From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 9 00:36:23 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 10 01:40:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061108.000943.1128.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
References: <20061108.000943.1128.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <AEAB3921-9FC9-423D-881A-6F6D5E2BA779@dc.rr.com>
Gotcha, ii wasis pack.
pon
On Nov 8, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Franis Engel wrote:
> Any oneofus can beact asif youme are whatITis.
> NOW i mage in, me taking twentythirtyfifty different posts to say
> this?
> If anypodies does any enuff, gonna hit on somegold sometime.
> IMHO, txt msging chil'
> - is just hard to read - and English is my native language.
> hey - we can do anything we want now that Don's away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061108/ad1745d1/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 00:38:45 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 01:42:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
References: <BAY22-F109D9CAE42B892EB109614A5F10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <039601c7038f$09783cf0$da78480c@HOME>
Hi Kathy. This all sounds very interesting. I looked back in my archives
to see if I could find any of our previous conversations on Native American
language. I found one that was really long. At one time we didn't have an
archive for the list so Don F. asked me if I would post some of our more
interesting conversations to a web site. So I started a web site and posted
a few things but then got busy with other things and didn't do much with it.
Since the dialogue I found on NA was so long I thought the easiest way to
share it was to post it to the site I started. If you look in the archives
under 2005 the first 6 links (dated between May 3 and May 15) are to threads
that were about verby language and quite a bit of discussion about Native
American Language. Actually they were one big long thread but I decided
they would be easier to read (and to post) if I broke them up a little.
Here's the link:
http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/archives.htm
And quite a few of the other threads that are posted are about language,
metaphor and story.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:19 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
> Susan, You have no idea how delighted I am that we met! How I wish I had
> known you when Michael and I were in Cave Creek! He was finishing up his
> MA in creative wriing here at New School when the cancer struck, and we
> literally fled to Mayo in Scottsdale, hoping for a liver transplant.
> While there, we went to Tucson. Simon Ortiz wanted Michael to come there
> for his PhD. Unfortunately, Michael crossed over, but I have those
> memories. Michael grew up in Clifton where his father worked for Phelps
> Dodge; the first Indian to get a job above ground.
>
> I am so sorry about your car accident. You have a great hospital in
> Tucson, though. One of our transplant support group came to us from
> there. I hope you have a full recovery.
>
> You are not too far from Dine/Navajo Community College. The tuition is
> next to nothing, and you can stay in the dorms. Go there and study.
> There is a marvellous teacher of Navajo language named Martha Jackson.
> Another one name OJ whom you should stay away from. One named Ben -
> Littlehorse, I think. I can go to the website and pull it up. Ben is
> great! The study of the language is not complete without living the life
> with them. Avery Denny is a hatathli/medicine man whom I did an
> independent study under, oh - gosh - if you do that, maybe I'll come out
> and do it again, too. I really loved it. Denny used to tell me when and
> where certain ceremonies were being held so I could go. Harry Walters, the
> head of the museum, when I meet again I'll just put my arms around him and
> cry. I do so miss it!
>
> I'd love to read your posts on the language. All you say about nouns and
> verbs is true, but upon studying Bohm, I realized that there is a more
> basic connection - that is, how the language reflects the world view of
> connection and relationship as beauty - hozhoon - all my relations. One
> single lo-o-o-o-og word embodies what we call a noun, verb, and all its
> descriptive properties. And the selection of the properties is more
> complete and complex than anything we have in English. Actually, I find
> that our words for our grammar and syntax aren't really adequate to think
> about Navajo because they activate our experiences of English, and we
> erroneously expect Navajo to follow suit. But - we have no other words,
> so we try to translate. I find it a much more precise language than
> English. Vincent Craig, the Navajo comedian, once compared it to "mental
> television" because one word can describe physical features, movement,
> 1st/2nd/3rd person, and singular, plural (2), plural (3 or more). That's
> also why I refuse to be told I can't use images. Also, we use verbal
> imagery all the time. With these new resources, a new language HAS to
> develop.
>
> "recently people have begun to realize more and more that it might be
> possible to have a "true" dialogue in this format."
> Yes, actually, it never occurred to me NOT to dialog. After all, we've
> "dialogued" through snail mail for a long time. Any time two people try
> to communicate, a broad definition of dialog happens - not Bohm - but why
> should it be any different?
>
> As for "intellectual discussion", I totally agree. Sometimes, some of the
> posts I see remind me of the poem Jabberwocky! Totally severed from
> action and the rest of the world. My wonderful teacher Frances used to
> say "you have all there is. It's what you do with it that counts." She
> was SO right.
>
> So, Susan - I think the true spirit of Bohm is the creative - mechanical
> interplay, finally to result in new perceptions, new connections. As our
> options expand for exchange with wonderful people around the globe, the
> closer I feel, we get to what Bohm really envisioned. Especially if it's
> not restricted to those who have money to buy and support computers. So -
> upward and onward. Let's not fear that we aren't "doing Bohm". He
> believed that everything is in flux, and a man of his brilliance would
> have flowed with the new opportunitites evolving.
>
> I still have my Navajo books downstairs in storage where I put them when I
> lost Michael. Maybe soon I'll go down there and get the titles of the
> ones I think you might be interested in. Also, the NCC bookstore has a
> lot of great stuff, and will order things for you. And the library there
> is rich with their cultural material.
>
> If I ever learn how to get pictures to an acceptable size, I'll send you
> photos of my life with the Navajo.
>
> Hozhoon, k
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
>>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:29:15 -0700
>>
>>Hi Kathy. Thanks for introducing yourself. I'll reciprocate with a
>>little information on me. I'm single, no children, just turned 55 and
>>live in Tucson, AZ. I currently work at home doing CAD drawings (computer
>>aided drafting) for the construction industry and working with graphics.
>>I've been a member of this group for 3 or 4 years now (can't remember
>>exactly when I joined).
>>
>>Back at the end of June I was in a car accident and ended up with a broken
>>right arm. They tell me that because it was broken close to the shoulder
>>it caused a lot of problems that aren't associated with most breaks.
>>Because of this the healing process has been long and taken a lot of my
>>energy. I would say I'm about 70% back to normal now. I still have a few
>>problems that will take a couple more months (so they say) for me to clear
>>up.
>>
>>I'm very interested in your experience with the Navajo. I'm very
>>interested in language and particularly Native American Language. I grew
>>up in Oklahoma among a large population of Native Americans and have had a
>>number of Native American friends. I've posted quite a bit of my ideas
>>about the differences in NA language and English in the past. The biggest
>>difference having to do with verbs. I have come to understand that in
>>the Western world we have come to think of processes as "things"/objects
>>and this has created a lot of problems in our thought process. Where as
>>the NA's have what I think of as a more verby language that is process
>>oriented. In fact, many of the NA languages as well as some Eastern
>>languages don't even have nouns. I have found a huge difference in
>>learning to think in verby terms (process oriented rather than object
>>oriented) in my own thought processes.
>>
>>When it comes to forging a new path in Dialogue, I think the group may be
>>only at the beginning of realizing and dealing with this. When I first
>>joined the list it was not considered an actual dialogue because it was
>>not face to face, and many people didn't believe that it was possible to
>>have an actual dialogue in this format. It was considered to be simply a
>>list started with the intentions of exploring Bohm's ideas done "in the
>>spirit" of dialogue. And you may have noticed that's still it's
>>definition. But recently people have begun to realize more and more that
>>it might be possible to have a "true" dialogue in this format. Personally
>>I think it's not only possible but that we do it on this list all the
>>time. For myself, I'm not nearly as interested in an intellectual
>>discussion of Bohms ideas as I am in actually doing Dialogue here in this
>>format of the internet. Like you, I feel that we are pioneers in this
>>area.
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:50 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>>
>>
>>>Hi Susan - No we haven't met. I don't mind at all giving information
>>>about myself. I'm Kathy, 71 year old retired bilingual Spanish and music
>>>teacher and composer, originally from Florida, with 35 years of service,
>>>10 years in Puerto Rico, and over 40 years living in NYC. I was also one
>>>of the first teachers to be trained in conflict resolution. I have 2
>>>sons by a Puerto Rican father, and raised them alone/working mother, the
>>>whole bit, here in NYC. I taught in both the South Bronx and the Upper
>>>West Side. I lost my last husband, a Navajo with whom I lived on the
>>>ancestral land in the Navajo Nation, on Dec. 25, right after 9 - 11. I
>>>also had the privilege and delight of studying Navajo language,
>>>literature, traditions and culture at Dine College/Navajo Community
>>>College. Navajo world view is SO compatible with Bohm. That's one
>>>reason I'm so pro-Bohm and dialog. I am also a co-moderator on another
>>>list, which is why, like you, I am somewhat familiar with internet
>>>protocol and needs.
>>>
>>>I appreciate your thoughtful, candid response. Now I would like to
>>>reciprocate.
>>>
>>>S: I do not envy Don F. his job of being moderator and I know from past
>>>experience that he has struggled with this issue. I think most of us
>>>have.
>>>
>>>K: I absolutely agree. He is every inch a scholar and a gentleman. If
>>>requested, with acceptable guidelines in place, I'd be happy to help him
>>>co-moderate, or in any way I could. I can't think of a better way to use
>>>my time, except to get my face-to-face group started. Zoe also knows and
>>>has accepted that I have said I will be the first to call her on any
>>>actions I find inappropriate, as everyone else has the right to do.
>>>
>>>S: But I also know that it isn't going to do much good to pursue this
>>>conversation until Don gets to
>>>>Calif. and gets back on line. He will be facing 100's of posts on his
>>>>return and could miss the important parts of the discussion trying to
>>>>weed through the posts.
>>>
>>>K: That also sounds reasonable to me.
>>>
>>>S: he (Peter) spams the list -
>>>K: that should go in the guidelines and principles.I think, as should any
>>>other experiences that have been disruptive in the past.
>>>
>>>S: Peter has been given every chance -
>>>K: here's where we diverge. I'm convinced he's not Peter, but if proven
>>>wrong, I'll claim responsibility for my error, and help boot him with
>>>proper procedure, if he violates guidelines.
>>>
>>>S: I have come to learn that, as you have mentioned, principles and
>>>guidelines do seem to be necessary
>>>K: Yes, and I deliberately chose the terminology hoping it was more
>>>compatible with the original aims of Dialog. The terms are also open to
>>>suggestion and change.
>>>
>>>S: I would be happy with any guidelines that say no trolling and no
>>>spam. I would also agree with you that the guidelines should be posted
>>>K: Thank you. We need to list specifics that we consider trolling. I
>>>testified to how it happened, and I know Don F will not deny it. He has
>>>a log of all our correspondence on the subject, as I do.
>>>
>>>S: and anyone that we do not know for certain is Peter deserves a warning
>>>before being unsubscribed.
>>>K: I had a lot of experience and training in documenting children's
>>>undesirable behavior. I'd be happy to put that knowledge to use here.
>>>
>>>S: I don't know if Zoe (or Kris) were ever confronted with people's
>>>suspicions that they were Peter or not and given the chance to respond.
>>>But I do think they deserved to be openly told what people
>>>>think.
>>>K: I did not see that happen, and Zoe is very hurt that things were
>>>handled this way. If anyone else has proof to the contrary about ZOE -
>>>NOT Peter or Kris - both she and the rest of us should receive it, and
>>>Zoe given a chance to respond.
>>>
>>>S: As you will discover, open honest communication is important to me.
>>>K: I do see that, and am very comfortable dialoging with you. I hope we
>>>can work together with interested others to develop and implement these
>>>principles and guidelines.
>>>
>>>We are definitely forging a new path in Bohm, required by a new era in
>>>the technological development of communication. It has been a pleasure
>>>dialoging with you. If you are near or ever in NYC, please let me know.
>>>I'd love to meet you.
>>>
>>>Hozhoon, Kathryn Morgan Jett Arizmendi (just so you'll know the
>>>identities I currently use!)
>>>(picture Kathy smiling happily)
>>>
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 00:39:51 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 01:43:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <20061108.000943.1128.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
<AEAB3921-9FC9-423D-881A-6F6D5E2BA779@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <03a501c7038f$307bb9d0$da78480c@HOME>
That was quick! Don't you usually stay in England for Christmas?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Gotcha, ii wasis pack.
pon
On Nov 8, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Franis Engel wrote:
Any oneofus can beact asif youme are whatITis.
NOW i mage in, me taking twentythirtyfifty different posts to say this?
If anypodies does any enuff, gonna hit on somegold sometime.
IMHO, txt msging chil'
- is just hard to read - and English is my native language.
hey - we can do anything we want now that Don's away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061108/5cbcc718/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 01:01:53 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 02:05:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
In-Reply-To: <039601c7038f$09783cf0$da78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F135D94AE1ABF3FACA87629A5F00@phx.gbl>
Hi Susan - just found your post. I'm trying to sort out all the emails,
delete ,etc. Thanks for the link. k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 16:38:45 -0700
>
>Hi Kathy. This all sounds very interesting. I looked back in my archives
>to see if I could find any of our previous conversations on Native American
>language. I found one that was really long. At one time we didn't have an
>archive for the list so Don F. asked me if I would post some of our more
>interesting conversations to a web site. So I started a web site and
>posted a few things but then got busy with other things and didn't do much
>with it.
>
>Since the dialogue I found on NA was so long I thought the easiest way to
>share it was to post it to the site I started. If you look in the archives
>under 2005 the first 6 links (dated between May 3 and May 15) are to
>threads that were about verby language and quite a bit of discussion about
>Native American Language. Actually they were one big long thread but I
>decided they would be easier to read (and to post) if I broke them up a
>little.
>
>Here's the link:
>http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/archives.htm
>
>And quite a few of the other threads that are posted are about language,
>metaphor and story.
>
>Susan
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:19 AM
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
>
>
>>Susan, You have no idea how delighted I am that we met! How I wish I had
>>known you when Michael and I were in Cave Creek! He was finishing up his
>>MA in creative wriing here at New School when the cancer struck, and we
>>literally fled to Mayo in Scottsdale, hoping for a liver transplant. While
>>there, we went to Tucson. Simon Ortiz wanted Michael to come there for
>>his PhD. Unfortunately, Michael crossed over, but I have those memories.
>>Michael grew up in Clifton where his father worked for Phelps Dodge; the
>>first Indian to get a job above ground.
>>
>>I am so sorry about your car accident. You have a great hospital in
>>Tucson, though. One of our transplant support group came to us from
>>there. I hope you have a full recovery.
>>
>>You are not too far from Dine/Navajo Community College. The tuition is
>>next to nothing, and you can stay in the dorms. Go there and study. There
>>is a marvellous teacher of Navajo language named Martha Jackson. Another
>>one name OJ whom you should stay away from. One named Ben - Littlehorse,
>>I think. I can go to the website and pull it up. Ben is great! The
>>study of the language is not complete without living the life with them.
>>Avery Denny is a hatathli/medicine man whom I did an independent study
>>under, oh - gosh - if you do that, maybe I'll come out and do it again,
>>too. I really loved it. Denny used to tell me when and where certain
>>ceremonies were being held so I could go. Harry Walters, the head of the
>>museum, when I meet again I'll just put my arms around him and cry. I do
>>so miss it!
>>
>>I'd love to read your posts on the language. All you say about nouns and
>>verbs is true, but upon studying Bohm, I realized that there is a more
>>basic connection - that is, how the language reflects the world view of
>>connection and relationship as beauty - hozhoon - all my relations. One
>>single lo-o-o-o-og word embodies what we call a noun, verb, and all its
>>descriptive properties. And the selection of the properties is more
>>complete and complex than anything we have in English. Actually, I find
>>that our words for our grammar and syntax aren't really adequate to think
>>about Navajo because they activate our experiences of English, and we
>>erroneously expect Navajo to follow suit. But - we have no other words,
>>so we try to translate. I find it a much more precise language than
>>English. Vincent Craig, the Navajo comedian, once compared it to "mental
>>television" because one word can describe physical features, movement,
>>1st/2nd/3rd person, and singular, plural (2), plural (3 or more). That's
>>also why I refuse to be told I can't use images. Also, we use verbal
>>imagery all the time. With these new resources, a new language HAS to
>>develop.
>>
>>"recently people have begun to realize more and more that it might be
>>possible to have a "true" dialogue in this format."
>>Yes, actually, it never occurred to me NOT to dialog. After all, we've
>>"dialogued" through snail mail for a long time. Any time two people try
>>to communicate, a broad definition of dialog happens - not Bohm - but why
>>should it be any different?
>>
>>As for "intellectual discussion", I totally agree. Sometimes, some of the
>>posts I see remind me of the poem Jabberwocky! Totally severed from
>>action and the rest of the world. My wonderful teacher Frances used to
>>say "you have all there is. It's what you do with it that counts." She
>>was SO right.
>>
>>So, Susan - I think the true spirit of Bohm is the creative - mechanical
>>interplay, finally to result in new perceptions, new connections. As our
>>options expand for exchange with wonderful people around the globe, the
>>closer I feel, we get to what Bohm really envisioned. Especially if it's
>>not restricted to those who have money to buy and support computers. So -
>>upward and onward. Let's not fear that we aren't "doing Bohm". He
>>believed that everything is in flux, and a man of his brilliance would
>>have flowed with the new opportunitites evolving.
>>
>>I still have my Navajo books downstairs in storage where I put them when I
>>lost Michael. Maybe soon I'll go down there and get the titles of the
>>ones I think you might be interested in. Also, the NCC bookstore has a
>>lot of great stuff, and will order things for you. And the library there
>>is rich with their cultural material.
>>
>>If I ever learn how to get pictures to an acceptable size, I'll send you
>>photos of my life with the Navajo.
>>
>>Hozhoon, k
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
>>>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:29:15 -0700
>>>
>>>Hi Kathy. Thanks for introducing yourself. I'll reciprocate with a
>>>little information on me. I'm single, no children, just turned 55 and
>>>live in Tucson, AZ. I currently work at home doing CAD drawings
>>>(computer aided drafting) for the construction industry and working with
>>>graphics. I've been a member of this group for 3 or 4 years now (can't
>>>remember exactly when I joined).
>>>
>>>Back at the end of June I was in a car accident and ended up with a
>>>broken right arm. They tell me that because it was broken close to the
>>>shoulder it caused a lot of problems that aren't associated with most
>>>breaks. Because of this the healing process has been long and taken a lot
>>>of my energy. I would say I'm about 70% back to normal now. I still
>>>have a few problems that will take a couple more months (so they say) for
>>>me to clear up.
>>>
>>>I'm very interested in your experience with the Navajo. I'm very
>>>interested in language and particularly Native American Language. I grew
>>>up in Oklahoma among a large population of Native Americans and have had
>>>a number of Native American friends. I've posted quite a bit of my ideas
>>>about the differences in NA language and English in the past. The
>>>biggest difference having to do with verbs. I have come to understand
>>>that in the Western world we have come to think of processes as
>>>"things"/objects and this has created a lot of problems in our thought
>>>process. Where as the NA's have what I think of as a more verby language
>>>that is process oriented. In fact, many of the NA languages as well as
>>>some Eastern languages don't even have nouns. I have found a huge
>>>difference in learning to think in verby terms (process oriented rather
>>>than object oriented) in my own thought processes.
>>>
>>>When it comes to forging a new path in Dialogue, I think the group may be
>>>only at the beginning of realizing and dealing with this. When I first
>>>joined the list it was not considered an actual dialogue because it was
>>>not face to face, and many people didn't believe that it was possible to
>>>have an actual dialogue in this format. It was considered to be simply a
>>>list started with the intentions of exploring Bohm's ideas done "in the
>>>spirit" of dialogue. And you may have noticed that's still it's
>>>definition. But recently people have begun to realize more and more that
>>>it might be possible to have a "true" dialogue in this format.
>>>Personally I think it's not only possible but that we do it on this list
>>>all the time. For myself, I'm not nearly as interested in an
>>>intellectual discussion of Bohms ideas as I am in actually doing Dialogue
>>>here in this format of the internet. Like you, I feel that we are
>>>pioneers in this area.
>>>
>>>Susan
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:50 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Susan - No we haven't met. I don't mind at all giving information
>>>>about myself. I'm Kathy, 71 year old retired bilingual Spanish and music
>>>>teacher and composer, originally from Florida, with 35 years of service,
>>>>10 years in Puerto Rico, and over 40 years living in NYC. I was also
>>>>one of the first teachers to be trained in conflict resolution. I have
>>>>2 sons by a Puerto Rican father, and raised them alone/working mother,
>>>>the whole bit, here in NYC. I taught in both the South Bronx and the
>>>>Upper West Side. I lost my last husband, a Navajo with whom I lived on
>>>>the ancestral land in the Navajo Nation, on Dec. 25, right after 9 - 11.
>>>> I also had the privilege and delight of studying Navajo language,
>>>>literature, traditions and culture at Dine College/Navajo Community
>>>>College. Navajo world view is SO compatible with Bohm. That's one
>>>>reason I'm so pro-Bohm and dialog. I am also a co-moderator on another
>>>>list, which is why, like you, I am somewhat familiar with internet
>>>>protocol and needs.
>>>>
>>>>I appreciate your thoughtful, candid response. Now I would like to
>>>>reciprocate.
>>>>
>>>>S: I do not envy Don F. his job of being moderator and I know from past
>>>>experience that he has struggled with this issue. I think most of us
>>>>have.
>>>>
>>>>K: I absolutely agree. He is every inch a scholar and a gentleman. If
>>>>requested, with acceptable guidelines in place, I'd be happy to help him
>>>>co-moderate, or in any way I could. I can't think of a better way to
>>>>use my time, except to get my face-to-face group started. Zoe also
>>>>knows and has accepted that I have said I will be the first to call her
>>>>on any actions I find inappropriate, as everyone else has the right to
>>>>do.
>>>>
>>>>S: But I also know that it isn't going to do much good to pursue this
>>>>conversation until Don gets to
>>>>>Calif. and gets back on line. He will be facing 100's of posts on his
>>>>>return and could miss the important parts of the discussion trying to
>>>>>weed through the posts.
>>>>
>>>>K: That also sounds reasonable to me.
>>>>
>>>>S: he (Peter) spams the list -
>>>>K: that should go in the guidelines and principles.I think, as should
>>>>any other experiences that have been disruptive in the past.
>>>>
>>>>S: Peter has been given every chance -
>>>>K: here's where we diverge. I'm convinced he's not Peter, but if proven
>>>>wrong, I'll claim responsibility for my error, and help boot him with
>>>>proper procedure, if he violates guidelines.
>>>>
>>>>S: I have come to learn that, as you have mentioned, principles and
>>>>guidelines do seem to be necessary
>>>>K: Yes, and I deliberately chose the terminology hoping it was more
>>>>compatible with the original aims of Dialog. The terms are also open to
>>>>suggestion and change.
>>>>
>>>>S: I would be happy with any guidelines that say no trolling and no
>>>>spam. I would also agree with you that the guidelines should be posted
>>>>K: Thank you. We need to list specifics that we consider trolling. I
>>>>testified to how it happened, and I know Don F will not deny it. He has
>>>>a log of all our correspondence on the subject, as I do.
>>>>
>>>>S: and anyone that we do not know for certain is Peter deserves a
>>>>warning before being unsubscribed.
>>>>K: I had a lot of experience and training in documenting children's
>>>>undesirable behavior. I'd be happy to put that knowledge to use here.
>>>>
>>>>S: I don't know if Zoe (or Kris) were ever confronted with people's
>>>>suspicions that they were Peter or not and given the chance to respond.
>>>>But I do think they deserved to be openly told what people
>>>>>think.
>>>>K: I did not see that happen, and Zoe is very hurt that things were
>>>>handled this way. If anyone else has proof to the contrary about ZOE -
>>>>NOT Peter or Kris - both she and the rest of us should receive it, and
>>>>Zoe given a chance to respond.
>>>>
>>>>S: As you will discover, open honest communication is important to me.
>>>>K: I do see that, and am very comfortable dialoging with you. I hope
>>>>we can work together with interested others to develop and implement
>>>>these principles and guidelines.
>>>>
>>>>We are definitely forging a new path in Bohm, required by a new era in
>>>>the technological development of communication. It has been a pleasure
>>>>dialoging with you. If you are near or ever in NYC, please let me know.
>>>>I'd love to meet you.
>>>>
>>>>Hozhoon, Kathryn Morgan Jett Arizmendi (just so you'll know the
>>>>identities I currently use!)
>>>>(picture Kathy smiling happily)
>>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 9 01:02:47 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 10 02:06:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <03a501c7038f$307bb9d0$da78480c@HOME>
References: <20061108.000943.1128.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
<AEAB3921-9FC9-423D-881A-6F6D5E2BA779@dc.rr.com>
<03a501c7038f$307bb9d0$da78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <D5928225-545B-48B7-86E8-10F5D05E00D0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Yes but my son is getting married in LA so we came out early.
don
On Nov 8, 2006, at 11:39 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> That was quick! Don't you usually stay in England for Christmas?
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
> Gotcha, ii wasis pack.
>
> pon
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Franis Engel wrote:
>
>> Any oneofus can beact asif youme are whatITis.
>> NOW i mage in, me taking twentythirtyfifty different posts to say
>> this?
>> If anypodies does any enuff, gonna hit on somegold sometime.
>> IMHO, txt msging chil'
>> - is just hard to read - and English is my native language.
>> hey - we can do anything we want now that Don's
>> away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061109/f5f14ca7/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 01:05:31 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 02:09:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <03a501c7038f$307bb9d0$da78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F20311B1CC3C57362DF2F8BA5F00@phx.gbl>
Hi - how was the trib? k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 16:39:51 -0700
>
>That was quick! Don't you usually stay in England for Christmas?
>
>Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
> Gotcha, ii wasis pack.
>
>
> pon
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Franis Engel wrote:
>
>
> Any oneofus can beact asif youme are whatITis.
>
> NOW i mage in, me taking twentythirtyfifty different posts to say
>this?
>
> If anypodies does any enuff, gonna hit on somegold sometime.
>
> IMHO, txt msging chil'
>
> - is just hard to read - and English is my native language.
>
> hey - we can do anything we want now that Don's away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 01:11:42 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 02:15:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <C177B818.385C%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <03b101c70393$a3872f50$da78480c@HOME>
Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire among many
of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined the list the same
discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager to explore it. And it
was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right now. Although at
that time Peter was an active member of the group and he was included in the
discussion. In the beginning I sounded much like you and some of the others
right now.
But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject except
Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was mostly just to
ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into himself, all he
was interested in was goading the rest of us. Rather than use suspension he
would flood us with brief posts about the world being made up of carrot and
stick mentality and we should all recognize that the only solution was total
chaos. When he became determined to spam the group with anywhere from 75 to
100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day regardless of how any
of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we felt) the decision
(after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At that point I was ready for
him to be banned. He mostly just trolled for recruits for his OD site and
spammed us for not being interested. He also seems to have a fixation with
male authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate authority.
It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well as
exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems that
caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my post to her.
In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least a loose and
flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts I have had about
the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our previous
discussions:
http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened with
them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any warning and
without any group discussion. If that's true, then I would say that I think
anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or who we suspect is
Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be given a chance to
speak for themselves.
And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how long they
are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that the purpose of
dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without posting. A healthy
dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've learned to deal with it by
learning to know which people are definitely going to have something to say
that I'm interested in responding to and not. On my busy days I skip
through the posts and read only a few people or if there's a good thread
going I will read only that thread. And, yes, sometimes I miss a lot doing
that but it's better than the alternative of not being a part of all of
this.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is only
within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a response and
the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I too have
wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages in one
day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like that term)
dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility here
matters to me.
I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need to learn
from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about saying
'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in us, in
me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response from PKZ.
I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or need and
I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people. Is it
that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that response from
others?
And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
appreciated reading your emails.
I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else struggle? As
a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have sent three
or so in one day ...
Gill
on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
> Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
> posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
> to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
> both at the same time, and to find the
> balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
> misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
> words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
> exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
> example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the
> same issue: on the one hand, you want to
> protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand,
> you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
> sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
> periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
> balance.
>
> I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
> balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
> how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when
> at least
> apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
> truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of
> his father,
> the ostensible SS officer :)
>
> I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter"
> and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
> Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without (or
> before) letting them back in?
> My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on
> a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
> do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
> Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>
> On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
> propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
> that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
> "core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc., without
> being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>
> Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
> "People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is that
> the case here?"
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
> On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
>> I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>> obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of
>> this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we
>> want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David
>> Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we should have
>> no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>> nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in creating
>> a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on that
>> before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones in.
>> Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>> having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>> supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>> difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't open
>> tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is
>> that the case here as well?
>>
>> Great post Lynne!
>>
>> kari
>
> Hi Rodger,
>
> Back on line after a busy weekend!
>
> Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
> enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
> discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to
> what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
> compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
> finding a response and action that is not embedded within the same
> cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action taken to
> a situation maintains the same culture.
>
> Anyway its something to aim for ...
>
> Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as
> you suggest.
>
> For me just responding doesn?t mean you become part of the core I
> think it is something to do with how you are received and whether you
> are responded to and what the response is.
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>
> Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
> missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
> clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
> .
>
> Joachim Faust
> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 01:15:42 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 02:19:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <20061108.000943.1128.1.franis_franis@juno.com><AEAB3921-9FC9-423D-881A-6F6D5E2BA779@dc.rr.com><03a501c7038f$307bb9d0$da78480c@HOME>
<D5928225-545B-48B7-86E8-10F5D05E00D0@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <03c901c70394$33102e10$da78480c@HOME>
Congratulations. It sounds like you're going to have some very busy holidays.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Yes but my son is getting married in LA so we came out early.
don
On Nov 8, 2006, at 11:39 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
That was quick! Don't you usually stay in England for Christmas?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Gotcha, ii wasis pack.
pon
On Nov 8, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Franis Engel wrote:
Any oneofus can beact asif youme are whatITis.
NOW i mage in, me taking twentythirtyfifty different posts to say this?
If anypodies does any enuff, gonna hit on somegold sometime.
IMHO, txt msging chil'
- is just hard to read - and English is my native language.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061108/62677b89/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 9 01:55:32 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 10 03:00:27 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations that block
ability to listen freely
Message-ID: <20061108.195537.3608.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Chapter One from On Dialogue attached ...
pat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 26112 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061108/660a7190/attachment.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 15495 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061108/660a7190/attachment-0001.obj
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 02:02:28 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 03:06:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F1748B734B1F14B28D03634A5F10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F201F239770BB1AAA014D7BA5F00@phx.gbl>
J: My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on a
deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply do "their act" in an
orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in Franis' marvelous story about
her hometown Bolinas.
K: Somehow I missed this comment.
I know that Zoe won't go away. How? Because I've gotten to know Zoe. I
repeat, I don't know Peter, and I'm not talking about Kris. I'm talking
about Zoe. I want to remind you that there is no real proof that Zoe, Kris,
and Peter are the same person. I repeat that my daily interaction and
extensive conversations with Zoe don't match up in the least with the
character sketches the group has pieced together of Peter.
I guarantee that Zoe is someone who asks difficult questions, is passionate
about Bohm, and being human, could irritate someone. ( She has irritated me.
Who hasn't irritated people or been irritated by them?) That's exactly
what we have been doing. Some of us have irritated each other, and we have
managed to reach out and get beyond it. We really need to learn how to do
that, and get better and better at it. If a new language is to be
developed, this is where we need to start. Supportive, but tough in our
questioning. Words that don't put down or accuse, yet question and point
out contradictions.
And listen and hear everyone. Many posts have suggested that was missing
with the PKZ 3-in-1, so maybe if that happens, "they'll just be quiet". On
the other hand, one mediator skill is to reflect back in your own words what
you think the irritating person has said, and they must either ok it, or say
it a clearer way until understanding is reached. Often what the angry one
had interpreted as a putdown had been misunderstood.
I, in this moment, promise that I will strive to ask the tough questions to
get at the larger truth in the spirit of koinoina and compassion. I cannot
promise I will be perfect. I cannot promise I won't be irritating. I do
not expect anyone else to be perfect. But it is not my intent to hurt
anyone. Please state on the board what you are offended about, and I will
stay with you and the situation until we see it through. If it is
disruptive to the group, we can work it out privately. We may come to an
agreement to disagree, and that's ok. All to be done as courteously as
possible.
Who will join me? k
From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:55:01 -0600
Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent posts: In
Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be both at
the same time, and to find the
balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper exploration
(the passion/patience/compassion-
example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the same
issue: on the one hand, you want to
protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand, you
don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the periphery).
Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
balance.
I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this balance
is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when at
least
apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a truly
Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of his father,
the ostensible SS officer :)
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:00:57 -0600
>
>yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>But it doesn't have to be that way! k
>
>When Kris was on the list, I deliberately began to use some of his/er way
>of speaking as an indication that I would attempt to enter his-er world of
>meaning. Like the experiences I have had actually walking in and out of
>other realities (NOT drug or substance related - never have, but that's a
>topic for another time and place), I do not find it unsettling to do this.
>And the PKZ syndrome is a symbol for all people who do not share my
>culture, my language and/or experiential background. Kris can use English
>with the best of us.
>To me, the truly educated person can walk into and out of any world (I draw
>the line at a Manson cult, tho), and establish some kind of rapport. But
>one has to indicate that up front - step one. As we began to relate, I
>saw things in Zoe and Kris that the others didn't see, and I am the richer
>for it.
>
>I believe Bohm says that what happens on the individual level is a
>miniature version of what's happening on a world level. And we see
>ourselves reflecting
>
>I guess I'm really saying, Give all the "thems" in the world, and us a
>chance - starting with Zoe. k
>
>
>>From: Joachim Faust <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:55:01 -0600
>>
>>Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent posts:
>>In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>>to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be both at
>>the same time, and to find the
>>balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>>misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>>words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper exploration
>>(the passion/patience/compassion-
>>example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the same
>>issue: on the one hand, you want to
>>protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand, you
>>don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>>sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the periphery).
>>Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>>balance.
>>
>>I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
>>balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>>how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when at
>>least
>>apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a truly
>>Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of his father,
>>the ostensible SS officer :)
>>
>>I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter" and
>>"Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>>Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without (or
>>before) letting them back in?
>>My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on a
>>deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>>do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in Franis'
>>marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>
>>On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a propensity
>>toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>>that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either "core," or
>>"periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc., without
>>being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>
>>Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question: "People
>>who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is that
>>the case here?"
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Joachim
>>
>>
>>
>>On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>
>>>I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>>>obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of this
>>>listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we want to
>>>stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David Bohm or
>>>something I believe it is) of the list, then we should have no problem
>>>ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is nothing personal;
>>>it's just terms of use. If we believe in creating a container and a core
>>>possibly, then maybe we should work on that before challenging ourselves
>>>by letting the more chaotic ones in. Anyone who has experienced in
>>>person dialogue knows the value of having people present and
>>>participating who are sensitive, supportive, and open to questioning
>>>(their own, but is there any difference really) assumptions and
>>>opinions. People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level.
>>>Another question might be is that the case here as well?
>>>
>>>Great post Lynne!
>>>
>>>kari
>>
>>Hi Rodger,
>>
>>Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>
>>Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
>>enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
>>discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to what
>>I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being compassionate and
>>also aware and being willing to challenge. And finding a response and
>>action that is not embedded within the same cultural assumptions. I find
>>so often the response or action taken to a situation maintains the same
>>culture.
>>
>>Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>
>>Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as you
>>suggest.
>>
>>For me just responding doesn’t mean you become part of the core I think
>>it is something to do with how you are received and whether you are
>>responded to and what the response is.
>>
>>Gill
>>
>>
>>on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
>>missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as clearly
>>as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>>.
>>
>>Joachim Faust
>>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
>route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 02:04:39 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 03:08:27 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations that
blockability to listen freely
References: <20061108.195537.3608.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <001901c7039b$09345fb0$da78480c@HOME>
I'm not sure what kind of word attachment this is Pat, but I can't open it.
It needs to be a word.doc for me to be able to open it with the version of
word that I have.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:55 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations that
blockability to listen freely
> Chapter One from On Dialogue attached ...
>
> pat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 02:04:43 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 03:08:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations that
blockability to listen freely
In-Reply-To: <20061108.195537.3608.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2570C8413FF26878BDA336A5F00@phx.gbl>
Thanks, Pat. Is there some way we can archive this kind of info so it will
be accessible whenever we and/or new people want it? k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations that
>blockability to listen freely
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:55:32 -0500
>
>Chapter One from On Dialogue attached ...
>
>pat
><< BohmOnDialoguescannedChaponeAntiqueOlive.wps >>
><< BohmOnDialoguescannedChaponeAntiqueOlive.wps.rtf >>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 02:10:39 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 03:14:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations
thatblockability to listen freely
References: <BAY22-F2570C8413FF26878BDA336A5F00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <003201c7039b$dfe4b370$da78480c@HOME>
Never mind Pat....I was able to get the works copy to open.
I can post these to the web site.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations
thatblockability to listen freely
> Thanks, Pat. Is there some way we can archive this kind of info so it
> will be accessible whenever we and/or new people want it? k
>
>
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations that
>>blockability to listen freely
>>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:55:32 -0500
>>
>>Chapter One from On Dialogue attached ...
>>
>>pat
>
>
>><< BohmOnDialoguescannedChaponeAntiqueOlive.wps >>
>
>
>><< BohmOnDialoguescannedChaponeAntiqueOlive.wps.rtf >>
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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 donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 9 02:23:15 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 10 03:27:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F20311B1CC3C57362DF2F8BA5F00@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F20311B1CC3C57362DF2F8BA5F00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <630C9DCA-DF1B-4C3E-84DB-D60F162B42E8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
The trib was as usual long and tiring. But it gave me a chance to dig
into a fascinating book by Michael Frayne called The Human Touch. It
deals with a lot of the stuff that we've been considering but he is
doing it on his own. He writes very well though and it makes a very
entertaining read. Then we we had to rush out this morning to get me
a suit for the wedding. My first new one for maybe twenty years. The
moths got my old ones.\
Anyway, I have just plowed through all the posts and it has been
great. Tons on food for thought - not TAS. Maybe I ought to go away
more often. At present I am cosidering puting togher some ideas
gleened from from a close reading of the PKZ posts. Which reminds me,
those of you who have been around for a while seem to have foregotten
the fourth member of the triumvirate or is it trinity?. Gasinsystem.
The acronym ought to be PKGCZ. I wonder if anyone would like to fill
this in with some vowels.
On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> Hi - how was the trib? k
>
>
>> From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 16:39:51 -0700
>>
>> That was quick! Don't you usually stay in England for Christmas?
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: donald factor
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>> Gotcha, ii wasis pack.
>>
>>
>> pon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Franis Engel wrote:
>>
>>
>> Any oneofus can beact asif youme are whatITis.
>>
>> NOW i mage in, me taking twentythirtyfifty different posts to
>> say this?
>>
>> If anypodies does any enuff, gonna hit on somegold sometime.
>>
>> IMHO, txt msging chil'
>>
>> - is just hard to read - and English is my native language.
>>
>> hey - we can do anything we want now that Don's
>> away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Thu Nov 9 02:25:18 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 03:29:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <03b101c70393$a3872f50$da78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2194F674A1E0819D511BC4A5F00@phx.gbl>
Hi Susan. Your inclusion of details helped fill out the reasons for the
feelings about Peter. Spamming deserves banning, bouncing, or whatever one
calls it. In guidelines that group members agree to, it should be stated
that such actions will result in bouncing without warning.
By the way, is there some technological way to filter out spam before it
hits the list? That would settle it.
All Zoe is asking is a chance to speak, be heard, and judged on her own
merits, not on suspicion of being one of the "Three Faces of Eve". Peter no
longer has access to the group. Kris has been very quiet, and even if he
weren't, I made it clear to him/her some time ago that I am speaking only
for the principles involved with Zoe. And even then, I am only talking
about the Zoe I know.
Thank you for hearing and dialoging. I believe we are on the same page.
k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:11:42 -0700
>
>Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire among
>many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined the list the
>same discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager to explore it. And
>it was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right now.
>Although at that time Peter was an active member of the group and he was
>included in the discussion. In the beginning I sounded much like you and
>some of the others right now.
>
>But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject
>except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was mostly just
>to ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into himself, all
>he was interested in was goading the rest of us. Rather than use
>suspension he would flood us with brief posts about the world being made up
>of carrot and stick mentality and we should all recognize that the only
>solution was total chaos. When he became determined to spam the group with
>anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day
>regardless of how any of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how
>we felt) the decision (after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At that
>point I was ready for him to be banned. He mostly just trolled for
>recruits for his OD site and spammed us for not being interested. He also
>seems to have a fixation with male authority figures and chose Don F. to
>flame as a surrogate authority.
>
>It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well as
>exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems that
>caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my post to
>her. In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least a loose and
>flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts I have had about
>the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our previous
>discussions:
>http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>
>When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened with
>them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any warning and
>without any group discussion. If that's true, then I would say that I
>think anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or who we suspect
>is Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be given a
>chance to speak for themselves.
>
>And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how long they
>are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that the purpose of
>dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without posting. A healthy
>dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've learned to deal with it by
>learning to know which people are definitely going to have something to say
>that I'm interested in responding to and not. On my busy days I skip
>through the posts and read only a few people or if there's a good thread
>going I will read only that thread. And, yes, sometimes I miss a lot doing
>that but it's better than the alternative of not being a part of all of
>this.
>
>Susan
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>
>I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>
>What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
>challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is only
>within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a response and
>the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>
>I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I too have
>wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages in one
>day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like that
>term)
>dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
>currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility here
>matters to me.
>
>I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need to learn
>from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about saying
>'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in us, in
>me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response from PKZ.
>I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or need and
>I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people. Is it
>that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that response from
>others?
>
>And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
>appreciated reading your emails.
>
>I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else struggle?
>As
>a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have sent three
>or so in one day ...
>
>Gill
>
>
>on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>>Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
>>posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>>to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
>>both at the same time, and to find the
>>balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>>misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>>words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>>exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>>example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the
>>same issue: on the one hand, you want to
>>protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand,
>>you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>>sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>>periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>>balance.
>>
>>I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
>>balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>>how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when
>>at least
>>apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
>>truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of
>>his father,
>>the ostensible SS officer :)
>>
>>I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter"
>>and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>>Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without (or
>>before) letting them back in?
>>My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on
>>a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>>do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
>>Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>
>>On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>>propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>>that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>>"core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc., without
>>being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>
>>Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>>"People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is that
>>the case here?"
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Joachim
>>
>>
>>
>>On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>
>>>I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>>>obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of
>>>this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we
>>>want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David
>>>Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we should have
>>>no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>>nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in creating
>>>a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on that
>>>before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones in.
>>>Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>>>having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>>supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>>difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't open
>>>tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is
>>>that the case here as well?
>>>
>>>Great post Lynne!
>>>
>>>kari
>>
>>Hi Rodger,
>>
>>Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>
>>Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
>>enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
>>discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to
>>what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>>compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
>>finding a response and action that is not embedded within the same
>>cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action taken to
>>a situation maintains the same culture.
>>
>>Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>
>>Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as
>>you suggest.
>>
>>For me just responding doesnąt mean you become part of the core I
>>think it is something to do with how you are received and whether you
>>are responded to and what the response is.
>>
>>Gill
>>
>>
>>on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>>Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>
>>Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
>>missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
>>clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>>.
>>
>>Joachim Faust
>>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 Thu Nov 9 02:34:04 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 03:37:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <630C9DCA-DF1B-4C3E-84DB-D60F162B42E8@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1044608405E73B9D5FCFBCA5F00@phx.gbl>
Hi Don - missed your voice. Good to have you back. Congratulations and
best wishes to the couple.
When you feel like it, I'm curious about "Gas". I figured it was just
another name for Peter. Maybe he used it for certain moods.
I'm interested in the details because they give concrete information on
which to make evaluations and decisions.
Actually, maybe we could sell it as a novel and use the money for a Bohm
philanthropy!
Best, k (smiling and happy you're back)
>From: donald factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:23:15 -0800
>
>The trib was as usual long and tiring. But it gave me a chance to dig into
>a fascinating book by Michael Frayne called The Human Touch. It deals with
>a lot of the stuff that we've been considering but he is doing it on his
>own. He writes very well though and it makes a very entertaining read.
>Then we we had to rush out this morning to get me a suit for the wedding.
>My first new one for maybe twenty years. The moths got my old ones.\
>
>Anyway, I have just plowed through all the posts and it has been great.
>Tons on food for thought - not TAS. Maybe I ought to go away more often.
>At present I am cosidering puting togher some ideas gleened from from a
>close reading of the PKZ posts. Which reminds me, those of you who have
>been around for a while seem to have foregotten the fourth member of the
>triumvirate or is it trinity?. Gasinsystem. The acronym ought to be PKGCZ.
>I wonder if anyone would like to fill this in with some vowels.
>
>On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>Hi - how was the trib? k
>>
>>
>>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 16:39:51 -0700
>>>
>>>That was quick! Don't you usually stay in England for Christmas?
>>>
>>>Susan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: donald factor
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:36 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>
>>>
>>> Gotcha, ii wasis pack.
>>>
>>>
>>> pon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 8, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Franis Engel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Any oneofus can beact asif youme are whatITis.
>>>
>>> NOW i mage in, me taking twentythirtyfifty different posts to say
>>>this?
>>>
>>> If anypodies does any enuff, gonna hit on somegold sometime.
>>>
>>> IMHO, txt msging chil'
>>>
>>> - is just hard to read - and English is my native language.
>>>
>>> hey - we can do anything we want now that Don's
>>>away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>---------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Thu Nov 9 02:42:48 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 03:46:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations that
blockability to listen freely
In-Reply-To: <20061108.195537.3608.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F9760985A759436D1E4295A5F00@phx.gbl>
I can open it, but it's in some kind of unintelligible symbols. Horrors!
Peter must have gotten in it somehow! (joke)
I tried Word plain text and HTML.
Actually, I think Peter's website has some of it posted. Can we copy it
from there and put it on Susan's site? Also DonL has some Bohm on his site,
too, i believe. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations that
>blockability to listen freely
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:55:32 -0500
>
>Chapter One from On Dialogue attached ...
>
>pat
><< BohmOnDialoguescannedChaponeAntiqueOlive.wps >>
><< BohmOnDialoguescannedChaponeAntiqueOlive.wps.rtf >>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 9 02:54:33 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 10 03:58:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <03b101c70393$a3872f50$da78480c@HOME>
References: <C177B818.385C%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
<03b101c70393$a3872f50$da78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <B8BC4D12-84C9-4C92-8D94-596686648C18@dc.rr.com>
Hi Susan,
Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same thing. I
am referring here to your first three paragraphs.
But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as I can
see is the same person but this is just for the record. Gas was
peter's second go around. We had to close the list down after Peter's
first invasion, And that's when we took the radical step of
moderating the list. Or am I confused?
Regarding Zoe, I still have my doubts as I do about Kirsten being
the same person as Peter. But I understood that following on from a
conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to
drop us a line and explain what her intentions and interests in the
Bohm list were, in other words to tell us why she thought it was
unfair of us to disconnect her. I thought that this would clarify any
unclarity. But apparently, this suggestion made Zoe very angry, and
she has not written such a letter or communicated with either me,
William or Franis, so far as I know.
If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why Kathy is
pushing this. I would have thought that it should be up to Zoe to
make the next move.
don
On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire
> among many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first
> joined the list the same discussion was going on. I jumped right
> in, eager to explore it. And it was a very similar one to what you
> are all proposing right now. Although at that time Peter was an
> active member of the group and he was included in the discussion.
> In the beginning I sounded much like you and some of the others
> right now.
>
> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the
> subject except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response
> was mostly just to ignore any kind of idea of exploring an
> introspection into himself, all he was interested in was goading
> the rest of us. Rather than use suspension he would flood us with
> brief posts about the world being made up of carrot and stick
> mentality and we should all recognize that the only solution was
> total chaos. When he became determined to spam the group with
> anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2 lines each
> every day regardless of how any of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it
> was because of how we felt) the decision (after much agonizing) was
> made to ban him. At that point I was ready for him to be banned.
> He mostly just trolled for recruits for his OD site and spammed us
> for not being interested. He also seems to have a fixation with
> male authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate
> authority.
>
> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as
> well as exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar
> problems that caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to
> Kathy in my post to her. In order for anything to cohere there
> needs to be at least a loose and flexible structure. Here's a link
> to some of the thoughts I have had about the structure and purpose
> of Bohm Dialogue in one of our previous discussions:
> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>
> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what
> happened with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned
> without any warning and without any group discussion. If that's
> true, then I would say that I think anyone we suspect of being a
> troll or of spamming or who we suspect is Peter, deserves to at
> least be told of our feelings and be given a chance to speak for
> themselves.
>
> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how
> long they are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided
> that the purpose of dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that
> without posting. A healthy dialogue is going to have lots of
> posts. I've learned to deal with it by learning to know which
> people are definitely going to have something to say that I'm
> interested in responding to and not. On my busy days I skip
> through the posts and read only a few people or if there's a good
> thread going I will read only that thread. And, yes, sometimes I
> miss a lot doing that but it's better than the alternative of not
> being a part of all of this.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt"
> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>
> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>
> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is
> only
> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a
> response and
> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>
> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I
> too have
> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages
> in one
> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like
> that term)
> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility
> here
> matters to me.
>
> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need
> to learn
> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about
> saying
> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in
> us, in
> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response
> from PKZ.
> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or
> need and
> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people.
> Is it
> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that
> response from
> others?
>
> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
> appreciated reading your emails.
>
> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else
> struggle? As
> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have
> sent three
> or so in one day ...
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
>> posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>> to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
>> both at the same time, and to find the
>> balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>> misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>> words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>> exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>> example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the
>> same issue: on the one hand, you want to
>> protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand,
>> you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>> sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>> periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>> balance.
>>
>> I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
>> balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>> how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when
>> at least
>> apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
>> truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of
>> his father,
>> the ostensible SS officer :)
>>
>> I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter"
>> and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>> Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without (or
>> before) letting them back in?
>> My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on
>> a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>> do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
>> Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>
>> On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>> propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>> that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>> "core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc., without
>> being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>
>> Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>> "People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is that
>> the case here?"
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joachim
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>
>>> I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>>> obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of
>>> this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we
>>> want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David
>>> Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we should have
>>> no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>> nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in creating
>>> a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on that
>>> before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones in.
>>> Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>>> having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>> supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>> difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't open
>>> tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is
>>> that the case here as well?
>>>
>>> Great post Lynne!
>>>
>>> kari
>>
>> Hi Rodger,
>>
>> Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>
>> Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
>> enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
>> discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to
>> what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>> compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
>> finding a response and action that is not embedded within the same
>> cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action taken to
>> a situation maintains the same culture.
>>
>> Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>
>> Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as
>> you suggest.
>>
>> For me just responding doesn?t mean you become part of the core I
>> think it is something to do with how you are received and whether you
>> are responded to and what the response is.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>
>> Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
>> missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
>> clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>> .
>>
>> Joachim Faust
>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 9 03:15:49 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 10 04:19:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ... subtle fear & pleasure sensations that block
ability to listen freely
In-Reply-To: <20061108.195537.3608.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061108.195537.3608.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <4EE7E0A1-9967-4567-9B49-2AACEA29787D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I can open the second of the attachments but not the first. The
second one appears to be numbered 1 through 5, but there is only
text up through 4, with the number 5 left dangling.
The other one would not open in word or in my text editor.
don
On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:55 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> <Bohm On Dialogue scanned Chap oneAntique Olive.wps.rtf>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 9 03:12:46 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 10 04:27:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <B8BC4D12-84C9-4C92-8D94-596686648C18@dc.rr.com>
References: <C177B818.385C%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
<03b101c70393$a3872f50$da78480c@HOME>
<B8BC4D12-84C9-4C92-8D94-596686648C18@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <426A24DF-3841-44CD-A451-D1ADEEC5EE2D@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
For anyone who is iinterested, here is one of gas/peter's fairly
typical contribuition. The format is the original
don
\
gooadogod frau joy
der knackpunkt ist
the breaking-point is:
there aint no "design/er"
youus is "st(r)uck" with(in)
how youus "come"
f.e.:
the prain is
pretty&ugly&munch
'composed' of 3
components:
a - r-complex
b - limbic system
c - neo-cortex
one is "built"
on "top" of the other
the "higher" one
didoes not have
the ability to
over-ride the "lower"
...and even so in
munch of "modern" liidii
[= life&&&death]
the r-complex, f.e.,
is a prain in the
ass'umption : : :
youus gotta liidii
with'in thit
ok, back to doing
"serious" workg t'here
ciao bone/head/s
thinksgpoweredbygaspoweredbythinkgs
> And by the Peter, both hardware and software can be changed
or we
> would still be using the same computers and the same programs that
> were first invented.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: gasinsystem
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] )(
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> susansusansusan
> joyjoyjoy
> which planet
> is you living dying
> on/off
>
> pu&re is
> does come
> "hard-wired"
> thit is (in) y'our
> gegegegenes (hardware)
> this is (in) "y'our"
> thinkg/s (der,die,TAS: software)
>
> whow is the susanjoys
> trying to fool
> besides herselves
>
>
>
> didoes you see
>
> what the ii printed
>
> yesterdaight:
>
> "...The PET scans showed increased activity in the brain's dorsal
> striatum, an enjoyment centre, when a player punished a cheater,
even if
> he had to use his own money to inflict punishment...."
>
>
>
>
>
> more&less later, maybe
> other thinkgs screwing
> around with the i this a.m.
> ciao bone-heads
>
>
>
>
> > The idea of punishment/reward is just exactly that.....an
idea.
> You
> > talk about it as though it is an attribute of physical
reality. But
> > it's an idea. It's something we make up and then assign to
> > ourselves. So it's an interpretation that has become an
assumption.
> > Anything you interpret as punishment/reward will create the
> > experience of punishment/reward. The moment you interpret
that same
> > event as something else, it becomes something else.
> > For instance, when I was growing up my mother believed in
the use
> of
> > heavy punishment as a way to "teach" children. I interpreted my
> > mother's punishments with words like ...bad, painful, etc. and so
> > when I was punished, I felt punished....I felt bad, pain, etc.
> > However, I had a brother who understood that as long as he didn't
> > interpret what she was doing as punishment, he didn't have to
feel
> > bad, painful, etc. So her punishment didn't work with him and
he had
> > far more freedom than the rest of us.
> > People talk about pain/pleasure as though they are
attributes of
> > physical reality. But they are interpretations. Something we
assign
> > to our experience. This is easily recognizable with people
who have
> > learned to flip them around and gain pleasure from what most
of us
> > would call pain. The experiments I have done with pain have
shown me
> > that if I don't assign the idea of pain to a sensation, but
simply
> > notice it as a sensation, I don't experience pain.
> > So, what is PURE punishment/reward? What would that be?
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: gasinsystem
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:16 AM
> > Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] )(
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > susanjoy, guten morgen
> >
> > can you show youus
> >
> > ANY thinkg that is NOT
> >
> > fundawo'mentally rooted
> >
> > with'in PU&RE
> >
> > punish&reward
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > gas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > )(
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to:
> > dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to:
> > dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to:
> dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to:
> dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
___________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061108/c1084d0b/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 04:16:45 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 05:20:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <B8BC4D12-84C9-4C92-8D94-596686648C18@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2046AB87420BB422762AF4A5F00@phx.gbl>
this suggestion made Zoe very angry
Hi Don -
Zoe objected because of the word "acceptable". She doesn't object to the
principle of being heard. But that was clarified after you and I spoke.
Then someone posted something like "...would anyone stand up for her". And
I responded "I would", and the ball was rolling. I can find that post, if
you like, but it will take me a while. I have several hundred to go
through.
Actually, I believe that Zoe plans to make that statement. I told her you
were going on vacation, and she wanted you as well as William to be part of
this. i believe the procedure is for her to address it specifically to the
administrator who is William? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Do you want her to wait until after the wedding? best, k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:33 -0800
>
>Hi Susan,
>
>Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same thing. I am
>referring here to your first three paragraphs.
>But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as I can see is
>the same person but this is just for the record. Gas was peter's second go
>around. We had to close the list down after Peter's first invasion, And
>that's when we took the radical step of moderating the list. Or am I
>confused?
>
>Regarding Zoe, I still have my doubts as I do about Kirsten being the
>same person as Peter. But I understood that following on from a
>conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop
>us a line and explain what her intentions and interests in the Bohm list
>were, in other words to tell us why she thought it was unfair of us to
>disconnect her. I thought that this would clarify any unclarity. But
>apparently, this suggestion made Zoe very angry, and she has not written
>such a letter or communicated with either me, William or Franis, so far as
>I know.
>
>If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why Kathy is pushing
>this. I would have thought that it should be up to Zoe to make the next
>move.
>
>don
>
>
>On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>>Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire among
>>many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined the list
>>the same discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager to explore
>>it. And it was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right
>>now. Although at that time Peter was an active member of the group and
>>he was included in the discussion. In the beginning I sounded much like
>>you and some of the others right now.
>>
>>But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject
>>except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was mostly
>>just to ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into
>>himself, all he was interested in was goading the rest of us. Rather
>>than use suspension he would flood us with brief posts about the world
>>being made up of carrot and stick mentality and we should all recognize
>>that the only solution was total chaos. When he became determined to
>>spam the group with anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2
>>lines each every day regardless of how any of us felt (and I'm pretty
>>sure it was because of how we felt) the decision (after much agonizing)
>>was made to ban him. At that point I was ready for him to be banned.
>>He mostly just trolled for recruits for his OD site and spammed us for
>>not being interested. He also seems to have a fixation with male
>>authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate authority.
>>
>>It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well as
>>exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems that
>>caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my post to
>>her. In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least a loose
>>and flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts I have had
>>about the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our previous
>>discussions:
>>http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>
>>When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened
>>with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any warning
>>and without any group discussion. If that's true, then I would say that
>>I think anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or who we
>>suspect is Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be
>>given a chance to speak for themselves.
>>
>>And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how long
>>they are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that the
>>purpose of dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without posting.
>>A healthy dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've learned to deal
>>with it by learning to know which people are definitely going to have
>>something to say that I'm interested in responding to and not. On my
>>busy days I skip through the posts and read only a few people or if
>>there's a good thread going I will read only that thread. And, yes,
>>sometimes I miss a lot doing that but it's better than the alternative of
>>not being a part of all of this.
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>>Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>>
>>I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>>
>>What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
>>challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is only
>>within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a response
>>and
>>the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>>
>>I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I too
>>have
>>wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages in one
>>day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like that
>>term)
>>dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
>>currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility here
>>matters to me.
>>
>>I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need to
>>learn
>>from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about saying
>>'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in us,
>>in
>>me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response from
>>PKZ.
>>I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or need
>>and
>>I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people. Is it
>>that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that response
>>from
>>others?
>>
>>And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
>>appreciated reading your emails.
>>
>>I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else struggle?
>>As
>>a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have sent
>>three
>>or so in one day ...
>>
>>Gill
>>
>>
>>on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>>Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
>>>posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>>>to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
>>>both at the same time, and to find the
>>>balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>>>misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>>>words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>>>exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>>>example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the
>>>same issue: on the one hand, you want to
>>>protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand,
>>>you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>>>sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>>>periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>>>balance.
>>>
>>>I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
>>>balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>>>how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when
>>>at least
>>>apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
>>>truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of
>>>his father,
>>>the ostensible SS officer :)
>>>
>>>I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter"
>>>and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>>>Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without (or
>>>before) letting them back in?
>>>My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on
>>>a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>>>do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
>>>Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>>
>>>On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>>>propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>>>that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>>>"core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc., without
>>>being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>>
>>>Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>>>"People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is that
>>>the case here?"
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Joachim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>>>>obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of
>>>>this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we
>>>>want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David
>>>>Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we should have
>>>>no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>>>nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in creating
>>>>a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on that
>>>>before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones in.
>>>>Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>>>>having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>>>supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>>>difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't open
>>>>tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is
>>>>that the case here as well?
>>>>
>>>>Great post Lynne!
>>>>
>>>>kari
>>>
>>>Hi Rodger,
>>>
>>>Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>>
>>>Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
>>>enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
>>>discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to
>>>what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>>>compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
>>>finding a response and action that is not embedded within the same
>>>cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action taken to
>>>a situation maintains the same culture.
>>>
>>>Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>>
>>>Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as
>>>you suggest.
>>>
>>>For me just responding doesnąt mean you become part of the core I
>>>think it is something to do with how you are received and whether you
>>>are responded to and what the response is.
>>>
>>>Gill
>>>
>>>
>>>on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>>>Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>>
>>>Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
>>>missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
>>>clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>>>.
>>>
>>>Joachim Faust
>>>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 9 05:23:44 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 10 06:29:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <20061108.232451.3608.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Some of us have irritated each other, and we have
managed to reach out and get beyond it. We really need to learn how to do
that, and get better and better at it. (k)
This bears repeating - and encouragement. (pat)
Why was "Zoe" unsubbed? Because there was no
indication that this was to happen, maybe William?
was convinced that "Zoe" was Kirsten/Peter
and unsubbed "both" at once? (pat)
I, in this moment, promise that I will strive to ask the tough questions
to
get at the larger truth in the spirit of koinoina and compassion. I
cannot
promise I will be perfect. I cannot promise I won't be irritating. I do
not expect anyone else to be perfect. But it is not my intent to hurt
anyone. Please state on the board what you are offended about, and I
will
stay with you and the situation until we see it through. If it is
disruptive to the group, we can work it out privately. We may come to an
agreement to disagree, and that's ok. All to be done as courteously as
possible.
Who will join me? k
Gosh k, no promises but I've already "joined you."
Can't get much "tougher" than bohm's original dialogue
challenge, one of its main features being that it is "sustained."
As for disagreement, as I've told those here many times,
it doesn't make sense to me - neither does "agreement."
We used to do journals. Somehow it has happened that all
of my friends are writers. We would often read aloud
from our "journals." Not one of us ever thought to
disagree with anything that the others had written.
Since those days I've considered all writing to be
journal writing. It is quite clear to me that
"disagreement" is simply a lack of understanding
of what a person is trying to say. I hardly ever [if ever] even know
what I am trying to say. How can I expect myself to be doing
better with what another is trying to say?
VERY exciting what you are trying to do here. I'm totally
on board. I really feel your presence! Very Cool.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061108/1f5c0743/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 9 04:58:20 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 10 06:29:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] subtle fear & pleasure sensations
Message-ID: <20061108.232451.3608.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I'm not sure what kind of word attachment this is Pat, but I can't open
it.
It needs to be a word.doc for me to be able to open it with the version
of
word that I have.
Susan
I can open it, but it's in some kind of unintelligible symbols. Horrors!
Peter must have gotten in it somehow! (joke)
I tried Word plain text and HTML.
Actually, I think Peter's website has some of it posted. Can we copy it
from there and put it on Susan's site? Also DonL has some Bohm on his
site,
too, i believe. k
I can open the second of the attachments but not the first. The
second one appears to be numbered 1 through 5, but there is only
text up through 4, with the number 5 left dangling.
The other one would not open in word or in my text editor.
don
Never mind Pat....I was able to get the works copy to open.
I can post these to the web site.
Susan
If requested I can send it in the body of a regular e-mail, to the list
or
personally. I don't know what to save these things in so that everyone
can
open them. I don't have "Word" but maybe I can save it in "Word" format?
Don, the page numbers are after the text on each page. Maybe Don Lay and
or Owen can [also] put this on their websites as well as Susan.
I've always LOVED Chapter One. Never had a computer copy
before. A friend scanned it for me. Exciting. Part of preparation
for the new bohm reading group here.
Tried saving the attachment in word.doc. Maybe it will open
for some who could not open it before. Let me know if you
want me to send it in the body.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 15495 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061108/bd4c5ebe/attachment.obj
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 06:52:31 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Fri Nov 10 07:56:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] subtle fear & pleasure sensations
In-Reply-To: <20061108.232451.3608.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F401307FA208FA23D70C269B7F00@phx.gbl>
I had no trouble opening it. Just change the .wps.rtf to .doc before you
launch.
Regina
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] subtle fear & pleasure sensations
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:58:20 -0500
>
>I'm not sure what kind of word attachment this is Pat, but I can't open
>it.
>It needs to be a word.doc for me to be able to open it with the version
>of
>word that I have.
>Susan
>
>I can open it, but it's in some kind of unintelligible symbols. Horrors!
>
>Peter must have gotten in it somehow! (joke)
>I tried Word plain text and HTML.
>Actually, I think Peter's website has some of it posted. Can we copy it
>from there and put it on Susan's site? Also DonL has some Bohm on his
>site,
>too, i believe. k
>
>I can open the second of the attachments but not the first. The
>second one appears to be numbered 1 through 5, but there is only
>text up through 4, with the number 5 left dangling.
>The other one would not open in word or in my text editor.
>
>don
>
>Never mind Pat....I was able to get the works copy to open.
>I can post these to the web site.
>
>Susan
>
>If requested I can send it in the body of a regular e-mail, to the list
>or
>personally. I don't know what to save these things in so that everyone
>can
>open them. I don't have "Word" but maybe I can save it in "Word" format?
>Don, the page numbers are after the text on each page. Maybe Don Lay and
>or Owen can [also] put this on their websites as well as Susan.
>
>I've always LOVED Chapter One. Never had a computer copy
>before. A friend scanned it for me. Exciting. Part of preparation
>for the new bohm reading group here.
>
>Tried saving the attachment in word.doc. Maybe it will open
>for some who could not open it before. Let me know if you
>want me to send it in the body.
>
>pat
><< BohmOnDialoguescannedChaponeAntiqueOlive.wps.rtf >>
>_______________________________________________
>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 franis_franis at juno.com Thu Nov 9 07:47:50 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Fri Nov 10 08:56:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <20061108.224750.1572.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Good tip Regina! changing the ending to .rtf worked for me
I particularly like the spot in the quote where all parties are probably
unaware of their own assumptions! Part of the problem is email can read
as if there is an "offense" when there isn't one intended - tone of voice
is everything - and tone of voice is left out of email.
ditto for me - I'm still here and paying attention.
My preference, not particularly an offense about it, because text
messaging is fun in short supply, is for the conversation here to be
written in English, not text messaging. This is a common restriction on
internet forums. We have people on this list for whom English is their
third language. It's not fair to them or to anyone else who might join to
make ourselves deliberately obfiscatory by using gratuitous buzzwords.
How's that for a mouthful - obfiscatory...? I have this opinion because I
find it difficult to decipher the text messaging style, and the topics
that the txt messaging style self-selects is grossly simplified. Text
messaging is sort of fascist, often just labels and makes declarations
about "what it is," period. PKG recites his buzzwords in his response to
each of our posts merely as a way to say how we're wrong about whatever
we said. Also, it seems so arrogant to me to imagine buzzwords are a good
idea because they exclude late comers and make this dialogue experience
like a club that you need to get initiated into.
I would imagine that these preferences of mine are in keeping with our
expressed motives: of improving communication and going somewhere where
we've never gone independently.
I'm very interested in this process for my own purposes. Because I'm a
person who speaks up and declares what I believe, it appears that I've
been made a target by one of the other regular members in my Dialogue
group. As an experiment, we've been reading a blurb at the beginning of
Dialogue that declares some things I do not agree with, (it was crafted
by the guys when I was not in attendance in an effort to suggest ways for
people who talk to limit their turns. There are only 15 people present in
a two hour Dialogue so it's a little bit over-kill. My opinion about this
is the experiment is over after five times - let's judge if it's worked
or how it hasn't worked and do something else now, pretty please.)
Others listen to the blurb that says: no personal stories, don't
interrupt, etc. just deliver your conclusion and cut to the chase.
Everyone else just ignores the blurb after it is read; whereas I openly
disagree that stories are integral to Dialogue and to ban them is to
artificially limit examples that articulate what is possibly new.
Otherwise it's like that joke where someone walks up to a group of locals
and they're calling out a number. Every few numbers, everyone laughs.
When they ask what is going on, a local explains they have all heard
their own jokes so many times they finally just numbered them.
This other person takes measures to interrupt and "keep me in line"
during the dialogue whenever I talk - he's trying to prevent me from
launching into a story, even though he tells personal stories himself.
I'm not sure what to do about it; but as time has gone on, he has gotten
quite authoritarian. It's a matter of body language and action rather
than what the guy says; how he says it and that he continuously
interrupts me whenever I speak.
I wonder if the guy is still upset about how badly I beat him at pool one
evening after Dialogue a year ago. ;o)
Franis
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:23:44 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> Some of us have irritated each other, and we have
> managed to reach out and get beyond it. We really need to learn how
> to do
>
> that, and get better and better at it. (k)
>
> This bears repeating - and encouragement. (pat)
>
> Why was "Zoe" unsubbed? Because there was no
> indication that this was to happen, maybe William?
> was convinced that "Zoe" was Kirsten/Peter
> and unsubbed "both" at once? (pat)
>
> I, in this moment, promise that I will strive to ask the tough
> questions
> to
> get at the larger truth in the spirit of koinoina and compassion. I
> cannot
> promise I will be perfect. I cannot promise I won't be irritating.
> I do
>
> not expect anyone else to be perfect. But it is not my intent to
> hurt
> anyone. Please state on the board what you are offended about, and
> I
> will
> stay with you and the situation until we see it through. If it is
> disruptive to the group, we can work it out privately. We may come
> to an
>
> agreement to disagree, and that's ok. All to be done as courteously
> as
> possible.
>
> Who will join me? k
>
> Gosh k, no promises but I've already "joined you."
>
> Can't get much "tougher" than bohm's original dialogue
> challenge, one of its main features being that it is "sustained."
> As for disagreement, as I've told those here many times,
> it doesn't make sense to me - neither does "agreement."
>
> We used to do journals. Somehow it has happened that all
> of my friends are writers. We would often read aloud
> from our "journals." Not one of us ever thought to
> disagree with anything that the others had written.
> Since those days I've considered all writing to be
> journal writing. It is quite clear to me that
> "disagreement" is simply a lack of understanding
> of what a person is trying to say. I hardly ever [if ever] even know
> what I am trying to say. How can I expect myself to be doing
> better with what another is trying to say?
>
> VERY exciting what you are trying to do here. I'm totally
> on board. I really feel your presence! Very Cool.
>
> pat
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 13:38:28 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 14:42:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] subtle fear & pleasure sensations
In-Reply-To: <20061108.232451.3608.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1318AC5972A94A45C991D5A5F00@phx.gbl>
Yea-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a it opened! k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] subtle fear & pleasure sensations
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:58:20 -0500
>
>I'm not sure what kind of word attachment this is Pat, but I can't open
>it.
>It needs to be a word.doc for me to be able to open it with the version
>of
>word that I have.
>Susan
>
>I can open it, but it's in some kind of unintelligible symbols. Horrors!
>
>Peter must have gotten in it somehow! (joke)
>I tried Word plain text and HTML.
>Actually, I think Peter's website has some of it posted. Can we copy it
>from there and put it on Susan's site? Also DonL has some Bohm on his
>site,
>too, i believe. k
>
>I can open the second of the attachments but not the first. The
>second one appears to be numbered 1 through 5, but there is only
>text up through 4, with the number 5 left dangling.
>The other one would not open in word or in my text editor.
>
>don
>
>Never mind Pat....I was able to get the works copy to open.
>I can post these to the web site.
>
>Susan
>
>If requested I can send it in the body of a regular e-mail, to the list
>or
>personally. I don't know what to save these things in so that everyone
>can
>open them. I don't have "Word" but maybe I can save it in "Word" format?
>Don, the page numbers are after the text on each page. Maybe Don Lay and
>or Owen can [also] put this on their websites as well as Susan.
>
>I've always LOVED Chapter One. Never had a computer copy
>before. A friend scanned it for me. Exciting. Part of preparation
>for the new bohm reading group here.
>
>Tried saving the attachment in word.doc. Maybe it will open
>for some who could not open it before. Let me know if you
>want me to send it in the body.
>
>pat
><< BohmOnDialoguescannedChaponeAntiqueOlive.wps.rtf >>
>_______________________________________________
>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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 13:52:42 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 14:56:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061108.224750.1572.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1725873A414D8CF1DF0013A5F00@phx.gbl>
My preference ...is for the conversation here to be written in English, not
text messaging.
K: I have no problem with that. I'd have to learn text messaging, and I'm
sure I wouldn't limit myself to that language, anyway. Occasionally, I may
want to add a bilingual quote to something predominantly in English, but I'm
very accustomed to living in a billingual world. I'll provide translation.
Your experiment sounds fascinating, and right on target. Maybe we should
try it, too.
And a variation on that - what about an exercise where people deliberately
disagree, and learn how to respond with language that dialogs rather than
dukes it out? k
>From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:47:50 -0800
>
>Good tip Regina! changing the ending to .rtf worked for me
>
>I particularly like the spot in the quote where all parties are probably
>unaware of their own assumptions! Part of the problem is email can read
>as if there is an "offense" when there isn't one intended - tone of voice
>is everything - and tone of voice is left out of email.
>
>ditto for me - I'm still here and paying attention.
>
>My preference, not particularly an offense about it, because text
>messaging is fun in short supply, is for the conversation here to be
>written in English, not text messaging. This is a common restriction on
>internet forums. We have people on this list for whom English is their
>third language. It's not fair to them or to anyone else who might join to
>make ourselves deliberately obfiscatory by using gratuitous buzzwords.
>How's that for a mouthful - obfiscatory...? I have this opinion because I
>find it difficult to decipher the text messaging style, and the topics
>that the txt messaging style self-selects is grossly simplified. Text
>messaging is sort of fascist, often just labels and makes declarations
>about "what it is," period. PKG recites his buzzwords in his response to
>each of our posts merely as a way to say how we're wrong about whatever
>we said. Also, it seems so arrogant to me to imagine buzzwords are a good
>idea because they exclude late comers and make this dialogue experience
>like a club that you need to get initiated into.
>
> I would imagine that these preferences of mine are in keeping with our
>expressed motives: of improving communication and going somewhere where
>we've never gone independently.
>
>
>I'm very interested in this process for my own purposes. Because I'm a
>person who speaks up and declares what I believe, it appears that I've
>been made a target by one of the other regular members in my Dialogue
>group. As an experiment, we've been reading a blurb at the beginning of
>Dialogue that declares some things I do not agree with, (it was crafted
>by the guys when I was not in attendance in an effort to suggest ways for
>people who talk to limit their turns. There are only 15 people present in
>a two hour Dialogue so it's a little bit over-kill. My opinion about this
>is the experiment is over after five times - let's judge if it's worked
>or how it hasn't worked and do something else now, pretty please.)
>
>Others listen to the blurb that says: no personal stories, don't
>interrupt, etc. just deliver your conclusion and cut to the chase.
>Everyone else just ignores the blurb after it is read; whereas I openly
>disagree that stories are integral to Dialogue and to ban them is to
>artificially limit examples that articulate what is possibly new.
>Otherwise it's like that joke where someone walks up to a group of locals
>and they're calling out a number. Every few numbers, everyone laughs.
>When they ask what is going on, a local explains they have all heard
>their own jokes so many times they finally just numbered them.
>
>This other person takes measures to interrupt and "keep me in line"
>during the dialogue whenever I talk - he's trying to prevent me from
>launching into a story, even though he tells personal stories himself.
>I'm not sure what to do about it; but as time has gone on, he has gotten
>quite authoritarian. It's a matter of body language and action rather
>than what the guy says; how he says it and that he continuously
>interrupts me whenever I speak.
>
>I wonder if the guy is still upset about how badly I beat him at pool one
>evening after Dialogue a year ago. ;o)
>
>Franis
>
>On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:23:44 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> > Some of us have irritated each other, and we have
> > managed to reach out and get beyond it. We really need to learn how
> > to do
> >
> > that, and get better and better at it. (k)
> >
> > This bears repeating - and encouragement. (pat)
> >
> > Why was "Zoe" unsubbed? Because there was no
> > indication that this was to happen, maybe William?
> > was convinced that "Zoe" was Kirsten/Peter
> > and unsubbed "both" at once? (pat)
> >
> > I, in this moment, promise that I will strive to ask the tough
> > questions
> > to
> > get at the larger truth in the spirit of koinoina and compassion. I
> > cannot
> > promise I will be perfect. I cannot promise I won't be irritating.
> > I do
> >
> > not expect anyone else to be perfect. But it is not my intent to
> > hurt
> > anyone. Please state on the board what you are offended about, and
> > I
> > will
> > stay with you and the situation until we see it through. If it is
> > disruptive to the group, we can work it out privately. We may come
> > to an
> >
> > agreement to disagree, and that's ok. All to be done as courteously
> > as
> > possible.
> >
> > Who will join me? k
> >
> > Gosh k, no promises but I've already "joined you."
> >
> > Can't get much "tougher" than bohm's original dialogue
> > challenge, one of its main features being that it is "sustained."
> > As for disagreement, as I've told those here many times,
> > it doesn't make sense to me - neither does "agreement."
> >
> > We used to do journals. Somehow it has happened that all
> > of my friends are writers. We would often read aloud
> > from our "journals." Not one of us ever thought to
> > disagree with anything that the others had written.
> > Since those days I've considered all writing to be
> > journal writing. It is quite clear to me that
> > "disagreement" is simply a lack of understanding
> > of what a person is trying to say. I hardly ever [if ever] even know
> > what I am trying to say. How can I expect myself to be doing
> > better with what another is trying to say?
> >
> > VERY exciting what you are trying to do here. I'm totally
> > on board. I really feel your presence! Very Cool.
> >
> > pat
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Thu Nov 9 14:04:10 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Fri Nov 10 15:09:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061110110004.0EDED24826@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF11FB89A2.84CFCF68-ON85257221.00440438-85257221.0047CAE8@dialogos.com>
Rodger__After decades of working in organizations and groups that brought
leading edge workshops and therapies, I couldnt help but notice several
patterns to many groups - re: the groups are made of people.
In most groups there seems to be those who call for -special attention-.
Some of those with special needs have special messages to be discovered.
Others are more addicted to the attention-getting or workshop intimacies
etc., and tend to repeat their attention getting routines even when they
claim they wish to move on from the pattern.
Of the -special- ones who were stuck, the only ones I saw move-on from the
attention getting routines were those who were married with children and in
time saw the undeniable evidence of disfunctional parenting. And they knew
that THEY were the parent.
And even then, it was only after they could recognized the emotional
tortures they were putting their own children though did some change._R
.
.
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
I guess I'm really saying, Give all the "thems" in the world, and us a
chance - starting with Zoe. k
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/eb5ecc5e/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 14:32:38 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 15:36:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <BAY22-F187B3CB8C1C1FAAF9E6F83A5F00@phx.gbl>
Hello again, Don. I'm going to be more specific in answering your question
this morning. Last night, I was too tired. You wrote:
But I understood that following on from a conversation that I had off-list
with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop us a line and explain what her
intentions and interests in the Bohm list were, in other words to tell us
why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect her.
The understanding that I conveyed to Zoe was that she was to address an
email to the Administrator of the list, William, and explain why she wanted
to be a member of this group and what she hoped to get out of it. If the
administrator found her answer "acceptable", she would have to resubscribe.
There was no mention of "telling us why she thought it was unfair of us to
disconnect her". And none whatsoever of sharing any of this with the list.
I let it rest for a little while, because when emotions are high, it's hard
to sort things out. Then, I asked her why she had answered that way. She
asked me to please put myself in her place, so I could see what her feelings
and thinkgs might have been, then we talked about it.
Here is that answer : William, the person who was and still is convinced
she is Peter, had shut her down "on suspicion" of being Peter, and without
warning. This same person alone was to decide whether or not her response
was "acceptable". The list not only has no guidelines and procedures to
protect itself, it has none to protect its members. Furthermore, since the
list members not only didn't even know she had been bounced, they would not
even know such a process was in progress. From when I sit, this looks like
microcosm in the macrocosm of world history. I don't want to make anyone
angry here, so I'm just going to ask you to look into your own knowledge
bank for similar situations. I can, indeed, get specific is asked to do so.
My teachers' union instructed us that if we got into a dispute with the
administration (in our case, the administrator), we were to keep a log of
events, and above all, not to ever do anything without an observer present.
That observer could be our union rep, or anyone else we chose. I offered to
play that role, if she wanted me to. And so, here we are.
Zoe would like to come back, but neither she nor I feel the conditions
offered are acceptable. There is no procedure in place for such an appeal,
and no safeguards for the person appealing. If we can work out appropriate
conditions, it is my understanding that she would procede that way.
I have not run this by zoe, I am simply thinking aloud now. I know we need
precise wording as to precisely what it is Zoe needs to respond to, and a
way for the decision of whether to invite her back on the list to be decided
fairly. Just as I am running this by you now, I will run it by Zoe today.
Shall I post her reply online as part of my own post? May she see your
suggestions? Is there a way we can negotiate proper terms? This is
essential, because we are setting precedence for future cases. (Although, I
certainly hope it's never again necessary.) I would welcome input from list
members as well as you, Don. k
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:16:45 -0600
>
>this suggestion made Zoe very angry
>
>Hi Don -
>
>Zoe objected because of the word "acceptable". She doesn't object to the
>principle of being heard. But that was clarified after you and I spoke.
>Then someone posted something like "...would anyone stand up for her". And
>I responded "I would", and the ball was rolling. I can find that post, if
>you like, but it will take me a while. I have several hundred to go
>through.
>Actually, I believe that Zoe plans to make that statement. I told her you
>were going on vacation, and she wanted you as well as William to be part of
>this. i believe the procedure is for her to address it specifically to the
>administrator who is William? Correct me if I'm wrong.
>Do you want her to wait until after the wedding? best, k
>
>
>>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:33 -0800
>>
>>Hi Susan,
>>
>>Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same thing. I am
>>referring here to your first three paragraphs.
>>But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as I can see is
>>the same person but this is just for the record. Gas was peter's second
>>go around. We had to close the list down after Peter's first invasion,
>>And that's when we took the radical step of moderating the list. Or am I
>>confused?
>>
>>Regarding Zoe, I still have my doubts as I do about Kirsten being the
>>same person as Peter. But I understood that following on from a
>>conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop
>>us a line and explain what her intentions and interests in the Bohm list
>>were, in other words to tell us why she thought it was unfair of us to
>>disconnect her. I thought that this would clarify any unclarity. But
>>apparently, this suggestion made Zoe very angry, and she has not written
>>such a letter or communicated with either me, William or Franis, so far
>>as I know.
>>
>>If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why Kathy is pushing
>>this. I would have thought that it should be up to Zoe to make the next
>>move.
>>
>>don
>>
>>
>>On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire among
>>>many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined the list
>>>the same discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager to explore
>>>it. And it was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right
>>>now. Although at that time Peter was an active member of the group and
>>>he was included in the discussion. In the beginning I sounded much like
>>>you and some of the others right now.
>>>
>>>But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject
>>>except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was mostly
>>>just to ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into
>>>himself, all he was interested in was goading the rest of us. Rather
>>>than use suspension he would flood us with brief posts about the world
>>>being made up of carrot and stick mentality and we should all recognize
>>>that the only solution was total chaos. When he became determined to
>>>spam the group with anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2
>>>lines each every day regardless of how any of us felt (and I'm pretty
>>>sure it was because of how we felt) the decision (after much agonizing)
>>>was made to ban him. At that point I was ready for him to be banned.
>>>He mostly just trolled for recruits for his OD site and spammed us for
>>>not being interested. He also seems to have a fixation with male
>>>authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate authority.
>>>
>>>It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well as
>>>exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems that
>>>caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my post to
>>>her. In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least a loose
>>>and flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts I have
>>>had about the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our
>>>previous discussions:
>>>http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>>
>>>When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened
>>>with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any
>>>warning and without any group discussion. If that's true, then I would
>>>say that I think anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or
>>>who we suspect is Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings
>>>and be given a chance to speak for themselves.
>>>
>>>And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how long
>>>they are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that the
>>>purpose of dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without posting.
>>>A healthy dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've learned to deal
>>>with it by learning to know which people are definitely going to have
>>>something to say that I'm interested in responding to and not. On my
>>>busy days I skip through the posts and read only a few people or if
>>>there's a good thread going I will read only that thread. And, yes,
>>>sometimes I miss a lot doing that but it's better than the alternative
>>>of not being a part of all of this.
>>>
>>>Susan
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>>>
>>>I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>>>
>>>What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
>>>challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is only
>>>within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a response
>>>and
>>>the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>>>
>>>I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I too
>>>have
>>>wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages in one
>>>day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like that
>>>term)
>>>dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
>>>currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility here
>>>matters to me.
>>>
>>>I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need to
>>>learn
>>>from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about
>>>saying
>>>'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in us,
>>>in
>>>me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response from
>>>PKZ.
>>>I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or need
>>>and
>>>I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people. Is
>>>it
>>>that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that response
>>>from
>>>others?
>>>
>>>And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
>>>appreciated reading your emails.
>>>
>>>I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else
>>>struggle? As
>>>a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have sent
>>>three
>>>or so in one day ...
>>>
>>>Gill
>>>
>>>
>>>on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
>>>>posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>>>>to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
>>>>both at the same time, and to find the
>>>>balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>>>>misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>>>>words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>>>>exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>>>>example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the
>>>>same issue: on the one hand, you want to
>>>>protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand,
>>>>you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>>>>sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>>>>periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>>>>balance.
>>>>
>>>>I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
>>>>balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>>>>how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when
>>>>at least
>>>>apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
>>>>truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of
>>>>his father,
>>>>the ostensible SS officer :)
>>>>
>>>>I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter"
>>>>and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>>>>Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without (or
>>>>before) letting them back in?
>>>>My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on
>>>>a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>>>>do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
>>>>Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>>>
>>>>On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>>>>propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>>>>that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>>>>"core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc., without
>>>>being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>>>>"People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is that
>>>>the case here?"
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>Joachim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>>>>>obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of
>>>>>this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we
>>>>>want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David
>>>>>Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we should have
>>>>>no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>>>>nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in creating
>>>>>a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on that
>>>>>before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones in.
>>>>>Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>>>>>having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>>>>supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>>>>difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't open
>>>>>tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is
>>>>>that the case here as well?
>>>>>
>>>>>Great post Lynne!
>>>>>
>>>>>kari
>>>>
>>>>Hi Rodger,
>>>>
>>>>Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>>>
>>>>Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
>>>>enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
>>>>discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to
>>>>what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>>>>compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
>>>>finding a response and action that is not embedded within the same
>>>>cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action taken to
>>>>a situation maintains the same culture.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>>>
>>>>Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as
>>>>you suggest.
>>>>
>>>>For me just responding doesnąt mean you become part of the core I
>>>>think it is something to do with how you are received and whether you
>>>>are responded to and what the response is.
>>>>
>>>>Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>>>>Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
>>>>missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
>>>>clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>Joachim Faust
>>>>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 14:36:06 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Fri Nov 10 15:40:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <OF11FB89A2.84CFCF68-ON85257221.00440438-85257221.0047CAE8@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2A994F6B3D3D81450E257A5F00@phx.gbl>
How do you feel that applies to Zoe rejoining the group, since it was Peter
who exhibited the characteristics you describe? k
>From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:04:10 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Rodger__After decades of working in organizations and groups that brought
>leading edge workshops and therapies, I couldnt help but notice several
>patterns to many groups - re: the groups are made of people.
>
>In most groups there seems to be those who call for -special attention-.
>Some of those with special needs have special messages to be discovered.
>
>Others are more addicted to the attention-getting or workshop intimacies
>etc., and tend to repeat their attention getting routines even when they
>claim they wish to move on from the pattern.
>
>Of the -special- ones who were stuck, the only ones I saw move-on from the
>attention getting routines were those who were married with children and in
>time saw the undeniable evidence of disfunctional parenting. And they knew
>that THEY were the parent.
>
>And even then, it was only after they could recognized the emotional
>tortures they were putting their own children though did some change._R
>.
>.
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>.
>I guess I'm really saying, Give all the "thems" in the world, and us a
>chance - starting with Zoe. 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 Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 15:23:44 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 16:27:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <BAY22-F187B3CB8C1C1FAAF9E6F83A5F00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <003601c7040a$aaabd340$2479480c@HOME>
It sounds like we need to get William in on this discussion. William? Can
you chime in and let us hear your side of things? Is this an accurate
description of what happened?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> Hello again, Don. I'm going to be more specific in answering your
> question this morning. Last night, I was too tired. You wrote:
>
> But I understood that following on from a conversation that I had off-list
> with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop us a line and explain what her
> intentions and interests in the Bohm list were, in other words to tell us
> why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect her.
>
> The understanding that I conveyed to Zoe was that she was to address an
> email to the Administrator of the list, William, and explain why she
> wanted to be a member of this group and what she hoped to get out of it.
> If the administrator found her answer "acceptable", she would have to
> resubscribe. There was no mention of "telling us why she thought it was
> unfair of us to disconnect her". And none whatsoever of sharing any of
> this with the list.
> I let it rest for a little while, because when emotions are high, it's
> hard to sort things out. Then, I asked her why she had answered that way.
> She asked me to please put myself in her place, so I could see what her
> feelings and thinkgs might have been, then we talked about it.
> Here is that answer : William, the person who was and still is convinced
> she is Peter, had shut her down "on suspicion" of being Peter, and without
> warning. This same person alone was to decide whether or not her response
> was "acceptable". The list not only has no guidelines and procedures to
> protect itself, it has none to protect its members. Furthermore, since
> the list members not only didn't even know she had been bounced, they
> would not even know such a process was in progress. From when I sit, this
> looks like microcosm in the macrocosm of world history. I don't want to
> make anyone angry here, so I'm just going to ask you to look into your own
> knowledge bank for similar situations. I can, indeed, get specific is
> asked to do so.
> My teachers' union instructed us that if we got into a dispute with the
> administration (in our case, the administrator), we were to keep a log of
> events, and above all, not to ever do anything without an observer
> present. That observer could be our union rep, or anyone else we chose.
> I offered to play that role, if she wanted me to. And so, here we are.
> Zoe would like to come back, but neither she nor I feel the conditions
> offered are acceptable. There is no procedure in place for such an
> appeal, and no safeguards for the person appealing. If we can work out
> appropriate conditions, it is my understanding that she would procede that
> way.
>
> I have not run this by zoe, I am simply thinking aloud now. I know we
> need precise wording as to precisely what it is Zoe needs to respond to,
> and a way for the decision of whether to invite her back on the list to be
> decided fairly. Just as I am running this by you now, I will run it by
> Zoe today. Shall I post her reply online as part of my own post? May she
> see your suggestions? Is there a way we can negotiate proper terms? This
> is essential, because we are setting precedence for future cases.
> (Although, I certainly hope it's never again necessary.) I would welcome
> input from list members as well as you, Don. k
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:16:45 -0600
>>
>>this suggestion made Zoe very angry
>>
>>Hi Don -
>>
>>Zoe objected because of the word "acceptable". She doesn't object to the
>>principle of being heard. But that was clarified after you and I spoke.
>>Then someone posted something like "...would anyone stand up for her".
>>And I responded "I would", and the ball was rolling. I can find that
>>post, if you like, but it will take me a while. I have several hundred to
>>go through.
>>Actually, I believe that Zoe plans to make that statement. I told her you
>>were going on vacation, and she wanted you as well as William to be part
>>of this. i believe the procedure is for her to address it specifically to
>>the administrator who is William? Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>Do you want her to wait until after the wedding? best, k
>>
>>
>>>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:33 -0800
>>>
>>>Hi Susan,
>>>
>>>Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same thing. I am
>>>referring here to your first three paragraphs.
>>>But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as I can see
>>>is the same person but this is just for the record. Gas was peter's
>>>second go around. We had to close the list down after Peter's first
>>>invasion, And that's when we took the radical step of moderating the
>>>list. Or am I confused?
>>>
>>>Regarding Zoe, I still have my doubts as I do about Kirsten being the
>>>same person as Peter. But I understood that following on from a
>>>conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop
>>>us a line and explain what her intentions and interests in the Bohm list
>>>were, in other words to tell us why she thought it was unfair of us to
>>>disconnect her. I thought that this would clarify any unclarity. But
>>>apparently, this suggestion made Zoe very angry, and she has not written
>>>such a letter or communicated with either me, William or Franis, so far
>>>as I know.
>>>
>>>If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why Kathy is
>>>pushing this. I would have thought that it should be up to Zoe to make
>>>the next move.
>>>
>>>don
>>>
>>>
>>>On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire among
>>>>many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined the list
>>>>the same discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager to explore
>>>>it. And it was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right
>>>>now. Although at that time Peter was an active member of the group and
>>>>he was included in the discussion. In the beginning I sounded much
>>>>like you and some of the others right now.
>>>>
>>>>But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject
>>>>except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was mostly
>>>>just to ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into
>>>>himself, all he was interested in was goading the rest of us. Rather
>>>>than use suspension he would flood us with brief posts about the world
>>>>being made up of carrot and stick mentality and we should all recognize
>>>>that the only solution was total chaos. When he became determined to
>>>>spam the group with anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2
>>>>lines each every day regardless of how any of us felt (and I'm pretty
>>>>sure it was because of how we felt) the decision (after much agonizing)
>>>>was made to ban him. At that point I was ready for him to be banned.
>>>>He mostly just trolled for recruits for his OD site and spammed us for
>>>>not being interested. He also seems to have a fixation with male
>>>>authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate authority.
>>>>
>>>>It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well
>>>>as exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems
>>>>that caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my
>>>>post to her. In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least
>>>>a loose and flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts
>>>>I have had about the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of
>>>>our previous discussions:
>>>>http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>>>
>>>>When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened
>>>>with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any
>>>>warning and without any group discussion. If that's true, then I would
>>>>say that I think anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or
>>>>who we suspect is Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings
>>>>and be given a chance to speak for themselves.
>>>>
>>>>And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how long
>>>>they are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that the
>>>>purpose of dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without posting.
>>>>A healthy dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've learned to
>>>>deal with it by learning to know which people are definitely going to
>>>>have something to say that I'm interested in responding to and not. On
>>>>my busy days I skip through the posts and read only a few people or if
>>>>there's a good thread going I will read only that thread. And, yes,
>>>>sometimes I miss a lot doing that but it's better than the alternative
>>>>of not being a part of all of this.
>>>>
>>>>Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt"
>>>><earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>>>>
>>>>I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>>>>
>>>>What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
>>>>challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is
>>>>only
>>>>within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a response
>>>>and
>>>>the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>>>>
>>>>I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I too
>>>>have
>>>>wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages in
>>>>one
>>>>day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like that
>>>>term)
>>>>dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
>>>>currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility here
>>>>matters to me.
>>>>
>>>>I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need to
>>>>learn
>>>>from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about
>>>>saying
>>>>'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in us,
>>>>in
>>>>me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response from
>>>>PKZ.
>>>>I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or need
>>>>and
>>>>I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people. Is
>>>>it
>>>>that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that response
>>>>from
>>>>others?
>>>>
>>>>And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
>>>>appreciated reading your emails.
>>>>
>>>>I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else
>>>>struggle? As
>>>>a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have sent
>>>>three
>>>>or so in one day ...
>>>>
>>>>Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
>>>>>posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>>>>>to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
>>>>>both at the same time, and to find the
>>>>>balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>>>>>misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>>>>>words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>>>>>exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>>>>>example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the
>>>>>same issue: on the one hand, you want to
>>>>>protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand,
>>>>>you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>>>>>sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>>>>>periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>>>>>balance.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
>>>>>balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>>>>>how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when
>>>>>at least
>>>>>apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
>>>>>truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of
>>>>>his father,
>>>>>the ostensible SS officer :)
>>>>>
>>>>>I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter"
>>>>>and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>>>>>Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without (or
>>>>>before) letting them back in?
>>>>>My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on
>>>>>a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>>>>>do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
>>>>>Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>>>>
>>>>>On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>>>>>propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>>>>>that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>>>>>"core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc., without
>>>>>being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>>>>>"People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is that
>>>>>the case here?"
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>Joachim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>>>>>>obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of
>>>>>>this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we
>>>>>>want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David
>>>>>>Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we should have
>>>>>>no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>>>>>nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in creating
>>>>>>a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on that
>>>>>>before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones in.
>>>>>>Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>>>>>>having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>>>>>supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>>>>>difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't open
>>>>>>tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is
>>>>>>that the case here as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Great post Lynne!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>kari
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi Rodger,
>>>>>
>>>>>Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
>>>>>enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
>>>>>discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to
>>>>>what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>>>>>compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
>>>>>finding a response and action that is not embedded within the same
>>>>>cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action taken to
>>>>>a situation maintains the same culture.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>>>>
>>>>>Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as
>>>>>you suggest.
>>>>>
>>>>>For me just responding doesn?t mean you become part of the core I
>>>>>think it is something to do with how you are received and whether you
>>>>>are responded to and what the response is.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>>>>>Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
>>>>>missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
>>>>>clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>>>>>.
>>>>>
>>>>>Joachim Faust
>>>>>joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>info:
>>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Thu Nov 9 16:05:20 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Fri Nov 10 18:09:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] subtle fear & pleasure sensations
In-Reply-To: <20061108.232451.3608.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C1789FD0.7DFE%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
This came in text format (.rtf) which opens easily with a text editor. (I
hadn't tried the other because I have the book.)
Lynne
On 11/8/06 9:58 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what kind of word attachment this is Pat, but I can't open
> it.
> It needs to be a word.doc for me to be able to open it with the version
> of
> word that I have.
> Susan
>
> I can open it, but it's in some kind of unintelligible symbols. Horrors!
>
> Peter must have gotten in it somehow! (joke)
> I tried Word plain text and HTML.
> Actually, I think Peter's website has some of it posted. Can we copy it
> from there and put it on Susan's site? Also DonL has some Bohm on his
> site,
> too, i believe. k
>
> I can open the second of the attachments but not the first. The
> second one appears to be numbered 1 through 5, but there is only
> text up through 4, with the number 5 left dangling.
> The other one would not open in word or in my text editor.
>
> don
>
> Never mind Pat....I was able to get the works copy to open.
> I can post these to the web site.
>
> Susan
>
> If requested I can send it in the body of a regular e-mail, to the list
> or
> personally. I don't know what to save these things in so that everyone
> can
> open them. I don't have "Word" but maybe I can save it in "Word" format?
> Don, the page numbers are after the text on each page. Maybe Don Lay and
> or Owen can [also] put this on their websites as well as Susan.
>
> I've always LOVED Chapter One. Never had a computer copy
> before. A friend scanned it for me. Exciting. Part of preparation
> for the new bohm reading group here.
>
> Tried saving the attachment in word.doc. Maybe it will open
> for some who could not open it before. Let me know if you
> want me to send it in the body.
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
From w at david-bohm.net Thu Nov 9 13:54:51 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Fri Nov 10 19:08:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
References: <BAY123-F7AD72181C0955270C3F35B7F10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4553251B.000009.05652@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Regina Bensch-Coe
>William, is not true art the manifestation of compassion?
I don't know. I don't know much about true art. What is it?
>I keep thinking about what you call the passion point. This,
>from my perspective, is the reconciliation point. It is the
>point when something totally unexpected, yet expected ?
>something so complete and whole ?emerges.
Yes, it's certainly a breakthrough.
>I remember when Joseph Campbell was asked, ?Do you believe
>in God?? and he said, ?Yes.? Then he was asked, ?Do you have
>faith?? Then he said, ?No, I don?t have to have faith, I have
>experience.? For the longest time I did not understand what he
>was talking about ? experience but not faith? It made no
>sense. Then I read something Bohm wrote about faith being blind
>trust, etc. (I don?t remember the precise words
).
I think faith is defined as unconditional trust (without requiring proof).
If Campbell takes his experience as proof then by definition it is not faith
>Now I understand. Joseph Campbell experienced the passion
>point many times in his lifetime. It is that passion point that the
>true artist experiences with each ?complete and whole awakening?
>he manifests.
That may well be the case, but other interpretations are also possible. One
such possibility is that he may have had a brain defect causing temporary
mental malfunctionings. We have already talked about this in the past, if
you remember. It can be a spontaneous malfunctioning or it may be brought
about by drugs or by depriving the brain of oxygen or whatever. Some
meditation techniques are designed to bring about such lack of oxygen in
order to deliberately cause temporary brain damage. This can be done, for
instance by sitting still too long, or by doing repetitious trance inducing
things. What happens is that certain mental functions cease to work properly
One such function is maintaining a sense of separation, or the ability to
evaluate, judge what is happening or to question, doubt what someone is
saying. When such abilities are impaired then you get what some people
describe as a state of enlightenment. If, for instance, the sense of
separation is not working anymore then by default you experience wholeness.
If the ability to doubt or question is impaired then by default you get a
sense of absolute truth. Thus, this sense of wholeness, absoluteness,
ultimateness is a form failure. The sense of separation or the ability to
doubt is a highly sophisticated function that can easily be impaired. These
are only some examples of what can go wrong when the brain is no longer able
to implement these mental functions. There are many more things that can go
wrong. I tend to generalize them as "special effects".
Something like this may have happened to Joseph Campbell. He may have
experienced absolute truth (resulting from disabled doubt). Generally
speaking, people tend to take their experiences as a form of proof. If he
has had such a breakdown and takes this experience as a form of proof then
he would firmly believe it without a shadow of doubt. It is not all that
uncommon. Even presidents can suffer from this sort of thing.
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/b4c95f30/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Thu Nov 9 18:08:32 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Fri Nov 10 19:09:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D05CB@msw2k.msw.local>
My client could NOT pay $800 so I'm the responsible one. I end up
financing a lot because my clients are so poor. But its okay. Sharing
and caring is what life is about. I'm no angel-just am able to pitch in
some times. D
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:31 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
Morning Dorothy (smiles) -
PKZ is Peter-Kris-Zoe; UFT is United Federation of Teachers.
The resolution skills (my pov, of course) could be incorporated into
dialog, so that when the tough parts get going, we can hang in there
together with courtesy and respect.
My forebears came to Tennessee and Kentucky, but I have never been
there. I know it's beautiful. I had dreams of finding them some day,
but now arthritis makes travel so uncomfortable.
I had no idea conflict resolution skills could command so much money.
NYC teachers were trained as in service training, and practiced it as
part of the job description. But did somebody refuse to pay the bill?
There are so many great people on this list. I'm delighted to be part
of it.
Have a great day. k
>From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:41:49 -0500
>
>I live in Knoxville TN, my law office is in Oak Ridge, TN. Mediation
>when there is litigation costs a whale of a lot of money. Most of the
>facilitators here charge around $350 and hour. Your experience sounds
>wonderful. Conflict resolution IS a life skill and would be a great
>thing for marriage or for commitment without that piece of paper. (I
>don't know what the PKZ profile stands for? Nor the UFT)D
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 3:26 PM
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>
>Yes, Dorothy! We can only try our best.
>
>I've used those skills in places where I never thought I'd need them.
>I was a newbie on the group I co-moderate when war broke out, and I
>responded with the training. Got asked to do it officially, so I guess
>you could say I'm using them now. I also had inservice training on
>union negotiations, but I'm more at home with children - which seems to
>fit the PKZ profile!
>Although trying to present the povs of both the anti-pkz faction and
>the pro-group to each other seems more in the Union category. Of
>course, the UFT briefed us on how to handle problems in that system,
>and I'm no stranger to those. Then, there was a rent strike for needed
>apartment repairs, etc, etc, etc. Conflict resolution is a life skill
>everybody should be trained in!
>
>How did the thing end up costing you $800? For school mediation, the
>first step is to ask if they want or will accept mediation - build a
>climate that will make mediatiion desirable, and if they decline, call
>for reinforcements to keep them from fighting! In Unions, binding
>arbitration is often invoked.
>
>Email me anytime. It's nice talking to you. By the way, where do you
>live?
> k
>
>
> >From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
> >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:03:56 -0500
> >
> >Good to hear about you and your past and your present. Are you using
> >the conflict resolution skills today? I was just trained as a
> >faciliator. Not sure I have what it takes. Just finished a
> >mediation which upset me terribly. It cost me $800 to end up with no
> >move on the
>
> >other side.
> >I've really decided that mediation works when a "person" is there,
> >not a corporation.
> >
> >Your email made me think a little about the age of those of us who
> >message back and forth. Your 71 and my 81 made me wonder if we are
> >doing anything to introduce the younger folks to the beauty of
>dialogue.
> >D
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> >[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan
> >Jett
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 2:51 PM
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
> >
> >Hi Susan - No we haven't met. I don't mind at all giving
information
> >about myself. I'm Kathy, 71 year old retired bilingual Spanish and
> >music teacher and composer, originally from Florida, with 35 years of
> >service, 10 years in Puerto Rico, and over 40 years living in NYC. I
> >was also one of the first teachers to be trained in conflict
> >resolution. I have
> >2 sons by a Puerto Rican father, and raised them alone/working
> >mother, the whole bit, here in NYC. I taught in both the South Bronx
> >and the Upper West Side. I lost my last husband, a Navajo with whom I
> >lived on the ancestral land in the Navajo Nation, on Dec. 25, right
> >after 9 -
>11.
> >I also had the privilege and delight of studying Navajo language,
> >literature, traditions and culture at Dine College/Navajo Community
> >College. Navajo world view is SO compatible with Bohm. That's one
> >reason I'm so pro-Bohm and dialog. I am also a co-moderator on
> >another
>
> >list, which is why, like you, I am somewhat familiar with internet
> >protocol and needs.
> >
> >I appreciate your thoughtful, candid response. Now I would like to
> >reciprocate.
> >
> >S: I do not envy Don F. his job of being moderator and I know from
> >past experience that he has struggled with this issue. I think most
> >of
>
> >us have.
> >
> >K: I absolutely agree. He is every inch a scholar and a gentleman.
> >If
>
> >requested, with acceptable guidelines in place, I'd be happy to help
> >him co-moderate, or in any way I could. I can't think of a better
> >way to use my time, except to get my face-to-face group started. Zoe
> >also knows and has accepted that I have said I will be the first to
> >call her
>
> >on any actions I find inappropriate, as everyone else has the right
> >to do.
> >
> >S: But I also know that it isn't going to do much good to pursue
> >this conversation until Don gets to
> > >Calif. and gets back on line. He will be facing 100's of posts on
> > >his return and could miss the important parts of the discussion
> > >trying to weed through the posts.
> >
> >K: That also sounds reasonable to me.
> >
> >S: he (Peter) spams the list -
> >K: that should go in the guidelines and principles.I think, as should
> >any other experiences that have been disruptive in the past.
> >
> >S: Peter has been given every chance -
> >K: here's where we diverge. I'm convinced he's not Peter, but if
> >proven wrong, I'll claim responsibility for my error, and help boot
> >him
>
> >with proper procedure, if he violates guidelines.
> >
> >S: I have come to learn that, as you have mentioned, principles and
> >guidelines do seem to be necessary
> >K: Yes, and I deliberately chose the terminology hoping it was more
> >compatible with the original aims of Dialog. The terms are also open
> >to suggestion and change.
> >
> >S: I would be happy with any guidelines that say no trolling and no
> >spam. I would also agree with you that the guidelines should be
> >posted
> >K: Thank you. We need to list specifics that we consider trolling.
> >I
>
> >testified to how it happened, and I know Don F will not deny it. He
> >has a log of all our correspondence on the subject, as I do.
> >
> >S: and anyone that we do not know for certain is Peter deserves a
> >warning before being unsubscribed.
> >K: I had a lot of experience and training in documenting children's
> >undesirable behavior. I'd be happy to put that knowledge to use
here.
> >
> >S: I don't know if Zoe (or Kris) were ever confronted with people's
> >suspicions that they were Peter or not and given the chance to
respond.
> >But I do think they deserved to be openly told what people
> > >think.
> >K: I did not see that happen, and Zoe is very hurt that things were
> >handled this way. If anyone else has proof to the contrary about
> >ZOE
> >- NOT Peter or Kris - both she and the rest of us should receive it,
> >and Zoe given a chance to respond.
> >
> >S: As you will discover, open honest communication is important to
me.
> >K: I do see that, and am very comfortable dialoging with you. I
> >hope we can work together with interested others to develop and
> >implement these principles and guidelines.
> >
> >We are definitely forging a new path in Bohm, required by a new era
> >in the technological development of communication. It has been a
> >pleasure
>
> >dialoging with you. If you are near or ever in NYC, please let me
>know.
> >
> >I'd love to meet you.
> >
> >Hozhoon, Kathryn Morgan Jett Arizmendi (just so you'll know the
> >identities I currently use!) (picture Kathy smiling happily)
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
> > >Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:10 -0700
> > >
> > >I'm feeling a little confused about who wrote this message. You
> > >are a
> >new
> > >member who was not here when I went on vacation so I'm not sure
> > >what
> >your
> > >name is since the letter K doesn't say and there seem to be more
> > >than
> >one
> > >person on the list today whose name starts with a K.
> > >
> > >When it comes to what is happening currently with Kris, Zoe and
> > >Peter,
> >I'm
> > >not really up to speed. However, I am very familiar with the Peter
> > >phenomena of the past. Those of us who have been on the list for
> > >any
>
> > >length of time know that Peter has incarnated multiple times under
> > >many
> >
> > >different names.
> > >
> > >As Franis has mentioned, Peter is very intelligent and a very good
> > >journalist and some of his incarnations have been very articulate
> > >and
> >some
> > >of them have also been pseudo female. Whether he is in an
> > >articulate
> >mode
> > >or not, Peter has a definite style that many of us have come to
> >recognize
> > >fairly easily. Part of that style is when he is feeling that his
> > >posts
> >are
> > >being neglected or ignored by the rest of us he spams the list with
> >dozens
> > >of one or two line posts to get the attention he craves and to
> > >punish
> >us
> > >for not paying attention. Since this list requires you to receive
> >emails
> > >in order to respond to posts (rather than having a way to post from
> > >the
> >
> > >online site like Yahoo) , getting dozens of emails per day that
> > >have
> >the
> > >sole purpose of irritating the members is simply not tolerable for
> >most of
> > >us. Most of us simply don't have the time.
> > >
> > >Peter has been given every chance in the world when it comes to
> > >talking
> >to
> > >him about what he is doing. Many of us have attempted
> > >communicating
> >with
> > >him both on and off list to try to come to a reasonable solution to
> > >including him on the list. Nothing has worked.
> > >
> > >When it comes to ideas of rules or no rules many here will tell you
> >that I
> > >am one who has been in favor of no rules in the past. In the
> > >beginning
> >I
> > >felt this was a foundation of dialogue. However, being on many
> >different
> > >internet lists I have come to learn that ,as you have mentioned,
> >principles
> > >and guidelines do seem to be necessary for a group pursuing a
> > >serious
> >topic
> > >of discussion such as this one. I have come to believe that any
> > >group
> >that
> > >wants to cohere, even as an ongoing stream, needs what I have come
> > >to
> >think
> > >of as a flexible structure. Something like the banks of a river
> > >that
> >hold
> > >together well enough to keep the stream defined as a stream but are
> >also
> > >flexible enough to broaden their banks and reformat themselves with
> > >the
> >
> > >natural fluctuation of movement. Reading Bohm's proposal several
> > >times
> >
> > >helped me to realize that Dialogue does have a purpose although it
> > >is
>
> > >a
> >
> > >very general, and so flexible purpose.
> > >
> > >I would be happy with any guidelines that say no trolling and no
>spam.
> >And
> > >I would definitely categorize much of Peter's behavior as both
> > >trolling
> >and
> > >spam. He seems determined to either turn this group into a "Peter"
> > >Dialogue instead of a Bohm Dialogue or else destroy the list
trying.
>
> > >I
> >
> > >would also agree with you that the guidelines should be posted and
> >anyone
> > >that we do not know for certain is Peter deserves a warning before
> >being
> > >unsubscribed. I don't know if Zoe (or Kris) were ever confronted
> > >with
>
> > >people's suspicions that they were Peter or not and given the
> > >chance to
> >
> > >respond. But I do think they deserved to be openly told what
> > >people
> >think.
> > > As you will discover, open honest communication is important to
me.
> > >
> > >I do not envy Don F. his job of being moderator and I know from
> > >past experience that he has struggled with this issue. I think
> > >most of us
> >have.
> > >And perhaps the fact that Peter keeps reemerging is a reflection of
> > >our
> >
> > >inner struggle. But I also know that it isn't going to do much
> > >good to
> >
> > >pursue this conversation until Don gets to Calif. and gets back on
> >line.
> > >He will be facing 100's of posts on his return and could miss the
> >important
> > >parts of the discussion trying to weed through the posts. So I
> > >suggest
> >
> > >that we continue the discussion when he returns.
> > >
> > >Susan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
> ><griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> > >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 9:24 AM
> > >Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
> > >
> > >
> > >>If this is a duplicate for you, please forgive. I posted it last
> >night,
> > >>but it's not in my inbox. k
> > >>
> > >>These comments are made with all due respect.
> > >>
> > >>A great deal of debate has gone into the Zoe-Kris-Peter situation.
> > >>It
> >is
> > >>no secret that I am trying to work out terms for Zoe - not Kris or
> >Peter -
> > >>to be reinstated. There is no real evidence that Zoe is Kris or
> >Peter. I
> > >>am convinced she is not, because I have enough interaction on
> > >>which to
> >
> > >>base my opinion. Also, Don F. today posted that he tends to agree
> > >>with
> >me.
> > >>
> > >>Zoe was unsubscribed without warning, without notice, and "on
> >suspicion"
> > >>of being Peter and/or Kris. List members didn't even know she had
> > >>been
> >
> > >>bounced. I guessed, emailed her for confirmation, and because she
> > >>expressed her hurt, disappointment and desire to be with us,
> >approached
> > >>Don privately in hopes of mediating the situation. Yes, she
> > >>refused to
> >try
> > >>to come up with an "acceptable" answer. But could she possibly
> > >>have
>
> > >>understandable reasons for refusing such a request, without their
> > >>signifying she doesn't want to be here? What is the meaning of
> > >>"acceptable"? Look at what's happening. She's bounced without
> >warning or
> > >>notification "on suspicion", has no expectation of recourse or
> > >>appeal,
> >and
> > >>now we are talking about her behind her back, and she can't defend
> > >>herself. That's not what I believe America is about, much less a
> > >>Bohm
> >
> > >>group.
> > >>
> > >>There is much more here than fighting for a friend. There are
> >principles
> > >>involved which I risk stating that I am passionate about.
> > >>
> > >>It is kind of fascinating to watch this very sophisticated dance
> > >>that
> >goes
> > >>on here with Peter Krauss and his potential recruits.
> > >>K: I do not see this as a sophisticated dance performance, as a
> > >>"recruiting center" or a competition for loyalties between groups
> > >>and group leaders. Such ideas have more in common with the gang
> > >>mentality
> >of
> > >>the streets of New York. I don't even want to take it to a
> > >>historical
> >and
> > >>international level. I don't affiliate with anyone or anything
> > >>that
> >would
> > >>limit or try to punish me for making my own decisions, or
> > >>insinuate
> >that
> > >>I'm incapable of it. If that's what Bohm is about, I'm really in
> > >>the wrong place!
> > >>It's not fascinating, it's sad & disturbing, alarming to watch
> > >>intelligent, sane people stuck on ferreting out whether or not
> > >>Peter
> >is
> > >>Peter, Zoe, Kris, or a maniac, instead of acting on the knowledge
> > >>that
> >
> > >>koinonia, passion & compassion need more than debate about meaning
> > >>to
> >have
> > >>meaning.
> > >>
> > >>Exactly why is the group focused on Peter, anyway? What is the
> > >>fascination?
> > >>
> > >>Hard questions to think about:
> > >>For me just responding doesn't mean you become part of the core. I
> >think
> > >>it is something to do with how you are received and whether you
> > >>are responded to and what the response is.
> > >>K: not just in the past, but now as well. Why is it that I got
> > >>along
> >
> > >>with Kris and Zoe? It certainly wasn't that I am gullible or
> > >>senile,
> >as
> > >>one member of our list implies. Maybe my age and experience gave
> > >>me
> >some
> > >>insight and expertise that deserves respect.
> > >>He gradually encourages them to say and do things that he knows
> > >>will
>
> > >>cause them to get unsubscribed eventually, such as when he taught
> >Kathryn
> > >>to send huge pictures embedded inside the email.
> > >>
> > >>K: there is a lot I object to here, such as the imbedded threat
> > >>of excommunication, and the implication that I don't have any
> > >>proprioreception, indeed any sense at all. Also note the passion
> > >>in
> >the
> > >>words. What's that all about? Even though I sent only one
> > >>picture,
>
> > >>I
> >
> > >>will let that go, and head for the group issue. Don F. specified
> > >>that images are allowed, subject to a particular size in a very
> > >>dignified non-threatening way. Yes, some of Kris's images were
> > >>frighteningly inappropriate. But - Let's not say "all Kris's
> > >>images
>
> > >>were
> >objectionable,
> > >>therefore all images are objectionable, especially all Kris's
>images.
> >And
> > >>Zoe is Chris, therefore Zoe is objectionable."
> > >>
> > >>Usually, a new order arises out of chaos (which seems to have
> > >>been
> >the
> > >>experience with the earlier incarnation of this list). How can we
> > >>set
> >up a
> > >>more human face to face interaction?
> > >>We are pioneering, stretching the original conditions of Dialog by
> >putting
> > >>it on the internet. It takes time, effort, patience, and group
> >insight to
> > >>work out the kinks.
> > >>I propose that all of us reread our Bohm, look at the present
> >situation,
> > >>reformulate and restate what we expect of Dialog AND what we can
> > >>bring
> >to
> > >>it. And post it and discuss it. This should not be just a
> >"Zoe-thing". We
> > >>need to be mindful of this always. I shall begin on my statement
> >tonight,
> > >>and post it as soon as I have it in an acceptable form. I invite
> > >>you
> >to
> > >>do the same. A consensus could be made, voted on, and posted. I
> > >>volunteer to do the compiling, posting for feedback, and editing.
> >Someone
> > >>else would need to take care of the website.
> > >>
> > >>"...where everything is allowed and there are no rules."
> > >>K: What real good have "rules" and jails done? Do people really
> > >>need
> >
> > >>rules to keep them from killing each other? Have the rules
worked?
> > >>I propose parameters & principles not rules, to be developed and
> >approved
> > >>by the group. Including Zoe. Whether or not the majority agrees
> > >>with
> >her,
> > >>listen to what she is saying. Some of it might make sense.
> > >>Further, authors of inappropriate postings should be issued a
> > >>warning
> >as
> > >>to the specific nature of the unacceptable action. Basic courtesy
> > >>is
>
> > >>a
> >
> > >>must. Three warnings by the moderator, and the offender is out.
> >Flame
> > >>wars, i.e. personal heated arguments, are to be taken off the
list.
> > >>Appropriate guidelines to be issued before these remedies are put
> > >>in
>
> > >>place. Moderator to let list members know when a member is on
> >probation
> > >>for unsubscription. List rules and aims are customarily set out
> >before a
> > >>person joins, but we can also say "back to the drawing board".
> > >>
> > >>oh darn, where is Kris when we need her - s/he's right here. So
> > >>are
> >Zoe
> > >>and apparently Peter, too. They never left. And as long as we
>talk
> > >>about them instead of inviting them back, the more of a phantom
> > >>life
> >their
> > >>presence will become.
> > >>
> > >>People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level.
> > >>Another question might be is that the case here as well? Hmmmmm.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>"Peripherals Unite" - I'm with you.
> > >>
> > >>_________________________________________________________________
> > >>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
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >info:
> > >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >dialogue facilitator:
> > >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >Administrator of the mailing list:
> > >admin@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your
> >cash with Live Search!
> >http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&l
> >oc
> >a
> >le=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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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&mk
t=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
_______________________________________________
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Thu Nov 9 18:12:29 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Fri Nov 10 19:13:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D05CD@msw2k.msw.local>
Joseph Campbell did not believe in absolute truth. (I think anyway).
He enjoyed life and living and being aware and conscious of all the ways
of living life. I never felt he judged-he experienced. His
conversation with bill moyers is the one I listen to a lot. Its well
worth it. d
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of william
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 7:55 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
From: Regina Bensch-Coe <mailto:benschcoe@hotmail.com>
>William, is not true art the manifestation of compassion?
I don't know. I don't know much about true art. What is it?
>I keep thinking about what you call the passion point. This,
>from my perspective, is the reconciliation point. It is the
>point when something totally unexpected, yet expected -
>something so complete and whole -emerges.
Yes, it's certainly a breakthrough.
>I remember when Joseph Campbell was asked, "Do you believe
>in God?" and he said, "Yes." Then he was asked, "Do you have
>faith?" Then he said, "No, I don't have to have faith, I have
>experience." For the longest time I did not understand what he
>was talking about - experience but not faith? It made no
>sense. Then I read something Bohm wrote about faith being blind
>trust, etc. (I don't remember the precise words ...).
I think faith is defined as unconditional trust (without requiring
proof). If Campbell takes his experience as proof then by definition it
is not faith.
>Now I understand. Joseph Campbell experienced the passion
>point many times in his lifetime. It is that passion point that the
>true artist experiences with each "complete and whole awakening"
>he manifests.
That may well be the case, but other interpretations are also possible.
One such possibility is that he may have had a brain defect causing
temporary mental malfunctionings. We have already talked about this in
the past, if you remember. It can be a spontaneous malfunctioning or it
may be brought about by drugs or by depriving the brain of oxygen or
whatever. Some meditation techniques are designed to bring about such
lack of oxygen in order to deliberately cause temporary brain damage.
This can be done, for instance by sitting still too long, or by doing
repetitious trance inducing things. What happens is that certain mental
functions cease to work properly. One such function is maintaining a
sense of separation, or the ability to evaluate, judge what is happening
or to question, doubt what someone is saying. When such abilities are
impaired then you get what some people describe as a state of
enlightenment. If, for instance, the sense of separation is not working
anymore then by default you experience wholeness. If the ability to
doubt or question is impaired then by default you get a sense of
absolute truth. Thus, this sense of wholeness, absoluteness,
ultimateness is a form failure. The sense of separation or the ability
to doubt is a highly sophisticated function that can easily be impaired.
These are only some examples of what can go wrong when the brain is no
longer able to implement these mental functions. There are many more
things that can go wrong. I tend to generalize them as "special
effects".
Something like this may have happened to Joseph Campbell. He may have
experienced absolute truth (resulting from disabled doubt). Generally
speaking, people tend to take their experiences as a form of proof. If
he has had such a breakdown and takes this experience as a form of proof
then he would firmly believe it without a shadow of doubt. It is not all
that uncommon. Even presidents can suffer from this sort of thing.
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/81d7b08d/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Thu Nov 9 18:15:06 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Fri Nov 10 19:16:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D05CE@msw2k.msw.local>
What a wonderful conversation. I could just feel the beauty of the
connection between you. I felt connected too. D
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:19 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
Susan, You have no idea how delighted I am that we met! How I wish I
had known you when Michael and I were in Cave Creek! He was finishing
up his MA in creative wriing here at New School when the cancer struck,
and we literally fled to Mayo in Scottsdale, hoping for a liver
transplant. While there, we went to Tucson. Simon Ortiz wanted Michael
to come there for his PhD. Unfortunately, Michael crossed over, but I
have those memories.
Michael grew up in Clifton where his father worked for Phelps Dodge; the
first Indian to get a job above ground.
I am so sorry about your car accident. You have a great hospital in
Tucson, though. One of our transplant support group came to us from
there. I hope you have a full recovery.
You are not too far from Dine/Navajo Community College. The tuition is
next to nothing, and you can stay in the dorms. Go there and study.
There is a marvellous teacher of Navajo language named Martha Jackson.
Another one name OJ whom you should stay away from. One named Ben -
Littlehorse, I think. I can go to the website and pull it up. Ben is
great! The study of the language is not complete without living the
life with them. Avery Denny is a hatathli/medicine man whom I did an
independent study under, oh - gosh
- if you do that, maybe I'll come out and do it again, too. I really
loved it. Denny used to tell me when and where certain ceremonies were
being held so I could go. Harry Walters, the head of the museum, when I
meet again I'll
just put my arms around him and cry. I do so miss it!
I'd love to read your posts on the language. All you say about nouns
and verbs is true, but upon studying Bohm, I realized that there is a
more basic connection - that is, how the language reflects the world
view of connection and relationship as beauty - hozhoon - all my
relations. One single lo-o-o-o-og word embodies what we call a noun,
verb, and all its descriptive properties. And the selection of the
properties is more complete and
complex than anything we have in English. Actually, I find that our
words
for our grammar and syntax aren't really adequate to think about Navajo
because they activate our experiences of English, and we erroneously
expect Navajo to follow suit. But - we have no other words, so we try
to translate. I find it a much more precise language than English.
Vincent Craig, the Navajo comedian, once compared it to "mental
television" because one word can describe physical features, movement,
1st/2nd/3rd person, and singular, plural (2), plural (3 or more).
That's also why I refuse to be told I can't use images. Also, we use
verbal imagery all the time. With these new resources, a new language
HAS to develop.
"recently people have begun to realize more and more that it might be
possible to have a "true" dialogue in this format."
Yes, actually, it never occurred to me NOT to dialog. After all, we've
"dialogued" through snail mail for a long time. Any time two people try
to communicate, a broad definition of dialog happens - not Bohm - but
why should it be any different?
As for "intellectual discussion", I totally agree. Sometimes, some of
the posts I see remind me of the poem Jabberwocky! Totally severed from
action and the rest of the world. My wonderful teacher Frances used to
say "you have all there is. It's what you do with it that counts." She
was SO right.
So, Susan - I think the true spirit of Bohm is the creative - mechanical
interplay, finally to result in new perceptions, new connections. As
our options expand for exchange with wonderful people around the globe,
the closer I feel, we get to what Bohm really envisioned. Especially if
it's not restricted to those who have money to buy and support
computers. So - upward and onward. Let's not fear that we aren't
"doing Bohm". He believed that everything is in flux, and a man of his
brilliance would have flowed with the new opportunitites evolving.
I still have my Navajo books downstairs in storage where I put them when
I lost Michael. Maybe soon I'll go down there and get the titles of the
ones I think you might be interested in. Also, the NCC bookstore has a
lot of great stuff, and will order things for you. And the library
there is rich with their cultural material.
If I ever learn how to get pictures to an acceptable size, I'll send you
photos of my life with the Navajo.
Hozhoon, k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:29:15 -0700
>
>Hi Kathy. Thanks for introducing yourself. I'll reciprocate with a
>little information on me. I'm single, no children, just turned 55 and
>live in Tucson, AZ. I currently work at home doing CAD drawings
>(computer aided
>drafting) for the construction industry and working with graphics.
>I've been a member of this group for 3 or 4 years now (can't remember
>exactly when I joined).
>
>Back at the end of June I was in a car accident and ended up with a
>broken right arm. They tell me that because it was broken close to the
>shoulder it caused a lot of problems that aren't associated with most
breaks.
>Because of this the healing process has been long and taken a lot of my
>energy. I would say I'm about 70% back to normal now. I still have a
>few problems that will take a couple more months (so they say) for me
>to clear up.
>
>I'm very interested in your experience with the Navajo. I'm very
>interested in language and particularly Native American Language. I
>grew up in Oklahoma among a large population of Native Americans and
>have had a number of Native American friends. I've posted quite a bit
>of my ideas about the differences in NA language and English in the
>past. The biggest difference having to do with verbs. I have come to
>understand that in the Western world we have come to think of
>processes as "things"/objects and this has created a lot of problems in
>our thought process. Where as the NA's have what I think of as a more
>verby language that is process oriented. In fact, many of the NA
>languages as well as some Eastern languages don't even have nouns. I
>have found a huge difference in learning to think in verby terms
>(process oriented rather than object
>oriented) in my own thought processes.
>
>When it comes to forging a new path in Dialogue, I think the group may
>be only at the beginning of realizing and dealing with this. When I
>first joined the list it was not considered an actual dialogue because
>it was not face to face, and many people didn't believe that it was
>possible to have an actual dialogue in this format. It was considered
>to be simply a list started with the intentions of exploring Bohm's
ideas done "in the spirit"
>of dialogue. And you may have noticed that's still it's definition.
>But recently people have begun to realize more and more that it might
>be possible to have a "true" dialogue in this format. Personally I
>think it's not only possible but that we do it on this list all the
>time. For myself, I'm not nearly as interested in an intellectual
>discussion of Bohms ideas as I am in actually doing Dialogue here in
this format of the internet.
>Like you, I feel that we are pioneers in this area.
>
>Susan
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
><griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:50 PM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>
>
>>Hi Susan - No we haven't met. I don't mind at all giving
information
>>about myself. I'm Kathy, 71 year old retired bilingual Spanish and
>>music teacher and composer, originally from Florida, with 35 years of
>>service, 10 years in Puerto Rico, and over 40 years living in NYC. I
>>was also one of the first teachers to be trained in conflict
>>resolution. I have 2 sons by a Puerto Rican father, and raised them
>>alone/working mother, the whole bit, here in NYC. I taught in both
>>the South Bronx and the Upper West Side. I lost my last husband, a
>>Navajo with whom I lived on the ancestral land in the Navajo Nation,
>>on Dec. 25, right after 9 - 11. I also had the privilege and delight
>>of studying Navajo language, literature, traditions and culture at
>>Dine College/Navajo Community College. Navajo world view is SO
compatible with Bohm. That's one reason I'm so pro-Bohm and dialog.
>>I am also a co-moderator on another list, which is why, like you, I am
>>somewhat familiar with internet protocol and needs.
>>
>>I appreciate your thoughtful, candid response. Now I would like to
>>reciprocate.
>>
>>S: I do not envy Don F. his job of being moderator and I know from
>>past experience that he has struggled with this issue. I think most
>>of us have.
>>
>>K: I absolutely agree. He is every inch a scholar and a gentleman.
>>If requested, with acceptable guidelines in place, I'd be happy to
>>help him co-moderate, or in any way I could. I can't think of a
>>better way to use my time, except to get my face-to-face group
>>started. Zoe also knows and has accepted that I have said I will be
>>the first to call her on any actions I find inappropriate, as everyone
else has the right to do.
>>
>>S: But I also know that it isn't going to do much good to pursue this
>>conversation until Don gets to
>>>Calif. and gets back on line. He will be facing 100's of posts on
>>>his return and could miss the important parts of the discussion
>>>trying to weed through the posts.
>>
>>K: That also sounds reasonable to me.
>>
>>S: he (Peter) spams the list -
>>K: that should go in the guidelines and principles.I think, as should
>>any other experiences that have been disruptive in the past.
>>
>>S: Peter has been given every chance -
>>K: here's where we diverge. I'm convinced he's not Peter, but if
>>proven wrong, I'll claim responsibility for my error, and help boot
>>him with proper procedure, if he violates guidelines.
>>
>>S: I have come to learn that, as you have mentioned, principles and
>>guidelines do seem to be necessary
>>K: Yes, and I deliberately chose the terminology hoping it was more
>>compatible with the original aims of Dialog. The terms are also open
>>to suggestion and change.
>>
>>S: I would be happy with any guidelines that say no trolling and no
spam.
>>I would also agree with you that the guidelines should be posted
>>K: Thank you. We need to list specifics that we consider trolling.
>>I testified to how it happened, and I know Don F will not deny it. He
>>has a log of all our correspondence on the subject, as I do.
>>
>>S: and anyone that we do not know for certain is Peter deserves a
>>warning before being unsubscribed.
>>K: I had a lot of experience and training in documenting children's
>>undesirable behavior. I'd be happy to put that knowledge to use here.
>>
>>S: I don't know if Zoe (or Kris) were ever confronted with people's
>>suspicions that they were Peter or not and given the chance to
respond.
>>But I do think they deserved to be openly told what people
>>>think.
>>K: I did not see that happen, and Zoe is very hurt that things were
>>handled this way. If anyone else has proof to the contrary about ZOE
>>- NOT Peter or Kris - both she and the rest of us should receive it,
>>and Zoe given a chance to respond.
>>
>>S: As you will discover, open honest communication is important to me.
>>K: I do see that, and am very comfortable dialoging with you. I hope
>>we can work together with interested others to develop and implement
>>these principles and guidelines.
>>
>>We are definitely forging a new path in Bohm, required by a new era in
>>the technological development of communication. It has been a
>>pleasure dialoging with you. If you are near or ever in NYC, please
let me know.
>>I'd love to meet you.
>>
>>Hozhoon, Kathryn Morgan Jett Arizmendi (just so you'll know the
>>identities I currently use!) (picture Kathy smiling happily)
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>>>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:10 -0700
>>>
>>>I'm feeling a little confused about who wrote this message. You are
>>>a new member who was not here when I went on vacation so I'm not sure
>>>what your name is since the letter K doesn't say and there seem to be
>>>more than one person on the list today whose name starts with a K.
>>>
>>>When it comes to what is happening currently with Kris, Zoe and
>>>Peter,
>
>_______________________________________________
>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&sour
ce=hmtagline
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 9 18:23:14 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 10 19:27:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F187B3CB8C1C1FAAF9E6F83A5F00@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F187B3CB8C1C1FAAF9E6F83A5F00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8E176F28-064B-431F-919B-526728AAAC57@dc.rr.com>
I am really getting bored with this whole thing and especially your
playing protective mum. No offense intended here, this is just the
way I feel. If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something
valuable to this list, she should write directly to William, since he
is the one who needs convincing, In the meanwhile lets get on with
some more interesting and general considerations,
don
On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> Hello again, Don. I'm going to be more specific in answering your
> question this morning. Last night, I was too tired. You wrote:
>
> But I understood that following on from a conversation that I had
> off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop us a line and
> explain what her intentions and interests in the Bohm list were,
> in other words to tell us why she thought it was unfair of us to
> disconnect her.
>
> The understanding that I conveyed to Zoe was that she was to
> address an email to the Administrator of the list, William, and
> explain why she wanted to be a member of this group and what she
> hoped to get out of it. If the administrator found her answer
> "acceptable", she would have to resubscribe. There was no mention
> of "telling us why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect
> her". And none whatsoever of sharing any of this with the list.
> I let it rest for a little while, because when emotions are high,
> it's hard to sort things out. Then, I asked her why she had
> answered that way. She asked me to please put myself in her place,
> so I could see what her feelings and thinkgs might have been, then
> we talked about it.
> Here is that answer : William, the person who was and still is
> convinced she is Peter, had shut her down "on suspicion" of being
> Peter, and without warning. This same person alone was to decide
> whether or not her response was "acceptable". The list not only
> has no guidelines and procedures to protect itself, it has none to
> protect its members. Furthermore, since the list members not only
> didn't even know she had been bounced, they would not even know
> such a process was in progress. From when I sit, this looks like
> microcosm in the macrocosm of world history. I don't want to make
> anyone angry here, so I'm just going to ask you to look into your
> own knowledge bank for similar situations. I can, indeed, get
> specific is asked to do so.
> My teachers' union instructed us that if we got into a dispute with
> the administration (in our case, the administrator), we were to
> keep a log of events, and above all, not to ever do anything
> without an observer present. That observer could be our union rep,
> or anyone else we chose. I offered to play that role, if she
> wanted me to. And so, here we are.
> Zoe would like to come back, but neither she nor I feel the
> conditions offered are acceptable. There is no procedure in place
> for such an appeal, and no safeguards for the person appealing. If
> we can work out appropriate conditions, it is my understanding that
> she would procede that way.
>
> I have not run this by zoe, I am simply thinking aloud now. I know
> we need precise wording as to precisely what it is Zoe needs to
> respond to, and a way for the decision of whether to invite her
> back on the list to be decided fairly. Just as I am running this
> by you now, I will run it by Zoe today. Shall I post her reply
> online as part of my own post? May she see your suggestions? Is
> there a way we can negotiate proper terms? This is essential,
> because we are setting precedence for future cases. (Although, I
> certainly hope it's never again necessary.) I would welcome input
> from list members as well as you, Don. k
>
>
>
>
>> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:16:45 -0600
>>
>> this suggestion made Zoe very angry
>>
>> Hi Don -
>>
>> Zoe objected because of the word "acceptable". She doesn't object
>> to the principle of being heard. But that was clarified after you
>> and I spoke. Then someone posted something like "...would anyone
>> stand up for her". And I responded "I would", and the ball was
>> rolling. I can find that post, if you like, but it will take me a
>> while. I have several hundred to go through.
>> Actually, I believe that Zoe plans to make that statement. I told
>> her you were going on vacation, and she wanted you as well as
>> William to be part of this. i believe the procedure is for her to
>> address it specifically to the administrator who is William?
>> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>> Do you want her to wait until after the wedding? best, k
>>
>>
>>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:33 -0800
>>>
>>> Hi Susan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same
>>> thing. I am referring here to your first three paragraphs.
>>> But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as I
>>> can see is the same person but this is just for the record. Gas
>>> was peter's second go around. We had to close the list down
>>> after Peter's first invasion, And that's when we took the
>>> radical step of moderating the list. Or am I confused?
>>>
>>> Regarding Zoe, I still have my doubts as I do about Kirsten
>>> being the same person as Peter. But I understood that following
>>> on from a conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she
>>> invited Zoe to drop us a line and explain what her intentions
>>> and interests in the Bohm list were, in other words to tell us
>>> why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect her. I thought
>>> that this would clarify any unclarity. But apparently, this
>>> suggestion made Zoe very angry, and she has not written such a
>>> letter or communicated with either me, William or Franis, so far
>>> as I know.
>>>
>>> If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why Kathy
>>> is pushing this. I would have thought that it should be up to
>>> Zoe to make the next move.
>>>
>>> don
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current
>>>> desire among many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I
>>>> first joined the list the same discussion was going on. I
>>>> jumped right in, eager to explore it. And it was a very
>>>> similar one to what you are all proposing right now. Although
>>>> at that time Peter was an active member of the group and he was
>>>> included in the discussion. In the beginning I sounded much
>>>> like you and some of the others right now.
>>>>
>>>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the
>>>> subject except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's
>>>> response was mostly just to ignore any kind of idea of
>>>> exploring an introspection into himself, all he was interested
>>>> in was goading the rest of us. Rather than use suspension he
>>>> would flood us with brief posts about the world being made up
>>>> of carrot and stick mentality and we should all recognize that
>>>> the only solution was total chaos. When he became determined
>>>> to spam the group with anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense
>>>> messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day regardless of how any
>>>> of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we felt)
>>>> the decision (after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At
>>>> that point I was ready for him to be banned. He mostly just
>>>> trolled for recruits for his OD site and spammed us for not
>>>> being interested. He also seems to have a fixation with male
>>>> authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate
>>>> authority.
>>>>
>>>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list
>>>> as well as exploring it on a couple of other lists that had
>>>> similar problems that caused me to come to the conclusions that
>>>> I gave to Kathy in my post to her. In order for anything to
>>>> cohere there needs to be at least a loose and flexible
>>>> structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts I have had
>>>> about the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our
>>>> previous discussions:
>>>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what
>>>> happened with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned
>>>> without any warning and without any group discussion. If
>>>> that's true, then I would say that I think anyone we suspect of
>>>> being a troll or of spamming or who we suspect is Peter,
>>>> deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be given a
>>>> chance to speak for themselves.
>>>>
>>>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or
>>>> how long they are. I used to worry about that. But then I
>>>> decided that the purpose of dialogue is to dialogue. You can't
>>>> do that without posting. A healthy dialogue is going to have
>>>> lots of posts. I've learned to deal with it by learning to
>>>> know which people are definitely going to have something to say
>>>> that I'm interested in responding to and not. On my busy days
>>>> I skip through the posts and read only a few people or if
>>>> there's a good thread going I will read only that thread. And,
>>>> yes, sometimes I miss a lot doing that but it's better than the
>>>> alternative of not being a part of all of this.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt"
>>>> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>>>>
>>>> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>>>>
>>>> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness,
>>>> compassion AND
>>>> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it
>>>> is only
>>>> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a
>>>> response and
>>>> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here.
>>>> I too have
>>>> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75
>>>> messages in one
>>>> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I
>>>> like that term)
>>>> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
>>>> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this
>>>> possibility here
>>>> matters to me.
>>>>
>>>> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we
>>>> need to learn
>>>> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated
>>>> about saying
>>>> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it
>>>> in us, in
>>>> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected
>>>> response from PKZ.
>>>> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want
>>>> or need and
>>>> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other
>>>> people. Is it
>>>> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that
>>>> response from
>>>> others?
>>>>
>>>> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very
>>>> much
>>>> appreciated reading your emails.
>>>>
>>>> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else
>>>> struggle? As
>>>> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have
>>>> sent three
>>>> or so in one day ...
>>>>
>>>> Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
>>>>> posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>>>>> to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
>>>>> both at the same time, and to find the
>>>>> balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>>>>> misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>>>>> words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>>>>> exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>>>>> example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there
>>>>> is the
>>>>> same issue: on the one hand, you want to
>>>>> protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other
>>>>> hand,
>>>>> you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>>>>> sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>>>>> periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>>>>> balance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
>>>>> balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>>>>> how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even
>>>>> now, when
>>>>> at least
>>>>> apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
>>>>> truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of
>>>>> his father,
>>>>> the ostensible SS officer :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter"
>>>>> and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>>>>> Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without
>>>>> (or
>>>>> before) letting them back in?
>>>>> My intuition is that once we understand and consider their
>>>>> message on
>>>>> a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>>>>> do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
>>>>> Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>>>>
>>>>> On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>>>>> propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>>>>> that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>>>>> "core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc.,
>>>>> without
>>>>> being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>>>>> "People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is
>>>>> that
>>>>> the case here?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Joachim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the
>>>>>> intention of
>>>>>> this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we
>>>>>> want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of
>>>>>> David
>>>>>> Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we should
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>>>>> nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in
>>>>>> creating
>>>>>> a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones in.
>>>>>> Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>>>>>> having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>>>>> supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>>>>> difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't
>>>>>> open
>>>>>> tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is
>>>>>> that the case here as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great post Lynne!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kari
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rodger,
>>>>>
>>>>> Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed
>>>>> me or
>>>>> enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language
>>>>> orientated
>>>>> discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn
>>>>> more to
>>>>> what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>>>>> compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
>>>>> finding a response and action that is not embedded within the same
>>>>> cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action
>>>>> taken to
>>>>> a situation maintains the same culture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I
>>>>> think as
>>>>> you suggest.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me just responding doesn?t mean you become part of the core I
>>>>> think it is something to do with how you are received and
>>>>> whether you
>>>>> are responded to and what the response is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>>>>> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
>>>>> missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
>>>>> clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Joachim Faust
>>>>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 9 18:39:31 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 10 19:43:27 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
In-Reply-To: <4553251B.000009.05652@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <BAY123-F7AD72181C0955270C3F35B7F10@phx.gbl>
<4553251B.000009.05652@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <EB58C395-D3BD-4342-80AB-DB269774A08C@dc.rr.com>
Oh good, William, you've brought up you brains damage ideas again.
And again I will ask you why you think that what you describe as
normal, actually is normal or healthy? Do you believe that the kind
of awareness that you describe here, and is developed as the result
of enculturation, or what JK and bohm called conditioning, is the
ultimate for human consciousness? Do you believe that so-called
altered states of consciousness are really the result of damage? Or
that specific states of consciousness might possibly be valuable for
some things and not for others? I think that I have recommended
before that you read States of Consciousness by by Charles Tart. Now
it appears to be available onlliine: see:
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/tart/soccont.htm
don
>
>
> From: Regina Bensch-Coe
> >William, is not true art the manifestation of compassion?
>
> I don't know. I don't know much about true art. What is it?
>
> >I keep thinking about what you call the passion point. This,
> >from my perspective, is the reconciliation point. It is the
> >point when something totally unexpected, yet expected ?
> >something so complete and whole ?emerges.
>
> Yes, it's certainly a breakthrough.
>
> >I remember when Joseph Campbell was asked, ?Do you believe
> >in God?? and he said, ?Yes.? Then he was asked, ?Do you have
> >faith?? Then he said, ?No, I don?t have to have faith, I have
> >experience.? For the longest time I did not understand what he
> >was talking about ? experience but not faith? It made no
> >sense. Then I read something Bohm wrote about faith being blind
> >trust, etc. (I don?t remember the precise words ?).
>
> I think faith is defined as unconditional trust (without requiring
> proof). If Campbell takes his experience as proof then by
> definition it is not faith.
>
> >Now I understand. Joseph Campbell experienced the passion
> >point many times in his lifetime. It is that passion point that the
> >true artist experiences with each ?complete and whole awakening?
> >he manifests.
>
> That may well be the case, but other interpretations are also
> possible. One such possibility is that he may have had a brain
> defect causing temporary mental malfunctionings. We have already
> talked about this in the past, if you remember. It can be a
> spontaneous malfunctioning or it may be brought about by drugs or
> by depriving the brain of oxygen or whatever. Some meditation
> techniques are designed to bring about such lack of oxygen in order
> to deliberately cause temporary brain damage. This can be done, for
> instance by sitting still too long, or by doing repetitious trance
> inducing things. What happens is that certain mental functions
> cease to work properly. One such function is maintaining a sense of
> separation, or the ability to evaluate, judge what is happening or
> to question, doubt what someone is saying. When such abilities are
> impaired then you get what some people describe as a state of
> enlightenment. If, for instance, the sense of separation is not
> working anymore then by default you experience wholeness. If the
> ability to doubt or question is impaired then by default you get a
> sense of absolute truth. Thus, this sense of wholeness,
> absoluteness, ultimateness is a form failure. The sense of
> separation or the ability to doubt is a highly sophisticated
> function that can easily be impaired. These are only some examples
> of what can go wrong when the brain is no longer able to implement
> these mental functions. There are many more things that can go
> wrong. I tend to generalize them as "special effects".
> Something like this may have happened to Joseph Campbell. He may
> have experienced absolute truth (resulting from disabled doubt).
> Generally speaking, people tend to take their experiences as a form
> of proof. If he has had such a breakdown and takes this experience
> as a form of proof then he would firmly believe it without a shadow
> of doubt. It is not all that uncommon. Even presidents can suffer
> from this sort of thing.
>
> william
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061109/bfa5c20c/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 18:41:46 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 19:45:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D05CE@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <005201c70426$582c8710$2479480c@HOME>
Well, you know that you're one of my favorite people to connect with
Dorothy. I'm always pleased when we find each other.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
What a wonderful conversation. I could just feel the beauty of the
connection between you. I felt connected too. D
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:19 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
Susan, You have no idea how delighted I am that we met! How I wish I
had known you when Michael and I were in Cave Creek! He was finishing
up his MA in creative wriing here at New School when the cancer struck,
and we literally fled to Mayo in Scottsdale, hoping for a liver
transplant. While there, we went to Tucson. Simon Ortiz wanted Michael
to come there for his PhD. Unfortunately, Michael crossed over, but I
have those memories.
Michael grew up in Clifton where his father worked for Phelps Dodge; the
first Indian to get a job above ground.
I am so sorry about your car accident. You have a great hospital in
Tucson, though. One of our transplant support group came to us from
there. I hope you have a full recovery.
You are not too far from Dine/Navajo Community College. The tuition is
next to nothing, and you can stay in the dorms. Go there and study.
There is a marvellous teacher of Navajo language named Martha Jackson.
Another one name OJ whom you should stay away from. One named Ben -
Littlehorse, I think. I can go to the website and pull it up. Ben is
great! The study of the language is not complete without living the
life with them. Avery Denny is a hatathli/medicine man whom I did an
independent study under, oh - gosh
- if you do that, maybe I'll come out and do it again, too. I really
loved it. Denny used to tell me when and where certain ceremonies were
being held so I could go. Harry Walters, the head of the museum, when I
meet again I'll
just put my arms around him and cry. I do so miss it!
I'd love to read your posts on the language. All you say about nouns
and verbs is true, but upon studying Bohm, I realized that there is a
more basic connection - that is, how the language reflects the world
view of connection and relationship as beauty - hozhoon - all my
relations. One single lo-o-o-o-og word embodies what we call a noun,
verb, and all its descriptive properties. And the selection of the
properties is more complete and
complex than anything we have in English. Actually, I find that our
words
for our grammar and syntax aren't really adequate to think about Navajo
because they activate our experiences of English, and we erroneously
expect Navajo to follow suit. But - we have no other words, so we try
to translate. I find it a much more precise language than English.
Vincent Craig, the Navajo comedian, once compared it to "mental
television" because one word can describe physical features, movement,
1st/2nd/3rd person, and singular, plural (2), plural (3 or more).
That's also why I refuse to be told I can't use images. Also, we use
verbal imagery all the time. With these new resources, a new language
HAS to develop.
"recently people have begun to realize more and more that it might be
possible to have a "true" dialogue in this format."
Yes, actually, it never occurred to me NOT to dialog. After all, we've
"dialogued" through snail mail for a long time. Any time two people try
to communicate, a broad definition of dialog happens - not Bohm - but
why should it be any different?
As for "intellectual discussion", I totally agree. Sometimes, some of
the posts I see remind me of the poem Jabberwocky! Totally severed from
action and the rest of the world. My wonderful teacher Frances used to
say "you have all there is. It's what you do with it that counts." She
was SO right.
So, Susan - I think the true spirit of Bohm is the creative - mechanical
interplay, finally to result in new perceptions, new connections. As
our options expand for exchange with wonderful people around the globe,
the closer I feel, we get to what Bohm really envisioned. Especially if
it's not restricted to those who have money to buy and support
computers. So - upward and onward. Let's not fear that we aren't
"doing Bohm". He believed that everything is in flux, and a man of his
brilliance would have flowed with the new opportunitites evolving.
I still have my Navajo books downstairs in storage where I put them when
I lost Michael. Maybe soon I'll go down there and get the titles of the
ones I think you might be interested in. Also, the NCC bookstore has a
lot of great stuff, and will order things for you. And the library
there is rich with their cultural material.
If I ever learn how to get pictures to an acceptable size, I'll send you
photos of my life with the Navajo.
Hozhoon, k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Introductions and language
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:29:15 -0700
>
>Hi Kathy. Thanks for introducing yourself. I'll reciprocate with a
>little information on me. I'm single, no children, just turned 55 and
>live in Tucson, AZ. I currently work at home doing CAD drawings
>(computer aided
>drafting) for the construction industry and working with graphics.
>I've been a member of this group for 3 or 4 years now (can't remember
>exactly when I joined).
>
>Back at the end of June I was in a car accident and ended up with a
>broken right arm. They tell me that because it was broken close to the
>shoulder it caused a lot of problems that aren't associated with most
breaks.
>Because of this the healing process has been long and taken a lot of my
>energy. I would say I'm about 70% back to normal now. I still have a
>few problems that will take a couple more months (so they say) for me
>to clear up.
>
>I'm very interested in your experience with the Navajo. I'm very
>interested in language and particularly Native American Language. I
>grew up in Oklahoma among a large population of Native Americans and
>have had a number of Native American friends. I've posted quite a bit
>of my ideas about the differences in NA language and English in the
>past. The biggest difference having to do with verbs. I have come to
>understand that in the Western world we have come to think of
>processes as "things"/objects and this has created a lot of problems in
>our thought process. Where as the NA's have what I think of as a more
>verby language that is process oriented. In fact, many of the NA
>languages as well as some Eastern languages don't even have nouns. I
>have found a huge difference in learning to think in verby terms
>(process oriented rather than object
>oriented) in my own thought processes.
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 9 18:54:22 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 10 19:58:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <8E176F28-064B-431F-919B-526728AAAC57@dc.rr.com>
References: <BAY22-F187B3CB8C1C1FAAF9E6F83A5F00@phx.gbl>
<8E176F28-064B-431F-919B-526728AAAC57@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <73C10C43-EACB-4631-BC97-DECD45F12D39@dc.rr.com>
This is from Dialogue - A Proposal by David Bohm, Don Factor, Peter
Garrett
WHAT DIALOGUE IS NOT
Dialogue is not discussion, a word that shares its root
meaning with "percussion" and "concussion" both of which involve
breaking things up. Nor is it debate. These forms of conversation
contain an implicit tendency to point toward a goal, to hammer out an
agreement, to try to solve a problem or have one's opinion prevail.
It is also not a "salon", which is a kind of gathering that is both
informal and most often characterized by an intention to entertain,
exchange friendship, gossip and other information. Although the word
"dialogue" has often been used in similar ways, its deeper, root
meaning implies that it is not primarily interested in any of this.
Dialogue is not a new name for T groups or sensitivity
training, although it is superficially similar to these and other
related forms of group work. Its consequences may be
psychotherapeutic but it does not attempt to focus on removing the
emotional blocks of any one participant nor to teach, train or
analyze. Nevertheless, it is an arena in which learning and the
dissolution of blocks can and often do take place. It is not a
technique for problem solving or conflict resolution, although
problems may well be resolved during the course of a Dialogue or,
perhaps later, as a result of the increased understanding and
fellowship that occurs among the participants. It is, as we have
emphasized, primarily a means of exploring the field of thought.
Dialogue resembles a number of other forms of group
activity and may at times include aspects of them but in fact it is
something new to our culture. We believe that it is an activity that
might well prove vital to its future health.
On Nov 9, 2006, at 9:23 AM, donald factor wrote:
> I am really getting bored with this whole thing and especially your
> playing protective mum. No offense intended here, this is just the
> way I feel. If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something
> valuable to this list, she should write directly to William, since
> he is the one who needs convincing, In the meanwhile lets get on
> with some more interesting and general considerations,
>
> don
>
> On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> Hello again, Don. I'm going to be more specific in answering your
>> question this morning. Last night, I was too tired. You wrote:
>>
>> But I understood that following on from a conversation that I had
>> off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop us a line and
>> explain what her intentions and interests in the Bohm list were,
>> in other words to tell us why she thought it was unfair of us to
>> disconnect her.
>>
>> The understanding that I conveyed to Zoe was that she was to
>> address an email to the Administrator of the list, William, and
>> explain why she wanted to be a member of this group and what she
>> hoped to get out of it. If the administrator found her answer
>> "acceptable", she would have to resubscribe. There was no mention
>> of "telling us why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect
>> her". And none whatsoever of sharing any of this with the list.
>> I let it rest for a little while, because when emotions are high,
>> it's hard to sort things out. Then, I asked her why she had
>> answered that way. She asked me to please put myself in her
>> place, so I could see what her feelings and thinkgs might have
>> been, then we talked about it.
>> Here is that answer : William, the person who was and still is
>> convinced she is Peter, had shut her down "on suspicion" of being
>> Peter, and without warning. This same person alone was to decide
>> whether or not her response was "acceptable". The list not only
>> has no guidelines and procedures to protect itself, it has none to
>> protect its members. Furthermore, since the list members not only
>> didn't even know she had been bounced, they would not even know
>> such a process was in progress. From when I sit, this looks like
>> microcosm in the macrocosm of world history. I don't want to make
>> anyone angry here, so I'm just going to ask you to look into your
>> own knowledge bank for similar situations. I can, indeed, get
>> specific is asked to do so.
>> My teachers' union instructed us that if we got into a dispute
>> with the administration (in our case, the administrator), we were
>> to keep a log of events, and above all, not to ever do anything
>> without an observer present. That observer could be our union
>> rep, or anyone else we chose. I offered to play that role, if she
>> wanted me to. And so, here we are.
>> Zoe would like to come back, but neither she nor I feel the
>> conditions offered are acceptable. There is no procedure in place
>> for such an appeal, and no safeguards for the person appealing.
>> If we can work out appropriate conditions, it is my understanding
>> that she would procede that way.
>>
>> I have not run this by zoe, I am simply thinking aloud now. I
>> know we need precise wording as to precisely what it is Zoe needs
>> to respond to, and a way for the decision of whether to invite her
>> back on the list to be decided fairly. Just as I am running this
>> by you now, I will run it by Zoe today. Shall I post her reply
>> online as part of my own post? May she see your suggestions? Is
>> there a way we can negotiate proper terms? This is essential,
>> because we are setting precedence for future cases. (Although, I
>> certainly hope it's never again necessary.) I would welcome input
>> from list members as well as you, Don. k
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:16:45 -0600
>>>
>>> this suggestion made Zoe very angry
>>>
>>> Hi Don -
>>>
>>> Zoe objected because of the word "acceptable". She doesn't
>>> object to the principle of being heard. But that was clarified
>>> after you and I spoke. Then someone posted something like
>>> "...would anyone stand up for her". And I responded "I would",
>>> and the ball was rolling. I can find that post, if you like, but
>>> it will take me a while. I have several hundred to go through.
>>> Actually, I believe that Zoe plans to make that statement. I
>>> told her you were going on vacation, and she wanted you as well
>>> as William to be part of this. i believe the procedure is for
>>> her to address it specifically to the administrator who is
>>> William? Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>> Do you want her to wait until after the wedding? best, k
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:33 -0800
>>>>
>>>> Hi Susan,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same
>>>> thing. I am referring here to your first three paragraphs.
>>>> But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as I
>>>> can see is the same person but this is just for the record. Gas
>>>> was peter's second go around. We had to close the list down
>>>> after Peter's first invasion, And that's when we took the
>>>> radical step of moderating the list. Or am I confused?
>>>>
>>>> Regarding Zoe, I still have my doubts as I do about Kirsten
>>>> being the same person as Peter. But I understood that following
>>>> on from a conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she
>>>> invited Zoe to drop us a line and explain what her intentions
>>>> and interests in the Bohm list were, in other words to tell us
>>>> why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect her. I
>>>> thought that this would clarify any unclarity. But apparently,
>>>> this suggestion made Zoe very angry, and she has not written
>>>> such a letter or communicated with either me, William or
>>>> Franis, so far as I know.
>>>>
>>>> If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why Kathy
>>>> is pushing this. I would have thought that it should be up to
>>>> Zoe to make the next move.
>>>>
>>>> don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current
>>>>> desire among many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I
>>>>> first joined the list the same discussion was going on. I
>>>>> jumped right in, eager to explore it. And it was a very
>>>>> similar one to what you are all proposing right now. Although
>>>>> at that time Peter was an active member of the group and he
>>>>> was included in the discussion. In the beginning I sounded
>>>>> much like you and some of the others right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the
>>>>> subject except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's
>>>>> response was mostly just to ignore any kind of idea of
>>>>> exploring an introspection into himself, all he was interested
>>>>> in was goading the rest of us. Rather than use suspension he
>>>>> would flood us with brief posts about the world being made up
>>>>> of carrot and stick mentality and we should all recognize that
>>>>> the only solution was total chaos. When he became determined
>>>>> to spam the group with anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense
>>>>> messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day regardless of how any
>>>>> of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we felt)
>>>>> the decision (after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At
>>>>> that point I was ready for him to be banned. He mostly just
>>>>> trolled for recruits for his OD site and spammed us for not
>>>>> being interested. He also seems to have a fixation with male
>>>>> authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate
>>>>> authority.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list
>>>>> as well as exploring it on a couple of other lists that had
>>>>> similar problems that caused me to come to the conclusions
>>>>> that I gave to Kathy in my post to her. In order for anything
>>>>> to cohere there needs to be at least a loose and flexible
>>>>> structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts I have had
>>>>> about the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our
>>>>> previous discussions:
>>>>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what
>>>>> happened with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned
>>>>> without any warning and without any group discussion. If
>>>>> that's true, then I would say that I think anyone we suspect
>>>>> of being a troll or of spamming or who we suspect is Peter,
>>>>> deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be given a
>>>>> chance to speak for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or
>>>>> how long they are. I used to worry about that. But then I
>>>>> decided that the purpose of dialogue is to dialogue. You
>>>>> can't do that without posting. A healthy dialogue is going to
>>>>> have lots of posts. I've learned to deal with it by learning
>>>>> to know which people are definitely going to have something to
>>>>> say that I'm interested in responding to and not. On my busy
>>>>> days I skip through the posts and read only a few people or if
>>>>> there's a good thread going I will read only that thread.
>>>>> And, yes, sometimes I miss a lot doing that but it's better
>>>>> than the alternative of not being a part of all of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt"
>>>>> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>>>>>
>>>>> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness,
>>>>> compassion AND
>>>>> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think
>>>>> it is only
>>>>> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a
>>>>> response and
>>>>> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration
>>>>> here. I too have
>>>>> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75
>>>>> messages in one
>>>>> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I
>>>>> like that term)
>>>>> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near
>>>>> where I
>>>>> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this
>>>>> possibility here
>>>>> matters to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we
>>>>> need to learn
>>>>> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated
>>>>> about saying
>>>>> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is
>>>>> it in us, in
>>>>> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected
>>>>> response from PKZ.
>>>>> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want
>>>>> or need and
>>>>> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other
>>>>> people. Is it
>>>>> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that
>>>>> response from
>>>>> others?
>>>>>
>>>>> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have
>>>>> very much
>>>>> appreciated reading your emails.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody
>>>>> else struggle? As
>>>>> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally
>>>>> have sent three
>>>>> or so in one day ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
>>>>>> posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>>>>>> to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
>>>>>> both at the same time, and to find the
>>>>>> balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>>>>>> misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>>>>>> words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>>>>>> exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>>>>>> example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there
>>>>>> is the
>>>>>> same issue: on the one hand, you want to
>>>>>> protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the
>>>>>> other hand,
>>>>>> you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>>>>>> sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>>>>>> periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>>>>>> balance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>>>>>> how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even
>>>>>> now, when
>>>>>> at least
>>>>>> apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
>>>>>> truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the
>>>>>> ghost of
>>>>>> his father,
>>>>>> the ostensible SS officer :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't help it, but I think there is something important
>>>>>> "Peter"
>>>>>> and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>>>>>> Would it be possible to think about what this could be,
>>>>>> without (or
>>>>>> before) letting them back in?
>>>>>> My intuition is that once we understand and consider their
>>>>>> message on
>>>>>> a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>>>>>> do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
>>>>>> Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>>>>>> propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>>>>>> that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>>>>>> "core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc.,
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>>>>>> "People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level.
>>>>>> Is that
>>>>>> the case here?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joachim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible,
>>>>>>> open, and
>>>>>>> obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the
>>>>>>> intention of
>>>>>>> this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms.
>>>>>>> If we
>>>>>>> want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>> Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we
>>>>>>> should have
>>>>>>> no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>>>>>> nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in
>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>> a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones
>>>>>>> in.
>>>>>>> Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>>>>>>> having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>>>>>> supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>>>>>> difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who
>>>>>>> aren't open
>>>>>>> tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might
>>>>>>> be is
>>>>>>> that the case here as well?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great post Lynne!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kari
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Rodger,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed
>>>>>> me or
>>>>>> enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language
>>>>>> orientated
>>>>>> discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn
>>>>>> more to
>>>>>> what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>>>>>> compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
>>>>>> finding a response and action that is not embedded within the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action
>>>>>> taken to
>>>>>> a situation maintains the same culture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I
>>>>>> think as
>>>>>> you suggest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me just responding doesn?t mean you become part of the core I
>>>>>> think it is something to do with how you are received and
>>>>>> whether you
>>>>>> are responded to and what the response is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>>>>>> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
>>>>>> clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joachim Faust
>>>>>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/9bcbb435/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Thu Nov 9 19:27:43 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Fri Nov 10 20:28:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D05D5@msw2k.msw.local>
you also sounded wise and energetic. D
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Karilen Mays
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:01 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
i didnt realize you two were 71 and 81. you sounded wise but energetic,
like you could have been 40 or so. im 24.
i have been enjoying the exchanges in the last day or so. thanks
william, susan, dorothy, and kathryn.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Dorothy Stulberg <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2006 12:03:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
Good to hear about you and your past and your present. Are you using
the conflict resolution skills today? I was just trained as a
faciliator. Not sure I have what it takes. Just finished a mediation
which upset me terribly. It cost me $800 to end up with no move on the
other side.
I've really decided that mediation works when a "person" is there, not a
corporation.
Your email made me think a little about the age of those of us who
message back and forth. Your 71 and my 81 made me wonder if we are
doing anything to introduce the younger folks to the beauty of dialogue.
D
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 2:51 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
Hi Susan - No we haven't met. I don't mind at all giving information
about myself. I'm Kathy, 71 year old retired bilingual Spanish and music
teacher and composer, originally from Florida, with 35 years of service,
10 years in Puerto Rico, and over 40 years living in NYC. I was also
one of the first teachers to be trained in conflict resolution. I have
2 sons by a Puerto Rican father, and raised them alone/working mother,
the whole bit, here in NYC. I taught in both the South Bronx and the
Upper West Side. I lost my last husband, a Navajo with whom I lived on
the ancestral land in the Navajo Nation, on Dec. 25, right after 9 - 11.
I also had the privilege and delight of studying Navajo language,
literature, traditions and culture at Dine College/Navajo Community
College. Navajo world view is SO compatible with Bohm. That's one
reason I'm so pro-Bohm and dialog. I am also a co-moderator on another
list, which is why, like you, I am somewhat familiar with internet
protocol and needs.
I appreciate your thoughtful, candid response. Now I would like to
reciprocate.
S: I do not envy Don F. his job of being moderator and I know from past
experience that he has struggled with this issue. I think most of us
have.
K: I absolutely agree. He is every inch a scholar and a gentleman. If
requested, with acceptable guidelines in place, I'd be happy to help him
co-moderate, or in any way I could. I can't think of a better way to
use my time, except to get my face-to-face group started. Zoe also
knows and has accepted that I have said I will be the first to call her
on any actions I find inappropriate, as everyone else has the right to
do.
S: But I also know that it isn't going to do much good to pursue this
conversation until Don gets to
>Calif. and gets back on line. He will be facing 100's of posts on his
>return and could miss the important parts of the discussion trying to
>weed through the posts.
K: That also sounds reasonable to me.
S: he (Peter) spams the list -
K: that should go in the guidelines and principles.I think, as should
any other experiences that have been disruptive in the past.
S: Peter has been given every chance -
K: here's where we diverge. I'm convinced he's not Peter, but if proven
wrong, I'll claim responsibility for my error, and help boot him with
proper procedure, if he violates guidelines.
S: I have come to learn that, as you have mentioned, principles and
guidelines do seem to be necessary
K: Yes, and I deliberately chose the terminology hoping it was more
compatible with the original aims of Dialog. The terms are also open to
suggestion and change.
S: I would be happy with any guidelines that say no trolling and no
spam. I would also agree with you that the guidelines should be posted
K: Thank you. We need to list specifics that we consider trolling. I
testified to how it happened, and I know Don F will not deny it. He has
a log of all our correspondence on the subject, as I do.
S: and anyone that we do not know for certain is Peter deserves a
warning before being unsubscribed.
K: I had a lot of experience and training in documenting children's
undesirable behavior. I'd be happy to put that knowledge to use here.
S: I don't know if Zoe (or Kris) were ever confronted with people's
suspicions that they were Peter or not and given the chance to respond.
But I do think they deserved to be openly told what people
>think.
K: I did not see that happen, and Zoe is very hurt that things were
handled this way. If anyone else has proof to the contrary about ZOE -
NOT Peter or Kris - both she and the rest of us should receive it, and
Zoe given a chance to respond.
S: As you will discover, open honest communication is important to me.
K: I do see that, and am very comfortable dialoging with you. I hope
we can work together with interested others to develop and implement
these principles and guidelines.
We are definitely forging a new path in Bohm, required by a new era in
the technological development of communication. It has been a pleasure
dialoging with you. If you are near or ever in NYC, please let me know.
I'd love to meet you.
Hozhoon, Kathryn Morgan Jett Arizmendi (just so you'll know the
identities I currently use!) (picture Kathy smiling happily)
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:10 -0700
>
>I'm feeling a little confused about who wrote this message. You are a
new
>member who was not here when I went on vacation so I'm not sure what
your
>name is since the letter K doesn't say and there seem to be more than
one
>person on the list today whose name starts with a K.
>
>When it comes to what is happening currently with Kris, Zoe and Peter,
I'm
>not really up to speed. However, I am very familiar with the Peter
>phenomena of the past. Those of us who have been on the list for any
>length of time know that Peter has incarnated multiple times under many
>different names.
>
>As Franis has mentioned, Peter is very intelligent and a very good
>journalist and some of his incarnations have been very articulate and
some
>of them have also been pseudo female. Whether he is in an articulate
mode
>or not, Peter has a definite style that many of us have come to
recognize
>fairly easily. Part of that style is when he is feeling that his posts
are
>being neglected or ignored by the rest of us he spams the list with
dozens
>of one or two line posts to get the attention he craves and to punish
us
>for not paying attention. Since this list requires you to receive
emails
>in order to respond to posts (rather than having a way to post from the
>online site like Yahoo) , getting dozens of emails per day that have
the
>sole purpose of irritating the members is simply not tolerable for
most of
>us. Most of us simply don't have the time.
>
>Peter has been given every chance in the world when it comes to talking
to
>him about what he is doing. Many of us have attempted communicating
with
>him both on and off list to try to come to a reasonable solution to
>including him on the list. Nothing has worked.
>
>When it comes to ideas of rules or no rules many here will tell you
that I
>am one who has been in favor of no rules in the past. In the beginning
I
>felt this was a foundation of dialogue. However, being on many
different
>internet lists I have come to learn that ,as you have mentioned,
principles
>and guidelines do seem to be necessary for a group pursuing a serious
topic
>of discussion such as this one. I have come to believe that any group
that
>wants to cohere, even as an ongoing stream, needs what I have come to
think
>of as a flexible structure. Something like the banks of a river that
hold
>together well enough to keep the stream defined as a stream but are
also
>flexible enough to broaden their banks and reformat themselves with the
>natural fluctuation of movement. Reading Bohm's proposal several times
>helped me to realize that Dialogue does have a purpose although it is a
>very general, and so flexible purpose.
>
>I would be happy with any guidelines that say no trolling and no spam.
And
>I would definitely categorize much of Peter's behavior as both trolling
and
>spam. He seems determined to either turn this group into a "Peter"
>Dialogue instead of a Bohm Dialogue or else destroy the list trying. I
>would also agree with you that the guidelines should be posted and
anyone
>that we do not know for certain is Peter deserves a warning before
being
>unsubscribed. I don't know if Zoe (or Kris) were ever confronted with
>people's suspicions that they were Peter or not and given the chance to
>respond. But I do think they deserved to be openly told what people
think.
> As you will discover, open honest communication is important to me.
>
>I do not envy Don F. his job of being moderator and I know from past
>experience that he has struggled with this issue. I think most of us
have.
>And perhaps the fact that Peter keeps reemerging is a reflection of our
>inner struggle. But I also know that it isn't going to do much good to
>pursue this conversation until Don gets to Calif. and gets back on
line.
>He will be facing 100's of posts on his return and could miss the
important
>parts of the discussion trying to weed through the posts. So I suggest
>that we continue the discussion when he returns.
>
>Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
<griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 9:24 AM
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Passion, Compassion, and Principles
>
>
>>If this is a duplicate for you, please forgive. I posted it last
night,
>>but it's not in my inbox. k
>>
>>These comments are made with all due respect.
>>
>>A great deal of debate has gone into the Zoe-Kris-Peter situation. It
is
>>no secret that I am trying to work out terms for Zoe - not Kris or
Peter -
>>to be reinstated. There is no real evidence that Zoe is Kris or
Peter. I
>>am convinced she is not, because I have enough interaction on which to
>>base my opinion. Also, Don F. today posted that he tends to agree with
me.
>>
>>Zoe was unsubscribed without warning, without notice, and "on
suspicion"
>>of being Peter and/or Kris. List members didn't even know she had been
>>bounced. I guessed, emailed her for confirmation, and because she
>>expressed her hurt, disappointment and desire to be with us,
approached
>>Don privately in hopes of mediating the situation. Yes, she refused to
try
>>to come up with an "acceptable" answer. But could she possibly have
>>understandable reasons for refusing such a request, without their
>>signifying she doesn't want to be here? What is the meaning of
>>"acceptable"? Look at what's happening. She's bounced without
warning or
>>notification "on suspicion", has no expectation of recourse or appeal,
and
>>now we are talking about her behind her back, and she can't defend
>>herself. That's not what I believe America is about, much less a Bohm
>>group.
>>
>>There is much more here than fighting for a friend. There are
principles
>>involved which I risk stating that I am passionate about.
>>
>>It is kind of fascinating to watch this very sophisticated dance that
goes
>>on here with Peter Krauss and his potential recruits.
>>K: I do not see this as a sophisticated dance performance, as a
>>"recruiting center" or a competition for loyalties between groups and
>>group leaders. Such ideas have more in common with the gang mentality
of
>>the streets of New York. I don't even want to take it to a historical
and
>>international level. I don't affiliate with anyone or anything that
would
>>limit or try to punish me for making my own decisions, or insinuate
that
>>I'm incapable of it. If that's what Bohm is about, I'm really in the
>>wrong place!
>>It's not fascinating, it's sad & disturbing, alarming to watch
>>intelligent, sane people stuck on ferreting out whether or not Peter
is
>>Peter, Zoe, Kris, or a maniac, instead of acting on the knowledge that
>>koinonia, passion & compassion need more than debate about meaning to
have
>>meaning.
>>
>>Exactly why is the group focused on Peter, anyway? What is the
>>fascination?
>>
>>Hard questions to think about:
>>For me just responding doesn't mean you become part of the core. I
think
>>it is something to do with how you are received and whether you are
>>responded to and what the response is.
>>K: not just in the past, but now as well. Why is it that I got along
>>with Kris and Zoe? It certainly wasn't that I am gullible or senile,
as
>>one member of our list implies. Maybe my age and experience gave me
some
>>insight and expertise that deserves respect.
>>He gradually encourages them to say and do things that he knows will
>>cause them to get unsubscribed eventually, such as when he taught
Kathryn
>>to send huge pictures embedded inside the email.
>>
>>K: there is a lot I object to here, such as the imbedded threat of
>>excommunication, and the implication that I don't have any
>>proprioreception, indeed any sense at all. Also note the passion in
the
>>words. What's that all about? Even though I sent only one picture, I
>>will let that go, and head for the group issue. Don F. specified that
>>images are allowed, subject to a particular size in a very dignified
>>non-threatening way. Yes, some of Kris's images were frighteningly
>>inappropriate. But - Let's not say "all Kris's images were
objectionable,
>>therefore all images are objectionable, especially all Kris's images.
And
>>Zoe is Chris, therefore Zoe is objectionable."
>>
>>Usually, a new order arises out of chaos (which seems to have been
the
>>experience with the earlier incarnation of this list). How can we set
up a
>>more human face to face interaction?
>>We are pioneering, stretching the original conditions of Dialog by
putting
>>it on the internet. It takes time, effort, patience, and group
insight to
>>work out the kinks.
>>I propose that all of us reread our Bohm, look at the present
situation,
>>reformulate and restate what we expect of Dialog AND what we can bring
to
>>it. And post it and discuss it. This should not be just a
"Zoe-thing". We
>>need to be mindful of this always. I shall begin on my statement
tonight,
>>and post it as soon as I have it in an acceptable form. I invite you
to
>>do the same. A consensus could be made, voted on, and posted. I
>>volunteer to do the compiling, posting for feedback, and editing.
Someone
>>else would need to take care of the website.
>>
>>"...where everything is allowed and there are no rules."
>>K: What real good have "rules" and jails done? Do people really need
>>rules to keep them from killing each other? Have the rules worked?
>>I propose parameters & principles not rules, to be developed and
approved
>>by the group. Including Zoe. Whether or not the majority agrees with
her,
>>listen to what she is saying. Some of it might make sense.
>>Further, authors of inappropriate postings should be issued a warning
as
>>to the specific nature of the unacceptable action. Basic courtesy is a
>>must. Three warnings by the moderator, and the offender is out.
Flame
>>wars, i.e. personal heated arguments, are to be taken off the list.
>>Appropriate guidelines to be issued before these remedies are put in
>>place. Moderator to let list members know when a member is on
probation
>>for unsubscription. List rules and aims are customarily set out
before a
>>person joins, but we can also say "back to the drawing board".
>>
>>oh darn, where is Kris when we need her - s/he's right here. So are
Zoe
>>and apparently Peter, too. They never left. And as long as we talk
>>about them instead of inviting them back, the more of a phantom life
their
>>presence will become.
>>
>>People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Another
>>question might be is that the case here as well? Hmmmmm.
>>
>>
>>"Peripherals Unite" - I'm with you.
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash
with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&loca
le=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
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/b0a024c6/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 19:33:31 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 20:37:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <BAY22-F187B3CB8C1C1FAAF9E6F83A5F00@phx.gbl>
<8E176F28-064B-431F-919B-526728AAAC57@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <006f01c7042d$8f2a6c30$2479480c@HOME>
Hahahahahaha! Something sure seems to have hit a nerve with you. Because
you're bored with the subject does that mean everyone else should be and let
the subject drop?
I for one am a little disturbed over the idea that William or "the
moderators" would have simply unsubbed Zoe without notice. I went back in
the archives today to see if I could find an indication of what happened.
Of course, I found Kirsten who, as far as I am concerned is definitely
Peter. No doubts about that one. I didn't realize that the Kris that Kathy
has been referring to was Kirsten. So that one is put to bed as far as I am
concerned.
But Zoe seems to be a different story. Although she seemed to imitate some
of Peter's opinions I couldn't find anything where she imitated his style.
Of course, it's possible that I missed something.
And, of course, there is the idea that has been put forth that the Peter
incarnation is a reflection of our own shadows and shows up because we have
attracted that to us which we deny in ourselves. So it seems like a pretty
valid subject to pursue as far as I am concerned.
Is this a list where people can simply be unsubbed because someone doesn't
like the tone and direction of their posts? That does seem to be what
happened to Zoe. Do the moderators want to have the power to unsub people
on their own without making it public to the list? Is that how this list
works?
Like it or not Don the subject has reared it's ugly head again and there are
going to be people who care about the subject.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
I am really getting bored with this whole thing and especially your
playing protective mum. No offense intended here, this is just the
way I feel. If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something
valuable to this list, she should write directly to William, since he
is the one who needs convincing, In the meanwhile lets get on with
some more interesting and general considerations,
don
On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> Hello again, Don. I'm going to be more specific in answering your
> question this morning. Last night, I was too tired. You wrote:
>
> But I understood that following on from a conversation that I had
> off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop us a line and explain
> what her intentions and interests in the Bohm list were, in other words
> to tell us why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect her.
>
> The understanding that I conveyed to Zoe was that she was to address an
> email to the Administrator of the list, William, and explain why she
> wanted to be a member of this group and what she hoped to get out of it.
> If the administrator found her answer "acceptable", she would have to
> resubscribe. There was no mention of "telling us why she thought it was
> unfair of us to disconnect her". And none whatsoever of sharing any of
> this with the list.
> I let it rest for a little while, because when emotions are high, it's
> hard to sort things out. Then, I asked her why she had answered that
> way. She asked me to please put myself in her place, so I could see what
> her feelings and thinkgs might have been, then we talked about it.
> Here is that answer : William, the person who was and still is convinced
> she is Peter, had shut her down "on suspicion" of being Peter, and
> without warning. This same person alone was to decide whether or not her
> response was "acceptable". The list not only has no guidelines and
> procedures to protect itself, it has none to protect its members.
> Furthermore, since the list members not only didn't even know she had
> been bounced, they would not even know such a process was in progress.
> From when I sit, this looks like microcosm in the macrocosm of world
> history. I don't want to make anyone angry here, so I'm just going to
> ask you to look into your own knowledge bank for similar situations. I
> can, indeed, get specific is asked to do so.
> My teachers' union instructed us that if we got into a dispute with the
> administration (in our case, the administrator), we were to keep a log of
> events, and above all, not to ever do anything without an observer
> present. That observer could be our union rep, or anyone else we chose.
> I offered to play that role, if she wanted me to. And so, here we are.
> Zoe would like to come back, but neither she nor I feel the conditions
> offered are acceptable. There is no procedure in place for such an
> appeal, and no safeguards for the person appealing. If we can work out
> appropriate conditions, it is my understanding that she would procede
> that way.
>
> I have not run this by zoe, I am simply thinking aloud now. I know we
> need precise wording as to precisely what it is Zoe needs to respond to,
> and a way for the decision of whether to invite her back on the list to
> be decided fairly. Just as I am running this by you now, I will run it
> by Zoe today. Shall I post her reply online as part of my own post? May
> she see your suggestions? Is there a way we can negotiate proper terms?
> This is essential, because we are setting precedence for future cases.
> (Although, I certainly hope it's never again necessary.) I would welcome
> input from list members as well as you, Don. k
>
>
>
>
>> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:16:45 -0600
>>
>> this suggestion made Zoe very angry
>>
>> Hi Don -
>>
>> Zoe objected because of the word "acceptable". She doesn't object to
>> the principle of being heard. But that was clarified after you and I
>> spoke. Then someone posted something like "...would anyone stand up for
>> her". And I responded "I would", and the ball was rolling. I can find
>> that post, if you like, but it will take me a while. I have several
>> hundred to go through.
>> Actually, I believe that Zoe plans to make that statement. I told her
>> you were going on vacation, and she wanted you as well as William to be
>> part of this. i believe the procedure is for her to address it
>> specifically to the administrator who is William? Correct me if I'm
>> wrong.
>> Do you want her to wait until after the wedding? best, k
>>
>>
>>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:33 -0800
>>>
>>> Hi Susan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same thing. I
>>> am referring here to your first three paragraphs.
>>> But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as I can see
>>> is the same person but this is just for the record. Gas was peter's
>>> second go around. We had to close the list down after Peter's first
>>> invasion, And that's when we took the radical step of moderating the
>>> list. Or am I confused?
>>>
>>> Regarding Zoe, I still have my doubts as I do about Kirsten being the
>>> same person as Peter. But I understood that following on from a
>>> conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to
>>> drop us a line and explain what her intentions and interests in the
>>> Bohm list were, in other words to tell us why she thought it was
>>> unfair of us to disconnect her. I thought that this would clarify any
>>> unclarity. But apparently, this suggestion made Zoe very angry, and
>>> she has not written such a letter or communicated with either me,
>>> William or Franis, so far as I know.
>>>
>>> If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why Kathy is
>>> pushing this. I would have thought that it should be up to Zoe to make
>>> the next move.
>>>
>>> don
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire
>>>> among many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined
>>>> the list the same discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager
>>>> to explore it. And it was a very similar one to what you are all
>>>> proposing right now. Although at that time Peter was an active
>>>> member of the group and he was included in the discussion. In the
>>>> beginning I sounded much like you and some of the others right now.
>>>>
>>>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject
>>>> except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was
>>>> mostly just to ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection
>>>> into himself, all he was interested in was goading the rest of us.
>>>> Rather than use suspension he would flood us with brief posts about
>>>> the world being made up of carrot and stick mentality and we should
>>>> all recognize that the only solution was total chaos. When he became
>>>> determined to spam the group with anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense
>>>> messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day regardless of how any of us
>>>> felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we felt) the decision
>>>> (after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At that point I was
>>>> ready for him to be banned. He mostly just trolled for recruits for
>>>> his OD site and spammed us for not being interested. He also seems
>>>> to have a fixation with male authority figures and chose Don F. to
>>>> flame as a surrogate authority.
>>>>
>>>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well
>>>> as exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems
>>>> that caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my
>>>> post to her. In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at
>>>> least a loose and flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the
>>>> thoughts I have had about the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue
>>>> in one of our previous discussions:
>>>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened
>>>> with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any
>>>> warning and without any group discussion. If that's true, then I
>>>> would say that I think anyone we suspect of being a troll or of
>>>> spamming or who we suspect is Peter, deserves to at least be told of
>>>> our feelings and be given a chance to speak for themselves.
>>>>
>>>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how
>>>> long they are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that
>>>> the purpose of dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without
>>>> posting. A healthy dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've
>>>> learned to deal with it by learning to know which people are
>>>> definitely going to have something to say that I'm interested in
>>>> responding to and not. On my busy days I skip through the posts and
>>>> read only a few people or if there's a good thread going I will read
>>>> only that thread. And, yes, sometimes I miss a lot doing that but
>>>> it's better than the alternative of not being a part of all of this.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt"
>>>> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>>>>
>>>> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>>>>
>>>> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
>>>> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is
>>>> only
>>>> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a
>>>> response and
>>>> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I
>>>> too have
>>>> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages in
>>>> one
>>>> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like
>>>> that term)
>>>> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
>>>> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility
>>>> here
>>>> matters to me.
>>>>
>>>> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need to
>>>> learn
>>>> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about
>>>> saying
>>>> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in
>>>> us, in
>>>> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response
>>>> from PKZ.
>>>> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or
>>>> need and
>>>> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people.
>>>> Is it
>>>> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that response
>>>> from
>>>> others?
>>>>
>>>> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
>>>> appreciated reading your emails.
>>>>
>>>> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else
>>>> struggle? As
>>>> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have sent
>>>> three
>>>> or so in one day ...
>>>>
>>>> Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
>>>>> posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>>>>> to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
>>>>> both at the same time, and to find the
>>>>> balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>>>>> misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>>>>> words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>>>>> exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>>>>> example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the
>>>>> same issue: on the one hand, you want to
>>>>> protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand,
>>>>> you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>>>>> sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>>>>> periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>>>>> balance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
>>>>> balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>>>>> how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when
>>>>> at least
>>>>> apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
>>>>> truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of
>>>>> his father,
>>>>> the ostensible SS officer :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter"
>>>>> and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>>>>> Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without (or
>>>>> before) letting them back in?
>>>>> My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on
>>>>> a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>>>>> do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
>>>>> Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>>>>
>>>>> On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>>>>> propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>>>>> that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>>>>> "core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc., without
>>>>> being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>>>>> "People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is that
>>>>> the case here?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Joachim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>>>>>> obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of
>>>>>> this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we
>>>>>> want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David
>>>>>> Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we should have
>>>>>> no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>>>>> nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in creating
>>>>>> a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on that
>>>>>> before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones in.
>>>>>> Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>>>>>> having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>>>>> supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>>>>> difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't open
>>>>>> tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is
>>>>>> that the case here as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great post Lynne!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kari
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rodger,
>>>>>
>>>>> Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
>>>>> enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
>>>>> discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to
>>>>> what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>>>>> compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
>>>>> finding a response and action that is not embedded within the same
>>>>> cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action taken to
>>>>> a situation maintains the same culture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as
>>>>> you suggest.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me just responding doesn?t mean you become part of the core I
>>>>> think it is something to do with how you are received and whether you
>>>>> are responded to and what the response is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>>>>> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
>>>>> missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
>>>>> clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Joachim Faust
>>>>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
From admin at david-bohm.net Thu Nov 9 19:50:39 2006
From: admin at david-bohm.net (dialogue-admin)
Date: Fri Nov 10 20:54:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <003601c7040a$aaabd340$2479480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <4553787F.00000B.05652@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Susan Clemons
>It sounds like we need to get William in on this discussion.
>William? Can you chime in and let us hear your side of things?
>Is this an accurate description of what happened?
Susan,
I have taken the "Kirsten" character off the list because because I regarded
its contributions as inappropriate. A few days later I had also taken the
Zoe" character off the list after it stated that it has revoked its
acceptance of the conditions to be on this list. These conditions are send
as a welcome message to everyone who subscribes.
This is the text of the welcome message:
Just to fill you in and make certain that you agree with the approach we are
taking, let me mention what this group is for and what it isn't for:
It is intended as a place where we can inquire together into David Bohm's
proposals regarding dialogue, the process of thought, wholeness and other
aspects of his philosophical work. Our intention is to explore his theories,
set them alongside other approaches and attempt to find out how we might
proceed from where he left off.
It is not intended as an online dialogue but rather an online group
exploration to be conducted in the spirit of dialogue.
Unlike face-to-face dialogue groups it will be moderated. That is the
moderator will be available to do whatever he or she feels is necessary to
keep the process on course. The moderator will be able to delete messages
that are felt to be inappropriate and to 'unplug' any participant who
persists in disrupting what we hope will be an exercise in the creative
exploration of a complex body of work that we feel may have potential
importance for the future of all of us. Unfortunately we have found It
necessary to handle the list in this way based on more than ten years of
experience struggling with unmoderated groups.
If you feel unhappy to participate with us under these terms please
unsubscribe.
-------Original Message-------
From: Zoe Chu
Date: 14.10.2006 22:59:59
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 15
Hi - I received a message from Kirsten saying that she was kicked out of
this group by its "owner" (Don Factor?). Is that the case? If so, is that in
the advertised "spirit of Bohm-Dialogue"? I am rejecting the idea (as well
as the effort) that any voice should be silenced, no matter what it says -
especially in a forum that claims to be about dialogue. At worst you just
skip certain mails; big deal. Or what is the big deal of "the owner" feeling
Kirsten, or whoever, needs to be thown out --- Zoe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/95f2b1a2/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 20:18:28 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:22:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <003601c7040a$aaabd340$2479480c@HOME>
<4553787F.00000B.05652@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <008501c70433$d6e65150$2479480c@HOME>
Thank you William. I can now see your reasoning in this matter and can even understand it. But, I have to admit, it feels a little harsh to me and I'm feeling very uncomfortable about the swiftness of your decision and action in regards to Zoe. Of course, when it comes to Kirsten/Peter I completely agree and probably would have booted him much sooner than you did. Although I think I would have let the group know about my decision including Peter before I did. Of course, all of that is just me.
I do understand the reasons for taking the measure of putting all of this into the welcome letter and the difficulty of your position. I guess what's happened with Zoe has brought up my discomfort with the idea that moderators have ultimate control of who is and isn't in a group even while understanding the necessity of it for trolls and spammers. My personal preference is for something like the Zoe situation to be openly discussed in the group before action is taken, as I have mentioned. And, of course, since I wasn't here and I didn't read every post in the archives I could have easily missed a discussion. If that's the case, I apologize.
I think I mostly just want to be clear about the group and how things happened and to face my discomfort with this. I have no problem with booting spammers and trolls (which I definitely consider Peter to be one of) without notice. But how do you know when to draw the line? I didn't read Zoe's post as saying she rejected the guidelines for the group. Only as her protesting the "idea" of it and wanting to talk about that.
Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that come up for me. Thanks for responding so quickly.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: dialogue-admin
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
From: Susan Clemons
>It sounds like we need to get William in on this discussion.
>William? Can you chime in and let us hear your side of things?
>Is this an accurate description of what happened?
Susan,
I have taken the "Kirsten" character off the list because because I regarded its contributions as inappropriate. A few days later I had also taken the "Zoe" character off the list after it stated that it has revoked its acceptance of the conditions to be on this list. These conditions are send as a welcome message to everyone who subscribes.
This is the text of the welcome message:
Just to fill you in and make certain that you agree with the approach we are taking, let me mention what this group is for and what it isn't for:
It is intended as a place where we can inquire together into David Bohm's proposals regarding dialogue, the process of thought, wholeness and other aspects of his philosophical work. Our intention is to explore his theories, set them alongside other approaches and attempt to find out how we might proceed from where he left off.
It is not intended as an online dialogue but rather an online group exploration to be conducted in the spirit of dialogue.
Unlike face-to-face dialogue groups it will be moderated. That is the moderator will be available to do whatever he or she feels is necessary to keep the process on course. The moderator will be able to delete messages that are felt to be inappropriate and to 'unplug' any participant who persists in disrupting what we hope will be an exercise in the creative exploration of a complex body of work that we feel may have potential importance for the future of all of us. Unfortunately we have found It necessary to handle the list in this way based on more than ten years of experience struggling with unmoderated groups.
If you feel unhappy to participate with us under these terms please unsubscribe.
-------Original Message-------
From: Zoe Chu
Date: 14.10.2006 22:59:59
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 15
Hi - I received a message from Kirsten saying that she was kicked out of this group by its "owner" (Don Factor?). Is that the case? If so, is that in the advertised "spirit of Bohm-Dialogue"? I am rejecting the idea (as well as the effort) that any voice should be silenced, no matter what it says - especially in a forum that claims to be about dialogue. At worst you just skip certain mails; big deal. Or what is the big deal of "the owner" feeling Kirsten, or whoever, needs to be thown out --- Zoe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061109/dbf0078d/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 9 20:22:43 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Fri Nov 10 21:29:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <03b101c70393$a3872f50$da78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C1793083.38B9%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Susan,
Um ... Its interesting its only when I have a response that I realise that
perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be to get what I am saying
across.
I'm very able to pick and choose which messages I read and am happy to
delete. I mentioned in my email deleting 50-75 emails a day from this list.
I find some of the one liner don't add anything to what I think of dialogue
and sometimes I wonder why they are not sent to the one person they are
addressed to. So I guess I feel differently from you, the number of emails
per day does not indicate for me anything about the quality of the dialogue.
The other point re 'PK and probably more accurate to say maybe Z' ... in a
way what I intended to communicate was to take the focus away from PK(Z) and
have it back on us ... What are we not paying attention to? ... What am I
not paying attention to? Am I really understanding the message in the
messages that I do read ... And do my responses make a connection with other
people in a way that transcends the more usual cultural assumptions.
That was more of what I was meaning to talk about ...
Gill
on 9/11/06 00:11, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire among many
> of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined the list the same
> discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager to explore it. And it
> was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right now. Although at
> that time Peter was an active member of the group and he was included in the
> discussion. In the beginning I sounded much like you and some of the others
> right now.
>
> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject except
> Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was mostly just to
> ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into himself, all he
> was interested in was goading the rest of us. Rather than use suspension he
> would flood us with brief posts about the world being made up of carrot and
> stick mentality and we should all recognize that the only solution was total
> chaos. When he became determined to spam the group with anywhere from 75 to
> 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day regardless of how any
> of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we felt) the decision
> (after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At that point I was ready for
> him to be banned. He mostly just trolled for recruits for his OD site and
> spammed us for not being interested. He also seems to have a fixation with
> male authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate authority.
>
> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well as
> exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems that
> caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my post to her.
> In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least a loose and
> flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts I have had about
> the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our previous
> discussions:
> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>
> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened with
> them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any warning and
> without any group discussion. If that's true, then I would say that I think
> anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or who we suspect is
> Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be given a chance to
> speak for themselves.
>
> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how long they
> are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that the purpose of
> dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without posting. A healthy
> dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've learned to deal with it by
> learning to know which people are definitely going to have something to say
> that I'm interested in responding to and not. On my busy days I skip
> through the posts and read only a few people or if there's a good thread
> going I will read only that thread. And, yes, sometimes I miss a lot doing
> that but it's better than the alternative of not being a part of all of
> this.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>
> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>
> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is only
> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a response and
> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>
> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I too have
> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages in one
> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like that term)
> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility here
> matters to me.
>
> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need to learn
> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about saying
> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in us, in
> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response from PKZ.
> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or need and
> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people. Is it
> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that response from
> others?
>
> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
> appreciated reading your emails.
>
> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else struggle? As
> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have sent three
> or so in one day ...
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis' recent
>> posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being able
>> to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to be
>> both at the same time, and to find the
>> balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not totally
>> misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>> words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>> exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>> example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there is the
>> same issue: on the one hand, you want to
>> protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the other hand,
>> you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>> sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>> periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>> balance.
>>
>> I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as this
>> balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>> how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even now, when
>> at least
>> apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently, in a
>> truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the ghost of
>> his father,
>> the ostensible SS officer :)
>>
>> I can't help it, but I think there is something important "Peter"
>> and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>> Would it be possible to think about what this could be, without (or
>> before) letting them back in?
>> My intuition is that once we understand and consider their message on
>> a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>> do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine in
>> Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>
>> On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>> propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous) thinking/feeling,
>> that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>> "core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc., without
>> being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>
>> Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>> "People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level. Is that
>> the case here?"
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joachim
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>>
>>> I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible, open, and
>>> obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the intention of
>>> this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms. If we
>>> want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of David
>>> Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we should have
>>> no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>> nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in creating
>>> a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on that
>>> before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones in.
>>> Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value of
>>> having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>> supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there any
>>> difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who aren't open
>>> tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might be is
>>> that the case here as well?
>>>
>>> Great post Lynne!
>>>
>>> kari
>>
>> Hi Rodger,
>>
>> Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>
>> Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed me or
>> enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language orientated
>> discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn more to
>> what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>> compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge. And
>> finding a response and action that is not embedded within the same
>> cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action taken to
>> a situation maintains the same culture.
>>
>> Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>
>> Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I think as
>> you suggest.
>>
>> For me just responding doesn?t mean you become part of the core I
>> think it is something to do with how you are received and whether you
>> are responded to and what the response is.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>
>> Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense something
>> missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it as
>> clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>> .
>>
>> Joachim Faust
>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Thu Nov 9 20:25:16 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Fri Nov 10 22:29:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <008501c70433$d6e65150$2479480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C178DCBC.7E18%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
I haven?t commented on this issue partly because I don?t have the history
with the group, and partly because I wasn?t that interested (that sounds
cold, & I don?t mean it that way). I appreciate not having to delete the
Kirsten emails any more. But I do agree with Susan that Zoe?s email here
didn?t sound to me like a rejection of the guidelines so much as a
disagreement with the principle. I see a difference between rejecting
behavior, such as Kirsten?s, and an opposing viewpoint, which seems to me
part of dialogue.
Lynne
On 11/9/06 1:18 PM, "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Thank you William. I can now see your reasoning in this matter and can even
> understand it. But, I have to admit, it feels a little harsh to me and I'm
> feeling very uncomfortable about the swiftness of your decision and action in
> regards to Zoe. Of course, when it comes to Kirsten/Peter I completely agree
> and probably would have booted him much sooner than you did. Although I think
> I would have let the group know about my decision including Peter before I
> did. Of course, all of that is just me.
>
> I do understand the reasons for taking the measure of putting all of this into
> the welcome letter and the difficulty of your position. I guess what's
> happened with Zoe has brought up my discomfort with the idea that moderators
> have ultimate control of who is and isn't in a group even while understanding
> the necessity of it for trolls and spammers. My personal preference is for
> something like the Zoe situation to be openly discussed in the group before
> action is taken, as I have mentioned. And, of course, since I wasn't here and
> I didn't read every post in the archives I could have easily missed a
> discussion. If that's the case, I apologize.
>
> I think I mostly just want to be clear about the group and how things happened
> and to face my discomfort with this. I have no problem with booting spammers
> and trolls (which I definitely consider Peter to be one of) without notice.
> But how do you know when to draw the line? I didn't read Zoe's post as saying
> she rejected the guidelines for the group. Only as her protesting the "idea"
> of it and wanting to talk about that.
>
> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that come up for me. Thanks for
> responding so quickly.
>
> Susan
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: dialogue-admin <mailto:admin@david-bohm.net>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>> From: Susan Clemons <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>> >It sounds like we need to get William in on this discussion.
>>> >William? Can you chime in and let us hear your side of things?
>>> >Is this an accurate description of what happened?
>>
>> Susan,
>> I have taken the "Kirsten" character off the list because because I regarded
>> its contributions as inappropriate. A few days later I had also taken the
>> "Zoe" character off the list after it stated that it has revoked its
>> acceptance of the conditions to be on this list. These conditions are send as
>> a welcome message to everyone who subscribes.
>>
>> This is the text of the welcome message:
>>
>> Just to fill you in and make certain that you agree with the approach we are
>> taking, let me mention what this group is for and what it isn't for:
>>
>> It is intended as a place where we can inquire together into David Bohm's
>> proposals regarding dialogue, the process of thought, wholeness and other
>> aspects of his philosophical work. Our intention is to explore his theories,
>> set them alongside other approaches and attempt to find out how we might
>> proceed from where he left off.
>>
>> It is not intended as an online dialogue but rather an online group
>> exploration to be conducted in the spirit of dialogue.
>>
>> Unlike face-to-face dialogue groups it will be moderated. That is the
>> moderator will be available to do whatever he or she feels is necessary to
>> keep the process on course. The moderator will be able to delete messages
>> that are felt to be inappropriate and to 'unplug' any participant who
>> persists in disrupting what we hope will be an exercise in the creative
>> exploration of a complex body of work that we feel may have potential
>> importance for the future of all of us. Unfortunately we have found It
>> necessary to handle the list in this way based on more than ten years of
>> experience struggling with unmoderated groups.
>>
>> If you feel unhappy to participate with us under these terms please
>> unsubscribe.
>> -------Original Message-------
>>
>> From: Zoe Chu <mailto:zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>> Date: 14.10.2006 22:59:59
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 20, Issue 15
>>
>> Hi - I received a message from Kirsten saying that she was kicked out of
>> this group by its "owner" (Don Factor?). Is that the case? If so, is that in
>> the advertised "spirit of Bohm-Dialogue"? I am rejecting the idea (as well as
>> the effort) that any voice should be silenced, no matter what it says -
>> especially in a forum that claims to be about dialogue. At worst you just
>> skip certain mails; big deal. Or what is the big deal of "the owner" feeling
>> Kirsten, or whoever, needs to be thown out --- Zoe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/3008c3ca/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Thu Nov 9 21:28:32 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Fri Nov 10 22:38:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <20061109.122833.648.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
> I am really getting bored with this whole thing and especially your
> playing protective mum. - No offense intended here, this is just the
> way I feel. - DonF
what is it about women who put themselves in a position of authority get
called mommy?
k has already established herself as a professional mediator - she's just
volunteering to do her job. think that's a pretty sexist comment. But it
probably means something has 'gotten to' you, Don. But, at least you
pointed to who is the person to address - william.
Franis
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:23:14 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
writes:
If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something
> valuable to this list, she should write directly to William, since
> he
> is the one who needs convincing, In the meanwhile lets get on with
> some more interesting and general considerations,
>
> don
>
> On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
> > Hello again, Don. I'm going to be more specific in answering your
>
> > question this morning. Last night, I was too tired. You wrote:
> >
> > But I understood that following on from a conversation that I had
>
> > off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to drop us a line and
> > explain what her intentions and interests in the Bohm list were,
>
> > in other words to tell us why she thought it was unfair of us to
>
> > disconnect her.
> >
> > The understanding that I conveyed to Zoe was that she was to
> > address an email to the Administrator of the list, William, and
> > explain why she wanted to be a member of this group and what she
> > hoped to get out of it. If the administrator found her answer
> > "acceptable", she would have to resubscribe. There was no mention
>
> > of "telling us why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect
> > her". And none whatsoever of sharing any of this with the list.
> > I let it rest for a little while, because when emotions are high,
>
> > it's hard to sort things out. Then, I asked her why she had
> > answered that way. She asked me to please put myself in her
> place,
> > so I could see what her feelings and thinkgs might have been, then
>
> > we talked about it.
> > Here is that answer : William, the person who was and still is
> > convinced she is Peter, had shut her down "on suspicion" of being
>
> > Peter, and without warning. This same person alone was to decide
>
> > whether or not her response was "acceptable". The list not only
> > has no guidelines and procedures to protect itself, it has none to
>
> > protect its members. Furthermore, since the list members not only
>
> > didn't even know she had been bounced, they would not even know
> > such a process was in progress. From when I sit, this looks like
>
> > microcosm in the macrocosm of world history. I don't want to make
>
> > anyone angry here, so I'm just going to ask you to look into your
>
> > own knowledge bank for similar situations. I can, indeed, get
> > specific is asked to do so.
> > My teachers' union instructed us that if we got into a dispute
> with
> > the administration (in our case, the administrator), we were to
> > keep a log of events, and above all, not to ever do anything
> > without an observer present. That observer could be our union
> rep,
> > or anyone else we chose. I offered to play that role, if she
> > wanted me to. And so, here we are.
> > Zoe would like to come back, but neither she nor I feel the
> > conditions offered are acceptable. There is no procedure in place
>
> > for such an appeal, and no safeguards for the person appealing.
> If
> > we can work out appropriate conditions, it is my understanding
> that
> > she would procede that way.
> >
> > I have not run this by zoe, I am simply thinking aloud now. I
> know
> > we need precise wording as to precisely what it is Zoe needs to
> > respond to, and a way for the decision of whether to invite her
> > back on the list to be decided fairly. Just as I am running this
>
> > by you now, I will run it by Zoe today. Shall I post her reply
> > online as part of my own post? May she see your suggestions? Is
>
> > there a way we can negotiate proper terms? This is essential,
> > because we are setting precedence for future cases. (Although, I
>
> > certainly hope it's never again necessary.) I would welcome input
>
> > from list members as well as you, Don. k
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> >> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> >> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:16:45 -0600
> >>
> >> this suggestion made Zoe very angry
> >>
> >> Hi Don -
> >>
> >> Zoe objected because of the word "acceptable". She doesn't
> object
> >> to the principle of being heard. But that was clarified after
> you
> >> and I spoke. Then someone posted something like "...would anyone
>
> >> stand up for her". And I responded "I would", and the ball was
> >> rolling. I can find that post, if you like, but it will take me
> a
> >> while. I have several hundred to go through.
> >> Actually, I believe that Zoe plans to make that statement. I
> told
> >> her you were going on vacation, and she wanted you as well as
> >> William to be part of this. i believe the procedure is for her
> to
> >> address it specifically to the administrator who is William?
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >> Do you want her to wait until after the wedding? best, k
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> >>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> >>> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:33 -0800
> >>>
> >>> Hi Susan,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same
> >>> thing. I am referring here to your first three paragraphs.
> >>> But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as I
> >>> can see is the same person but this is just for the record. Gas
>
> >>> was peter's second go around. We had to close the list down
> >>> after Peter's first invasion, And that's when we took the
> >>> radical step of moderating the list. Or am I confused?
> >>>
> >>> Regarding Zoe, I still have my doubts as I do about Kirsten
> >>> being the same person as Peter. But I understood that following
>
> >>> on from a conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she
>
> >>> invited Zoe to drop us a line and explain what her intentions
> >>> and interests in the Bohm list were, in other words to tell us
>
> >>> why she thought it was unfair of us to disconnect her. I
> thought
> >>> that this would clarify any unclarity. But apparently, this
> >>> suggestion made Zoe very angry, and she has not written such a
>
> >>> letter or communicated with either me, William or Franis, so
> far
> >>> as I know.
> >>>
> >>> If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why Kathy
> >>> is pushing this. I would have thought that it should be up to
> >>> Zoe to make the next move.
> >>>
> >>> don
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current
> >>>> desire among many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I
>
> >>>> first joined the list the same discussion was going on. I
> >>>> jumped right in, eager to explore it. And it was a very
> >>>> similar one to what you are all proposing right now. Although
>
> >>>> at that time Peter was an active member of the group and he
> was
> >>>> included in the discussion. In the beginning I sounded much
> >>>> like you and some of the others right now.
> >>>>
> >>>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the
>
> >>>> subject except Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's
> >>>> response was mostly just to ignore any kind of idea of
> >>>> exploring an introspection into himself, all he was interested
>
> >>>> in was goading the rest of us. Rather than use suspension he
>
> >>>> would flood us with brief posts about the world being made up
>
> >>>> of carrot and stick mentality and we should all recognize that
>
> >>>> the only solution was total chaos. When he became determined
>
> >>>> to spam the group with anywhere from 75 to 100 nonsense
> >>>> messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day regardless of how any
>
> >>>> of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we felt)
>
> >>>> the decision (after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At
> >>>> that point I was ready for him to be banned. He mostly just
> >>>> trolled for recruits for his OD site and spammed us for not
> >>>> being interested. He also seems to have a fixation with male
>
> >>>> authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate
> >>>> authority.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list
> >>>> as well as exploring it on a couple of other lists that had
> >>>> similar problems that caused me to come to the conclusions
> that
> >>>> I gave to Kathy in my post to her. In order for anything to
> >>>> cohere there needs to be at least a loose and flexible
> >>>> structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts I have had
> >>>> about the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our
>
> >>>> previous discussions:
> >>>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what
> >>>> happened with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned
>
> >>>> without any warning and without any group discussion. If
> >>>> that's true, then I would say that I think anyone we suspect
> of
> >>>> being a troll or of spamming or who we suspect is Peter,
> >>>> deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be given a
> >>>> chance to speak for themselves.
> >>>>
> >>>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or
> >>>> how long they are. I used to worry about that. But then I
> >>>> decided that the purpose of dialogue is to dialogue. You
> can't
> >>>> do that without posting. A healthy dialogue is going to have
>
> >>>> lots of posts. I've learned to deal with it by learning to
> >>>> know which people are definitely going to have something to
> say
> >>>> that I'm interested in responding to and not. On my busy days
>
> >>>> I skip through the posts and read only a few people or if
> >>>> there's a good thread going I will read only that thread.
> And,
> >>>> yes, sometimes I miss a lot doing that but it's better than
> the
> >>>> alternative of not being a part of all of this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Susan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt"
> >>>> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
> >>>>
> >>>> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
> >>>>
> >>>> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness,
> >>>> compassion AND
> >>>> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think
> it
> >>>> is only
> >>>> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a
>
> >>>> response and
> >>>> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
> >>>>
> >>>> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration
> here.
> >>>> I too have
> >>>> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75
> >>>> messages in one
> >>>> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I
> >>>> like that term)
> >>>> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near
> where I
> >>>> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this
> >>>> possibility here
> >>>> matters to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we
> >>>> need to learn
> >>>> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated
> >>>> about saying
> >>>> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is
> it
> >>>> in us, in
> >>>> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected
> >>>> response from PKZ.
> >>>> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want
>
> >>>> or need and
> >>>> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other
> >>>> people. Is it
> >>>> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that
> >>>> response from
> >>>> others?
> >>>>
> >>>> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have
> very
> >>>> much
> >>>> appreciated reading your emails.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else
>
> >>>> struggle? As
> >>>> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have
>
> >>>> sent three
> >>>> or so in one day ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Gill
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at joachimfaust@earthlink.net
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis'
> recent
> >>>>> posts: In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between being
> able
> >>>>> to "challenge" and being "compassionate/aware." It is hard to
> be
> >>>>> both at the same time, and to find the
> >>>>> balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not
> totally
> >>>>> misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
> >>>>> words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
> >>>>> exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
> >>>>> example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go, there
>
> >>>>> is the
> >>>>> same issue: on the one hand, you want to
> >>>>> protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but on the
> other
> >>>>> hand,
> >>>>> you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
> >>>>> sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
> >>>>> periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
> >>>>> balance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far as
> this
> >>>>> balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
> >>>>> how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list, even
> >>>>> now, when
> >>>>> at least
> >>>>> apparently, all his incarnations are banned. Most recently,
> in a
> >>>>> truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to channel the
> ghost of
> >>>>> his father,
> >>>>> the ostensible SS officer :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can't help it, but I think there is something important
> "Peter"
> >>>>> and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
> >>>>> Would it be possible to think about what this could be,
> without
> >>>>> (or
> >>>>> before) letting them back in?
> >>>>> My intuition is that once we understand and consider their
> >>>>> message on
> >>>>> a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
> >>>>> do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and Pine
> in
> >>>>> Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
> >>>>> propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous)
> thinking/feeling,
> >>>>> that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
> >>>>> "core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive," etc.,
> >>>>> without
> >>>>> being open to look for the liberating middle way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
> >>>>> "People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some level.
> Is
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> the case here?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joachim
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org
>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible,
> open,
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the
> >>>>>> intention of
> >>>>>> this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain terms.
> If we
> >>>>>> want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit of
>
> >>>>>> David
> >>>>>> Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we
> should
> >>>>>> have
> >>>>>> no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
> >>>>>> nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe in
> >>>>>> creating
> >>>>>> a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work on
>
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic ones
> in.
> >>>>>> Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the value
> of
> >>>>>> having people present and participating who are sensitive,
> >>>>>> supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is there
> any
> >>>>>> difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who
> aren't
> >>>>>> open
> >>>>>> tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question might
> be is
> >>>>>> that the case here as well?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Great post Lynne!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> kari
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Rodger,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Back on line after a busy weekend!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of warmed
>
> >>>>> me or
> >>>>> enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language
> >>>>> orientated
> >>>>> discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am drawn
> >>>>> more to
> >>>>> what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
> >>>>> compassionate and also aware and being willing to challenge.
> And
> >>>>> finding a response and action that is not embedded within the
> same
> >>>>> cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or action
> >>>>> taken to
> >>>>> a situation maintains the same culture.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyway its something to aim for ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I
> >>>>> think as
> >>>>> you suggest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For me just responding doesnąt mean you become part of the
> core I
> >>>>> think it is something to do with how you are received and
> >>>>> whether you
> >>>>> are responded to and what the response is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gill
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
> >>>>> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense
> something
> >>>>> missing in a group process it is because no one else sees it
> as
> >>>>> clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joachim Faust
> >>>>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> info:
> >>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>>>>
> >>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>>>>
> >>>>> dialogue facilitator:
> >>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> info:
> >>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>>>
> >>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>>>
> >>>> dialogue facilitator:
> >>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>>>
> >>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >>>> admin@david-bohm.net
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> info:
> >>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>>>
> >>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>>>
> >>>> dialogue facilitator:
> >>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>>>
> >>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >>>> admin@david-bohm.net
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 9 21:54:30 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 10 23:12:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <20061109.160739.564.1.ae.dropper@juno.com>
And, of course, there is the idea that has been put forth that the Peter
incarnation is a reflection of our own shadows and shows up because we
have
attracted that to us which we deny in ourselves. So it seems like a
pretty
valid subject to pursue as far as I am concerned. (susan)
Yes. It's the "cream" of subject matter. And it probably
does not easily make its way into the realm of dialogue
AS an issue without its actually BEING an issue.
Things that may "look like" intelligence and
maturity and all that kind of stuff can
easily deflect it, distract from it,
or bury it.
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 9 21:44:05 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 10 23:12:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <20061109.160739.564.0.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I am really getting bored with this whole thing and especially your
playing protective mum. No offense intended here, this is just the
way I feel. If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something
valuable to this list, she should write directly to William, since he
is the one who needs convincing, In the meanwhile lets get on with
some more interesting and general considerations,
don
Boredom is one of the more common [and more revealing]
dialogue "difficulties."
"Difficulties with content, for me,
and according to my understanding of the process,
are dialogue's "raw material" for getting the implicit
assumptions explicit enough to submit to inquiry.
Don, can you say absolutely, that your comments
make no contribution with regards to keeping
this issue alive on the list?
I would say that if this is an "on the list" issue,
ALL content about it would be [in theory] welcome.
GEES, we are really only getting started with the
issue of 'bumping someone without warning'.
Not that there will be no reflexive reactions to
parts of it; not that there won't be a LOT of reflexive
reactions [bumping someone from a dialogue is the only
concrete issue a dialogue group will ever face, so it
is inherently difficult].
What I think happened is that William wanted
to unsub "kirsten" and strongly suspected that the "zoe"
person or personage would make a huge fuss about it,
and being fairly convinced or certain that "Zoe" was
Kirsten/Gas/Peter, just made the unsubscription
a "clean" job of it.
I still, of course, wonder about that e-mail
of "zoe's" that came from "Kirsten/Kris's" e-mail
address.
pat
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 22:27:13 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Nov 10 23:31:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <C1793083.38B9%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <009801c70445$d373baa0$2479480c@HOME>
Hi Gil. Actually you were very clear about what you wanted. And my
response was about what I was feeling and thinking. I put the link in to
the past discussion we had on the purpose of dialogue to respond to you and
the rest of the post was about me. I personally don't think the discussion
about PKZ is necessarily about PKZ. I think it's about us.
How do we deal with trolls, spamming, and the like in our daily lives? Do
we ever respond to a legitimate interaction from someone as though they are
a troll or spamming or in some other way simply because that is what's going
on? I would say right now trolling and spamming and flaming are a pretty
ordinary occurrence. The current political climate here in Arizona was
pretty much of a flame war. Television, the mail, and most of the telephone
calls I get are trolling and spamming.
Doesn't our culture basically embrace this type of behavior as perfectly
acceptable? Isn't this a part of the incoherence in our daily lives? And
how has this affected the way we communicate with each other and our ability
to be open and honest with each other?
So you see, I wasn't really ignoring what you were addressing. For me, the
best way to talk about it is within the story that is happening. Getting
clear about the microcosm can help to see the macrocosm to my way of
thinking.
And I'll tell you something that I noticed when I was going through the
archives today. The PKZ phenomenom seemed to stimulate a lot of thought at
the time and there were some really rousing and interesting conversation
that seemed to come out of it. The same thing happened here in Arizona with
the political flame wars. Although I really got tired of hearing the
politicians beating each other up, people seemed to wake up and get a little
more interested in the issues and to be stimulated to vote. It was
certainly much better than the mediocre lackluster campaigns of the past.
Do we bring this kind of phenomena on when things are getting a little too
stagnant perhaps?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Hi Susan,
Um ... Its interesting its only when I have a response that I realise that
perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be to get what I am saying
across.
I'm very able to pick and choose which messages I read and am happy to
delete. I mentioned in my email deleting 50-75 emails a day from this list.
I find some of the one liner don't add anything to what I think of dialogue
and sometimes I wonder why they are not sent to the one person they are
addressed to. So I guess I feel differently from you, the number of emails
per day does not indicate for me anything about the quality of the dialogue.
The other point re 'PK and probably more accurate to say maybe Z' ... in a
way what I intended to communicate was to take the focus away from PK(Z) and
have it back on us ... What are we not paying attention to? ... What am I
not paying attention to? Am I really understanding the message in the
messages that I do read ... And do my responses make a connection with other
people in a way that transcends the more usual cultural assumptions.
That was more of what I was meaning to talk about ...
Gill
on 9/11/06 00:11, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Hi Gill. It's nice to meet you. I understand the current desire among
> many
> of you to explore the PKZ phenomena. When I first joined the list the
> same
> discussion was going on. I jumped right in, eager to explore it. And it
> was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right now. Although
> at
> that time Peter was an active member of the group and he was included in
> the
> discussion. In the beginning I sounded much like you and some of the
> others
> right now.
>
> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the subject
> except
> Peter I began to feel differently. Peter's response was mostly just to
> ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into himself, all he
> was interested in was goading the rest of us. Rather than use suspension
> he
> would flood us with brief posts about the world being made up of carrot
> and
> stick mentality and we should all recognize that the only solution was
> total
> chaos. When he became determined to spam the group with anywhere from 75
> to
> 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day regardless of how any
> of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we felt) the
> decision
> (after much agonizing) was made to ban him. At that point I was ready for
> him to be banned. He mostly just trolled for recruits for his OD site and
> spammed us for not being interested. He also seems to have a fixation
> with
> male authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a surrogate authority.
>
> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list as well as
> exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar problems that
> caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in my post to
> her.
> In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least a loose and
> flexible structure. Here's a link to some of the thoughts I have had
> about
> the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our previous
> discussions:
> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>
> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what happened with
> them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any warning and
> without any group discussion. If that's true, then I would say that I
> think
> anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or who we suspect is
> Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be given a chance
> to
> speak for themselves.
>
> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or how long
> they
> are. I used to worry about that. But then I decided that the purpose of
> dialogue is to dialogue. You can't do that without posting. A healthy
> dialogue is going to have lots of posts. I've learned to deal with it by
> learning to know which people are definitely going to have something to
> say
> that I'm interested in responding to and not. On my busy days I skip
> through the posts and read only a few people or if there's a good thread
> going I will read only that thread. And, yes, sometimes I miss a lot
> doing
> that but it's better than the alternative of not being a part of all of
> this.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>
> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>
> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness, compassion AND
> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think it is only
> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a response and
> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>
> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration here. I too
> have
> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75 messages in one
> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I like that
> term)
> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near where I
> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this possibility here
> matters to me.
>
> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we need to learn
> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated about saying
> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is it in us, in
> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected response from
> PKZ.
> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I want or need
> and
> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other people. Is it
> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that response from
> others?
>
> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have very much
> appreciated reading your emails.
>
> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else struggle?
> As
> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally have sent three
> or so in one day ...
>
> Gill
From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Nov 9 22:38:50 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 10 23:44:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <20061109.163857.564.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
"Unlike face-to-face dialogue groups it will be moderated. That is the
moderator will be available to do whatever he or she feels is necessary
to keep the process on course. The moderator will be able to delete
messages that are felt to be inappropriate and to 'unplug' any
participant who persists in disrupting what we hope will be an exercise
in the creative exploration of a complex body of work that we feel may
have potential importance for the future of all of us. Unfortunately we
have found It necessary to handle the list in this way based on more than
ten years of experience struggling with unmoderated groups.
"If you feel unhappy to participate with us under these terms please
unsubscribe."
(The above is from the intro message)
Hi - I received a message from Kirsten saying that she was kicked out of
this group by its "owner" (Don Factor?). Is that the case? If so, is that
in the advertised "spirit of Bohm-Dialogue"? I am rejecting the idea (as
well as the effort) that any voice should be silenced, no matter what it
says - especially in a forum that claims to be about dialogue. At worst
you just skip certain mails; big deal. Or what is the big deal of "the
owner" feeling Kirsten, or whoever, needs to be thown out --- Zoe
(The above from ("zoe").
Looks like "zoe" rejects the idea and the fact of "moderation."
Seems there was implicit agreement with the 'fact of moderation'
upon joining the list.
What does it mean when someone joins a moderated group
that doesn't agree with the "moderation" term? Seems like
a disconnect of some sort. Or not really taking the intro
seriously. That would be pretty common. If the issue was
that the "moderation" was misapplied, that would be one thing
(and maybe that is part of the case), but an objection to
"misapplied moderation" and an objection to "moderation"
are two distinct, and possibly incompatible, issues.
Don't you think?
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/17ebb365/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Thu Nov 9 23:11:52 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sat Nov 11 00:15:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061109.160739.564.0.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061109.160739.564.0.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <388BB0E9-13A8-405C-8532-C7091EDF1C95@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 9, 2006, at 12:44 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Don, can you say absolutely, that your comments
> make no contribution with regards to keeping
> this issue alive on the list?
>
> I would say that if this is an "on the list" issue,
> ALL content about it would be [in theory] welcome.
> GEES, we are really only getting started with the
> issue of 'bumping someone without warning'.
I have certainly contributed to it, and that is getting as boring as
anything because I feel that i am having to repeat myself over and
over. I was commenting on Kathy's taking up the cases of, first,
kirsten and then zoe. She has dropped kirsten and but not Zoe and it
sounds like more of this, oh, poor Zoe, so mistreated, can't stick up
for heself. If I was Zoe who tells us that she is a graduate student
in a very sophisticated programme to do with systems manageement at
one of the most prestigious universities in America is incapable of
dealing with her treatment on this list I woud be very insulted
indeed. But maybe that's just a guy thing.
The question of how a moderated list might be moderated or managed in
the spirit of Bohm dialogue is another matter all together and that
is well worthy of a lot more inquiry. What, as someone wrote
recently, we have moved, not intentionally, into a whole new sphere
with this online dialogue, This is more than interestiing. If what we
are actually doing is holding a virtual dialogue that is really
exciting to me.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/82ed7cb0/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Thu Nov 9 23:18:54 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Sat Nov 11 00:22:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
References: <EB58C395-D3BD-4342-80AB-DB269774A08C@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4553A94D.00000D.05652@VAIO-584793128F>
From: donald factor
>... Do you believe that the kind of awareness
>that you describe here, and is developed as the result of enculturation,
>or what JK and bohm called conditioning, is the ultimate for human
>consciousness?
No
>Do you believe that so-called altered states of consciousness are
>really the result of damage?
Yes
>Or that specific states of consciousness might possibly be valuable
>for some things and not for others?
Possibly
>I think that I have recommended before that you read States of
>Consciousness by by Charles Tart. Now it appears to be available
>onlliine: see:
>http://www.druglibrary.org/special/tart/soccont.htm
Sorry, too much to read. No time to read books.
It's almost midnight and I still have something to do for my customers in
the USA. These people get up at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and work until
midnight, while at the same time my customers in India are having breakfast
and getting ready to jump on the roof of the train (whenever it comes). This
globalization is a nightmare...
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/bb76f3a5/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Thu Nov 9 23:48:53 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Sat Nov 11 00:52:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
Message-ID: <002101c70451$3c57fd50$a477480c@HOME>
Ok, I've posted the first chapter of On Dialogue to my site.
Here's the link: http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/archives.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/5108107a/attachment.html
From MarkHarmer at aol.com Thu Nov 9 23:54:06 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Sat Nov 11 00:58:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] On Dialogue by D.B.
Message-ID: <3fc.5b3f941.32850b8e@aol.com>
Fab - it's a great book!
PS I'm back, having finished my dissertation.
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061109/e378c06a/attachment.html