > >>the other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them. > >> > >>And the Corollary: > >> > >>It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others >which > >>alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the > >>whole). > >> > >>Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a >universal > >>experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least > >>available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an > >>ephemeral > >>but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the > >>participants > >>on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience, > >>reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral > >>nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the > >>game > >>of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. > >> > >>I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add >my > >>view of it and would like His statement considered rather than to >trouble > >>yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some > >>recognition of this posting. > >>Rogier Gregoire > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>info: > >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >> > >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >> > >>dialogue facilitator: > >>facilitator@david-bohm.net > >> > >>Administrator of the mailing list: > >>admin@david-bohm.net > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >We are connected > > > >Owen > > > >_______________________________________________ > >info: > >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > > >dialogue facilitator: > >facilitator@david-bohm.net > > > >Administrator of the mailing list: > >admin@david-bohm.net > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today! >http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 17:56:14 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Tue Oct 31 18:58:03 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thinkg In-Reply-To: <59BC4418-C420-4879-8F04-1D14E9FB1300@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <BAY22-F59BD46F6659BB2403A7B4A5FA0@phx.gbl> Thanks, Don, but I'm still having trouble getting my mind around it. Do you mean that the invention of the computer is a product of thought, therefore it ought to be called a combination of thing and think i.e. thinkg? I'm also stuck on "it is always the product of a distinction". Could you please dislodge me?? k >From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thinkg >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:37:36 +0000 > >thingk was a coinage introduced by the notorious Peter Krauss, our first >serious troll. It seemed to be a good idea. it means that since a thing is >a product of thought - that is, it is always the product of a distinction >- it ought to be called a combination of thing and think. Somewhere along >the line someone else, I can't recall who, started making distinctions >between thingk and thinkg but that was a step too far for me. Anyway, its >not a bad mnemonic. > >don > >On 30 Oct 2006, at 15:36, Morgan Jett wrote: > >>Would someone please explain "thinkg" to me? Thanks, k >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https:// >>voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx >> >>_______________________________________________ >>info: >>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue >> >>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net >> >>dialogue facilitator: >>facilitator@david-bohm.net >> >>Administrator of the mailing list: >>admin@david-bohm.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 17:58:47 2006 From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays) Date: Tue Oct 31 19:00:33 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole Message-ID: <20061030165847.66023.qmail@web52910.mail.yahoo.com> Why cant we embody the sense of love we long for and take that into our communities? If it is in us, then it is in the world, right? I don't believe in a culture of fear. I know it exists, but not having a tv or newspapers, maybe I am more optimistic than the average person who is tranced by the fearful messages with which we are bombarded. I believe it is possible to live in love. I believe it is here all the time. It is up to us. Thanks gill and rogier. kari ----- Original Message ---- From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 4:58:39 AM Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 29 The Indivisible Whole Hi Rogier, I too, more often than not, choose to remain at the edge of these discussions ... I find something of what I am seeking some of the time ... Love means so many different things to so many people ... But when I read your message, and I do remember your earlier message, I have a sense of recognition, a glimmer of hope ... A tendril of the possibility of what a society or community with a culture of ?love? would look like and feel like rather than the culture of ?fear? that pervades. I do think that ?love? is the medium that connects the uniqueness of the individual within the whole ... when we participate through ?love? or in ?love? the whole unfolds within us ... Our consciousness expands and deepens and our experiences too. Then dialogue more easily occurs ... I have wondered about some of the discussions here, finding them sometimes rather ?heady? and wondered where the language from the heart is ... This for me is what I call ?love? in its widest definition. I?m unsure whether I have found a way to both connect with you and say what I have wanted to. I nearly responded last time ... I?m glad I have done this time. Gill on 29/10/06 01:41, Rogier Gregoire at gregoire@mindspring.com wrote: I sit on the periphery of this conversation - not being able to call it a dialogue - and realized that the most difficult word for this community to come to grips with is LOVE. It is at once too ephemeral and at the same time too precise to easily fit into the epistemological effort to embrace David Bohms pronouncements. I once, not long ago, posted the following paradigm as a premise with the hope that some would find time or interest to respond or react to the implications in regard to wholeness. Here is the paradigm by Meher Baba as originally posted: We conceive the universe as a spiritual whole, made up of individuals, who have no existence except as manifestations of the whole; as the whole, on the other hand, has no existence except as manifested in them. And the Corollary: It is by Love that we can fully enter into that harmony with others which alone constitutes our own reality and the reality of the universe (the whole). Some of the difficulty lies in the obsessive desire to promote a universal experience that can be discussed or named. Love is certainly the least available experience to such a quest and to even consider such an ephemeral but universal emotion as the key to understanding confounds the participants on this list serve. In passing let me say that love, as an experience, reflects the inherent diversity of the universe and reveals the integral nature of wholeness as experience pure and simple. My sense is that the game of wholeness is defined by consciousness not experience. I am not trying to explain the statement by Meher Baba but only to add my view of it and would like His statement considered rather than to trouble yourselves with my comments. All in All, I would be flattered by some recognition of this posting. Rogier Gregoire _______________________________________________ info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net dialogue facilitator: facilitator@david-bohm.net Administrator of the mailing list: admin@david-bohm.net _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net dialogue facilitator: facilitator@david-bohm.net Administrator of the mailing list: admin@david-bohm.net _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/cadc3453/attachment.html From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 18:00:49 2006 From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays) Date: Tue Oct 31 19:02:35 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language Message-ID: <20061030170049.6339.qmail@web52901.mail.yahoo.com> In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right topics to learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining understanding of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R Yeah Rodger me too. The content can and does get interesting but what I experience is a learning beyond content. Kari -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/b0dac8f3/attachment.html From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 18:03:26 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Tue Oct 31 19:05:16 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <20061030164503.48296.qmail@web52912.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <BAY22-F9D39F589D8F18503E3690A5FA0@phx.gbl> Here, K is me. Would it be better if I used Kay? It's so easy just to hit the K key! It's only one kind of love, and seems almost to imply that the one who has compassion for another is somehow superior. That's why, when you responded to my email to Kris, by saying you'd like to have shown himer compassion, I was quick to clarify that my response had a different foundation. Particularly my Navajo experience taught me that people often don't want your compassion. They consider it in the same category with an inferior status, and needing handouts - i.e. a putdown. K or Kay >From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:45:02 -0800 (PST) > >I'm confused. Normally when I see "K" I think Krishnamurti. Who is "K" >here? > >And, I think it is interesting that compassion isn't enough for you. Why do >we have to split love and compassion? I really don't see any difference >myself! > >Is one of our definitions larger/smaller? > >kari > >----- Original Message ---- >From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:20:52 AM >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > > >is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man? > >K: or the other way around? Or are people who love on any level >considered >gullible and fair game for whatever in a competitive society? >Again, I have to ask if love is really possible in a competitive society. >Compassion is, I believe, and I guess that's a form of love. But that's >not >enough for me. k > > > >From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:35:10 -0500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive -- they are >only > >indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life. > > > >Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language, or level >of > >education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning? > > > >When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond the range > >of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational by the > >man? > > > >Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony >either > >is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love. > >Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen closer >to > >the surface. > > > >In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right topics to > >learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining >understanding > >of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R > >. > >. > >From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> > >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >. > >it mainly relates to the persons intent. > > > >It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough. k > >. > >. > > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 18:09:53 2006 From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays) Date: Tue Oct 31 19:11:39 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language Message-ID: <20061030170953.33139.qmail@web52904.mail.yahoo.com> You can use K. I thought it might have been you. We can use JK for Krishnamurti. Normally compassion isn't something I talk about though, you see? It is a natural outpouring of humanness. One part of it for me is just realizing that there is a paper thin line between any os ua and the situations we find ourselves in. So that is a lot like love as far as I'm concerned. This is really limiting it, explaining it though. I see what you are saying about how it could be a put-down. I just find it difficult to separate out love, compassion, enthusiasm, etc. And say "this is love, this is compassion, etc." Where is the separation? I guess talking about it is way different than living it huh? Thanks for the clarification. I definitely get your point. kari ----- Original Message ---- From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:03:26 AM Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language Here, K is me. Would it be better if I used Kay? It's so easy just to hit the K key! It's only one kind of love, and seems almost to imply that the one who has compassion for another is somehow superior. That's why, when you responded to my email to Kris, by saying you'd like to have shown himer compassion, I was quick to clarify that my response had a different foundation. Particularly my Navajo experience taught me that people often don't want your compassion. They consider it in the same category with an inferior status, and needing handouts - i.e. a putdown. K or Kay >From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:45:02 -0800 (PST) > >I'm confused. Normally when I see "K" I think Krishnamurti. Who is "K" >here? > >And, I think it is interesting that compassion isn't enough for you. Why do >we have to split love and compassion? I really don't see any difference >myself! > >Is one of our definitions larger/smaller? > >kari > >----- Original Message ---- >From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:20:52 AM >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > > >is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man? > >K: or the other way around? Or are people who love on any level >considered >gullible and fair game for whatever in a competitive society? >Again, I have to ask if love is really possible in a competitive society. >Compassion is, I believe, and I guess that's a form of love. But that's >not >enough for me. k > > > >From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:35:10 -0500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive -- they are >only > >indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life. > > > >Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language, or level >of > >education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning? > > > >When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond the range > >of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational by the > >man? > > > >Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony >either > >is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love. > >Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen closer >to > >the surface. > > > >In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right topics to > >learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining >understanding > >of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R > >. > >. > >From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> > >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >. > >it mainly relates to the persons intent. > > > >It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough. k > >. > >. > > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us _______________________________________________ info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net dialogue facilitator: facilitator@david-bohm.net Administrator of the mailing list: admin@david-bohm.net _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/5574a6e2/attachment.html From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 18:48:10 2006 From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett) Date: Tue Oct 31 19:50:01 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <20061030170953.33139.qmail@web52904.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <BAY22-F25D3B1CC03273257A947F0A5FA0@phx.gbl> I also felt/feel there was/is no separation until I experienced the rebuff. And that's why I was so quick to clarify re Kris. And maybe there is none, but what would the rebuff be considered? Rejection? That's common enough in love! Out of the interaction of opposites something else is born. The Navajo certainly didn't see it as love or hozhoon, and now I wonder although I practice maitre. One must have compassion for one's self as well as others. Compassion includes forgiveness, maybe. Rambling thoughts, but maybe someone can add to the stream of consciousness, and sense will come. k >From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:09:53 -0800 (PST) > >You can use K. I thought it might have been you. We can use JK for >Krishnamurti. Normally compassion isn't something I talk about though, you >see? It is a natural outpouring of humanness. One part of it for me is just >realizing that there is a paper thin line between any os ua and the >situations we find ourselves in. So that is a lot like love as far as I'm >concerned. This is really limiting it, explaining it though. I see what you >are saying about how it could be a put-down. > >I just find it difficult to separate out love, compassion, enthusiasm, etc. >And say "this is love, this is compassion, etc." Where is the separation? I >guess talking about it is way different than living it huh? > >Thanks for the clarification. I definitely get your point. > >kari > > > >----- Original Message ---- >From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:03:26 AM >Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > > >Here, K is me. Would it be better if I used Kay? It's so easy just to hit >the K key! > >It's only one kind of love, and seems almost to imply that the one who has >compassion for another is somehow superior. That's why, when you responded >to my email to Kris, by saying you'd like to have shown himer compassion, I >was quick to clarify that my response had a different foundation. >Particularly my Navajo experience taught me that people often don't want >your compassion. They consider it in the same category with an inferior >status, and needing handouts - i.e. a putdown. > >K or Kay > > > >From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >Subject: Re: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:45:02 -0800 (PST) > > > >I'm confused. Normally when I see "K" I think Krishnamurti. Who is "K" > >here? > > > >And, I think it is interesting that compassion isn't enough for you. Why >do > >we have to split love and compassion? I really don't see any difference > >myself! > > > >Is one of our definitions larger/smaller? > > > >kari > > > >----- Original Message ---- > >From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com> > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > >Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:20:52 AM > >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > > > > > >is she simply viewed as being irrational by the man? > > > >K: or the other way around? Or are people who love on any level > >considered > >gullible and fair game for whatever in a competitive society? > >Again, I have to ask if love is really possible in a competitive society. > >Compassion is, I believe, and I guess that's a form of love. But that's > >not > >enough for me. k > > > > > > >From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com > > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > > >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:35:10 -0500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Rodger __you're right, intent is like attitude and motive -- they are > >only > > >indications of ones sense, or awareness, of purpose in life. > > > > > >Which brings us back to preference. Do we prefer one language, or level > >of > > >education, over another? Is one better able to express new meaning? > > > > > >When a woman gives clear expression to feelings that are beyond the >range > > >of emotion for the man, is she simply viewed as being irrational by the > > >man? > > > > > >Intent to get along or remain in harmony is not enough. The harmony > >either > > >is -or is not- already happening on much deeper levels. I.e. Love. > > >Levels not effected by the ripples of topic-learning that happen closer > >to > > >the surface. > > > > > >In this same way, I find Dialogue is not about finding right topics to > > >learn about - the ripples on the surface - so much as gaining > >understanding > > >of accord & discord unfolding beneath the process. _R > > >. > > >. > > >From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com> > > >Subject: RE: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language > > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org > > >. > > >it mainly relates to the persons intent. > > > > > >It's been my experience that "intent" is not enough. k > > >. > > >. > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >info: > >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > > >dialogue facilitator: > >facilitator@david-bohm.net > > > >Administrator of the mailing list: > >admin@david-bohm.net > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces >http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us From zoechuzero at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 17:38:25 2006 From: zoechuzero at yahoo.com (Zoe Chu) Date: Tue Oct 31 19:55:13 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] enter Message-ID: <20061030163825.66620.qmail@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com> There is a way to interpret quantum theory that says http://mocoloco.com/art/archives/levy_toss_detail_apr_06.jpg that every time someone does something - anything - the world splits into two. In one world the act was not done and in the other it was. So the world is constantly splitting http://www.martin-electronics.com/images/Grenade%20Toss.jpg many worlds. I know it doesn't make sense but it is a way of explaining things that can't be explained using other interpretations. don --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061030/f0eaa1cf/attachment.html From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 30 19:05:18 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Tue Oct 31 20:07:12 2006 Subject: Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] language In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F9D39F589D8F18503E3690A5FA0@phx.gbl> References: <BAY22-F9D39F589D8F18503E3690A5FA0@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <722A4649-307C-4DB1-867D-3DD4689E4228@donfactor.demon.co.uk> On 30 Oct 2006, at 17:03, Morgan Jett wrote: > Particularly my Navajo experience taught me that people often don't > want your compassion. They consider it in the same category with > an inferior status, and needing handouts - i.e. a putdown. Ah, another word we can add to our list. Compassion literally means to suffer to together. But to me it like empathy or fellow feeling. It certainly, in my book, has nothing to do with infrerior-supperior judgements. But then maybe this is why when I have mentioned responsibility people have seemed to resist it. I wonder what people mean by responsibility. What I mean by it is something like fellow feeling or compassion but maybe a more active version of them. If someone is in trouble or if they need something, I want to help. It has to do with friendship, even of an impersonal nature. So all these terms have to do with being part of a whole system that is larger than just me. don From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 30 19:09:07 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Tue Oct 31 20:10:52 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] enter In-Reply-To: <20061030163825.66620.qmail@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <20061030163825.66620.qmail@web55005.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7FEB7EA2-3C2B-4E12-90EB-1EC6E94536F2@donfactor.demon.co.uk> I think Zoe;s world has split into one where she is a troll. We will have to watch out. don On 30 Oct 2006, at 16:38, Zoe Chu wrote: > There is a way to interpret quantum theory that says > http://mocoloco.com/art/archives/levy_toss_detail_apr_06.jpg that > every time someone does something - anything - the world splits > into two. In one world the act was not done and in the other it > was. So the world is constantly splitting > http://www.martin-electronics.com/images/Grenade%20Toss.jpg many > worlds. I know it doesn't make sense but it is a way of explaining > things that can't be explained using other interpretations. > don > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. > _______________________________________________ > info: > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > > dialogue facilitator: &g