From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Oct 31 01:01:55 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Nov 1 03:17:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thinkg
Message-ID: <20061030.160917.672.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
No, being a troll is the name for a phenomena of the troublemakers who
like to irritate people in internet communities or listservers like ours
by being confrontational or obcessive devil's advocates, making
multi-spam-type posts with little content, gatekeepers for newbies, etc.
etc. So that's where the reference to computers came from. The word
"thingk" or "thinkg" was the troll's one contribution that everyone here
accepted and still uses.
Thingk and Thinkg also came from the idea that it's impossible to avoid
to "thing-a-fy" verbs/actions into things when we think about them. So,
the mind, or people with a mind seem to make an event - which is a verb,
but uses a noun to describe it - into a separate distinction in order to
think about it. So it's the thinking that is the verb/action, and the
stuff you are thinking about that becomes the noun/ subject. Thinkg is
commenting about what thinking does to what is being thought about.
Arrrgghh, I hate buzzwords. Maybe we should put that into the welcoming
blurb as an example of a dialogue conversation?
Franis
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:56:14 -0600 "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
writes:
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 benschcoe at hotmail.com Tue Oct 31 04:26:12 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Wed Nov 1 05:28:07 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <OF7EF7ED68.5A2219D5-ON85257214.00488889-85257214.0049A623@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F35317203E01D921312609EB7F90@phx.gbl>
Yes, but I suspect you can describe when and where you first experienced
wholeness.
Regina
>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:24:26 -0400
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger __This reminds me of women I have known, who in their mid-fifties
>had never experienced an orgasm -- they gave birth, raised families and
>shared sex for decades with their husband(s) -- but never experienced an
>orgasm.
>
>Some of the women finally experienced orgasm after their children left for
>university and the mother took on a lover.
>
>But for the others, how could you possibly describe orgasm so that it has
>meaning to someone who never experienced one? _R
>.
>.
>
>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:14:57 -0400
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>.
>What would wholeness feel like? If we agree with Bohm and say that words
>create FEELS, what might the FEEL of WHOLENESS be like?
>.
>.
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 31 12:53:08 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 1 13:55:27 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061101110003.90A15243AB@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF83836F8F.1F99F4A3-ON85257218.0040214E-85257218.00414A2B@dialogos.com>
Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a sense
of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.
What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation? Are
people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in sensing self
once establishment tells them to? _R
.
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
.
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
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061031/42dff411/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 31 13:23:51 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 1 14:26:01 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061101110003.90A15243AB@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF29E5D5E3.295C08D2-ON85257218.00420B5A-85257218.00441A34@dialogos.com>
Rodger__minds eye is a jargonistic term used to describe a capacity to view
images in connection to thoughts within ones brain.
Even if you are a schizophrenic, the image you have of Lynne in your minds
eye, at a time when you address Lynne, will be identical to the Lynne that
you believe you are addressing.
And because Lynne has an uncountable number of aspects, re: levels of self,
which she herself is yet unaware of -just like any one of us- there is
always a possibility that one of those aspects will correlate identically
to the image in your minds eye.
And I never wrote that Lynne could possibly be identical to something in
your head, I wrote of a possibility that an ASPECT of Lynne could be
identical to a thought you might have of Lynne. Neither the aspect of
Lynne, or the thought about Lynne, is Lynne, merely extremely small parts
of the whole of Lynne._R
.
.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:20:56 -0500
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
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?
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061031/17dd2d9e/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 31 13:49:43 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 1 14:51:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: 29 The Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061101110003.90A15243AB@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF0B4999A6.CAD5169B-ON85257218.0044FB0A-85257218.0046787C@dialogos.com>
Rodger __thanks Kari. Its true, I only multiply pains if I constantly
observe limitations external to me as if it wasnt me deciding upon the
nature of my observations.
When I started being more loving, I began to see how the world and people
around me were different from what I had been projecting and believing was
rational observation -- about those others around me.
If ones idea of LOVE is not possible to realize or constantly creates
problems for one, it isnt the competetive world, it is because that idea of
LOVE has too many unloving conditions attached to it.
There will never be enough - if it isnt us that gives it first in our
lives._R
.
.
From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
Subject: 29 The Indivisible Whole
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
Why cant we embody the sense of love we long for and take that into our
communities?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061031/dc7310b2/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 31 14:20:28 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Nov 1 15:22:27 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <OF83836F8F.1F99F4A3-ON85257218.0040214E-85257218.00414A2B@dialogos.com>
References: <OF83836F8F.1F99F4A3-ON85257218.0040214E-85257218.00414A2B@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <E0433901-7695-4D23-B783-A3F58FAACE20@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it.
But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we can
add elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of self along
with all the great apes including humans nd bottle nosed dolphins.
The way we can tell is by putting a mark on their heads and then
showing them how their image in a big mirror. Most animals would
react as if it were another animal but elephants check out the mark
with their trunks wondering, no doubt, what idiot put it there.
don
On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
> Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a
> sense of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.
>
> What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation?
> Are people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in
> sensing self once establishment tells them to? _R
> .
> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
> .
> 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
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061031/ccd5fca3/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 31 14:23:00 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Nov 1 15:24:55 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <OF29E5D5E3.295C08D2-ON85257218.00420B5A-85257218.00441A34@dialogos.com>
References: <OF29E5D5E3.295C08D2-ON85257218.00420B5A-85257218.00441A34@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <EF688C4A-BB08-4036-8DF7-D1A761401E94@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Reminds me of a story I read in The Fifty Minute Hour, of a
schizophrenic girl who told her doctor, "you can't imagine who
terrifying it is to not be avle to tell where you end and the rest of
the world begins."
don
On 31 Oct 2006, at 12:23, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
> Rodger__minds eye is a jargonistic term used to describe a capacity
> to view images in connection to thoughts within ones brain.
>
> Even if you are a schizophrenic, the image you have of Lynne in
> your minds eye, at a time when you address Lynne, will be identical
> to the Lynne that you believe you are addressing.
>
> And because Lynne has an uncountable number of aspects, re: levels
> of self, which she herself is yet unaware of -just like any one of
> us- there is always a possibility that one of those aspects will
> correlate identically to the image in your minds eye.
>
> And I never wrote that Lynne could possibly be identical to
> something in your head, I wrote of a possibility that an ASPECT of
> Lynne could be identical to a thought you might have of Lynne.
> Neither the aspect of Lynne, or the thought about Lynne, is Lynne,
> merely extremely small parts of the whole of Lynne._R
> .
> .
> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:20:56 -0500
> From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> 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?
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061031/ecab71fa/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Oct 31 14:31:23 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 1 15:33:27 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <20061101110003.90A15243AB@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFEC3A70CC.88B3A9DA-ON85257218.0048B73B-85257218.004A48D1@dialogos.com>
Rodger__hi Regina, I am interested in what you mean by experiencing
wholeness.
There are many experiences of wholeness, including fragmentation and
separation. But my most whole-like experiences started with an experience
of simply being conscious of being conscious, in absence of any thought of
self-image, besides sensory/bodily self.
But prior to having that experience there were many years of what seemed
mostly involuntary dissolution of self images, starting with the most
superficial and working inward from there._R
.
.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:26:12 -0500
From: "Regina Bensch-Coe" <benschcoe@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Yes, but I suspect you can describe when and where you first experienced
wholeness.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061031/663ae0f2/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 31 14:37:53 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Nov 1 15:39:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] enter
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F15BCD9C6E0D501445C27F3A5FA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F15BCD9C6E0D501445C27F3A5FA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <3E5CEAD8-BEE4-458E-A407-25A9A3D0DEDA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I have come to hate the necessity of having to scroll through posts
only in order to delete them. I get more than a dozen every day that
have been carefully crafted to bypass any - antispam programmes.
There is too much spam about and to add trolls is more than I am
prepared to stomach. There are, of course, a lot of posts on this
list that don't interest me particularly but, in the spirit of
dialogue, I read them all. Sometimes, they turn out to be more
relevant than I initially thought. I also keep an archive of posts
going back a number of years and I often consult them searching for
key words. I find this very valuable.
But more particularly, i am stuck with the feeling that that are
things I can say to my friends, even impersonal friends or
colleagues, that I can't say to casual acquaintances, and also things
that I can say to casual acquaintances that I definitely cannot say
to strangers.
don
On 30 Oct 2006, at 19:10, Morgan Jett wrote:
> Don - has she been unsubscribed, or are you alerting us to be aware
> of trolling when she posts? 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] enter
>> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:09:07 +0000
>>
>> 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:
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day
> trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?
> href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 31 14:43:06 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 1 15:45:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: 29 The Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <OF0B4999A6.CAD5169B-ON85257218.0044FB0A-85257218.0046787C@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1438866C41616D5DB35410A5F90@phx.gbl>
it is because that idea of LOVE has too many unloving conditions attached to
it
Yes, no disagreement there - but what is the source of these unloving
conditions? k
>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: 29 The Indivisible Whole
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:49:43 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger __thanks Kari. Its true, I only multiply pains if I constantly
>observe limitations external to me as if it wasnt me deciding upon the
>nature of my observations.
>
>When I started being more loving, I began to see how the world and people
>around me were different from what I had been projecting and believing was
>rational observation -- about those others around me.
>
>If ones idea of LOVE is not possible to realize or constantly creates
>problems for one, it isnt the competetive world, it is because that idea of
>LOVE has too many unloving conditions attached to it.
>
>There will never be enough - if it isnt us that gives it first in our
>lives._R
>.
>.
>From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
>Subject: 29 The Indivisible Whole
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>.
>Why cant we embody the sense of love we long for and take that into our
>communities?
>_______________________________________________
>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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 31 14:44:44 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 1 15:46:43 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <OF29E5D5E3.295C08D2-ON85257218.00420B5A-85257218.00441A34@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F22DA46DA8DD103FF547870A5F90@phx.gbl>
Thanks for the good, clear explanation. I never thought of it this way. k
>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:23:51 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger__minds eye is a jargonistic term used to describe a capacity to view
>images in connection to thoughts within ones brain.
>
>Even if you are a schizophrenic, the image you have of Lynne in your minds
>eye, at a time when you address Lynne, will be identical to the Lynne that
>you believe you are addressing.
>
>And because Lynne has an uncountable number of aspects, re: levels of self,
>which she herself is yet unaware of -just like any one of us- there is
>always a possibility that one of those aspects will correlate identically
>to the image in your minds eye.
>
>And I never wrote that Lynne could possibly be identical to something in
>your head, I wrote of a possibility that an ASPECT of Lynne could be
>identical to a thought you might have of Lynne. Neither the aspect of
>Lynne, or the thought about Lynne, is Lynne, merely extremely small parts
>of the whole of Lynne._R
>.
>.
>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:20:56 -0500
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>.
>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?
>.
>.
>_______________________________________________
>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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 31 14:46:19 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 1 15:48:19 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
In-Reply-To: <OF83836F8F.1F99F4A3-ON85257218.0040214E-85257218.00414A2B@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1ECC57441B3023139482BA5F90@phx.gbl>
Go, Rodger! k
>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:53:08 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a sense
>of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.
>
>What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation? Are
>people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in sensing self
>once establishment tells them to? _R
>.
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
>.
>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
>.
>.
>_______________________________________________
>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 joachimfaust at earthlink.net Tue Oct 31 16:38:58 2006
From: joachimfaust at earthlink.net (Joachim Faust)
Date: Wed Nov 1 17:41:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
In-Reply-To: <20061101110002.0409C240FF@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
References: <20061101110002.0409C240FF@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <5A06A5F9-AE05-4B77-8952-CA7A035B7AAD@earthlink.net>
Hi Katherine,
Thanks for responding. I appreciate your good intentions to hear and
listen to
different points of views. Can I ask a few questions?
Concerning the term "periphery":
I used it in my message because both Rogier and Owen had identified
themselves as
being on the periphery, which resonated with me. In the meantime,
Gill also picked up
on the same theme: ("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 ...")
and brought in the interesting distinction between "talking from the
head" vs. "talking from the heart."
So, my question is: by saying, "you don't need to be on the
periphery," are you saying there is no
need for a periphery? What is the difference between the "core" and
the "periphery" in respect to
this e-mail dialogue? Are there different functions they fulfill?
Could everyone be in the core?
What could the core learn from the periphery, and vice versa?
A lot of questions, but perhaps, they are all really about the same
thing. I am not sure
exactly what this same thing is, yet, but it might have something to
do with your rather apodictic
sounding statement "shared interpretations of meaning is how we
arrive at greater understanding,
and certainly a more cohesive group." Is this really so? Is it a
"given," something that happens
as long as we simply share interpretations?
Joachim
PS: are there any other people on the "periphery" who can/would like
to share their experience?
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
Date: 30. Oktober 2006 13:07:50 GMT-06:00
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] periphery
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Hello Joachim - As far as i'm concerned, you don't need to be on the
periphery. I raised the same question a couple of days ago, and
there was some discussion. I'd be most interested in hearing all 3
of your povs. Shared interpretations of meaning is how we arrive at
greater understanding, and certainly a more cohesive group. k
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 31 17:32:15 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 1 18:34:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
In-Reply-To: <5A06A5F9-AE05-4B77-8952-CA7A035B7AAD@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1790B15A963A97D73627A0A5F90@phx.gbl>
Hi Joachim -
What great questions you ask. Let me preface this by saying that I can't
speak for the group, and I hope that others, including DonF, the moderator
will respond - I'm sure they will.
As I understand it, Bohm dialog is definitely about arriving at a greater
understanding by sharing all pov's, and delving into the underlying
assumptions, exploring, watching the mind at work - no winners or losers as
in argumentation or debate.
As for "core" and "perifory", Bohm considered everything to be connected.
If synonyms for these words are "leader" and "follower", I do not follow, if
I lead - it's incidental, to walk beside another to seek deeper
understanding with mutual support/love is what I am striving to do. I have
an abhorrance of "ingroups" vs "outsiders", gurus and egos.
In addition, I recommend reading - if you haven't already - Bohm's "On
Creativity" and "Thought as a System". there is also "The Essential David
Bohm". If there are areas of those books you would like to discuss, post
your thoughts. I've been known to break out my books and quote Bohm during
discussions.
I hope this has in some measure, answered some of your questions, and I am
sure others will add their ideas. I look forward to hearing more from all
of you.
Hozhoon, k
>From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: periphery
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:38:58 -0600
>
>Hi Katherine,
>
>Thanks for responding. I appreciate your good intentions to hear and
>listen to
>different points of views. Can I ask a few questions?
>
>Concerning the term "periphery":
>I used it in my message because both Rogier and Owen had identified
>themselves as
>being on the periphery, which resonated with me. In the meantime, Gill
>also picked up
>on the same theme: ("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 ...")
>and brought in the interesting distinction between "talking from the head"
>vs. "talking from the heart."
>
>So, my question is: by saying, "you don't need to be on the periphery,"
>are you saying there is no
>need for a periphery? What is the difference between the "core" and the
>"periphery" in respect to
>this e-mail dialogue? Are there different functions they fulfill? Could
>everyone be in the core?
>What could the core learn from the periphery, and vice versa?
>
>A lot of questions, but perhaps, they are all really about the same thing.
>I am not sure
>exactly what this same thing is, yet, but it might have something to do
>with your rather apodictic
>sounding statement "shared interpretations of meaning is how we arrive at
>greater understanding,
>and certainly a more cohesive group." Is this really so? Is it a "given,"
>something that happens
>as long as we simply share interpretations?
>
>Joachim
>
>PS: are there any other people on the "periphery" who can/would like to
>share their experience?
>
>
>
>
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Date: 30. Oktober 2006 13:07:50 GMT-06:00
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] periphery
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
>
>Hello Joachim - As far as i'm concerned, you don't need to be on the
>periphery. I raised the same question a couple of days ago, and there was
>some discussion. I'd be most interested in hearing all 3 of your povs.
>Shared interpretations of meaning is how we arrive at greater
>understanding, and certainly a more cohesive group. 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Oct 31 21:14:12 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Nov 1 22:17:51 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061031.151418.1060.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
It is correct to assume that this idea that there is something
wrong about a "sense of self" is a reference to someone on this list?
(I don't think I've ever seen that opinion here).
Perhaps this is a reference to someone off list but I would just say
that care with words, although being a good practice in general, is
crucial
in areas that are SO CLOSE to the "unspeakable," to areas that are beyond
words. The area of "self" is one such area.
A "sense" of self is quite different from a thought/image
of self.
Every [undamaged] manifestation of the whole has a
sense of self. Every [undamaged] body has a proprioceptive
sense of where it begins and ends. This [sense] has nothing to do with
thought. This has nothing [inherently] to do with images. This has
nothing
to do with time. (There is an immediacy in proprioception). This has
nothing to do with memory. This has nothing to do with language.
Defended and protected personal self image[s] however,
do have to do with thought, with time, with memory,
with language.
Why (metaphorically speaking) do people "bump into
each other?" Is this not the result of guidance by
'dismembered' images. Is this not a manifestation
of the clashing and crashing of images?
It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
could take place among actual parts of the whole
(which are "guided" by the whole).
pat
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:20:28 +0000 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
No but there are some who think there is something wrong about it.
But to stay on the same track recent studies have shown that we can add
elephants ot the list of creatures who have a sense of self along with
all the great apes including humans nd bottle nosed dolphins. The way we
can tell is by putting a mark on their heads and then showing them how
their image in a big mirror. Most animals would react as if it were
another animal but elephants check out the mark with their trunks
wondering, no doubt, what idiot put it there.
don
On 31 Oct 2006, at 11:53, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
Rodger __thats funny don -- that the likelihood of us each having a sense
of self becomes so, after a world class neurologist confirms it.
What about the sense-of-self we had prior to medical affirmation? Are
people so linear -in their head- that they only believe in sensing self
once establishment tells them to? _R
.
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
.
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
.
.
_______________________________________________
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/20061031/02b72481/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Tue Oct 31 23:56:52 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Thu Nov 2 00:58:57 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Indivisible Whole
References: <20061031.151418.1060.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <4547D4B4.000001.04304@VAIO-584793128F>
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>It is unimaginable that this clashing and crashing
>could take place among actual parts of the whole
>(which are "guided" by the whole).
i have no difficulties imagining that clashing and crashing can take place
among parts. The whole may be "guiding" its parts, but parts are not forced
by necessity to take such guidance; they are equally capable of doing
something else. Freedom means freedom from the whole. A free part is a part
that can decide for itself if it wants to follow the guidance of the whole
or not. A part that allows itself to be guided by the whole is hardly worth
being a part. The whole point of being a part is to be relatively
independent of the whole. When parts use their freedom then obviously they
can easily clash and crash, but that is a consequence of freedom. Apparently
the only time when parts do not clash and crash among them is when they
allow themselves to be slaves of the whole, but perhaps there is an as yet
undiscovered alternative.
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061031/7253b264/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Oct 31 19:56:30 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Nov 2 01:05:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: 29 The Indivisible Whole
Message-ID: <20061031.145842.2016.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Rodger_ If ones idea of LOVE is not possible to realize or constantly
creates problems for one, it isnt the competetive world, it is because
that idea of LOVE has too many unloving conditions attached to it.
Well, having had a wonderful reputation for being a really loving,
generous person who expressed their love for other really well, there is
a social consequence. It means for me that because I put people first and
take care of them in a loving way, I don't make as much money as my
culture has defined that I need to get along in the world, provide for my
health care and live in a house. I can live semi-homeless and do those
things for myself, but not in a house, it seems. - Franis
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:49:43 -0500 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> Rodger __thanks Kari. Its true, I only multiply pains if I
> constantly
> observe limitations external to me as if it wasnt me deciding upon
> the
> nature of my observations.
>
> When I started being more loving, I began to see how the world and
> people
> around me were different from what I had been projecting and
> believing was
> rational observation -- about those others around me.
>
> If ones idea of LOVE is not possible to realize or constantly
> creates
> problems for one, it isnt the competetive world, it is because that
> idea of
> LOVE has too many unloving conditions attached to it.
>
> There will never be enough - if it isnt us that gives it first in
> our
> lives._R
> .
> .
> From: Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com>
> Subject: 29 The Indivisible Whole
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> .
> Why cant we embody the sense of love we long for and take that into
> our
> communities?