From franis_franis at juno.com Sun Sep 10 09:14:48 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Mon Sep 11 10:24:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060910.002934.344.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
no, we don't send images here, only links - Franis
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 12:06:53 -0400 "kirsten schneide"
<kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> writes:
> Dear Franis,
>
> "Ransom movie" -
>
> So what 's the bigfuckingdeal?
>
> 'S there a 'point' I do not get?
>
> &
>
> Would it be okay to send a clip of a soup-chicken getting butchered?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I look at any thinkg, dear!
>
> Love, Kirsten
>
>
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
>
> >From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
> >Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:45:34 -0700
> >
> >With no explanation or warning, Peter Krauss posted one of the
> ransom
> >movies that was made to prove the subject was, in fact, killed.
> Many
> >people unsubscribed. No apology was offered by Peter, and he
> defended his
> >right to do it again.
> >Franis
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:36:14 -0400 "kirsten schneide"
> ><kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > Why could Dialog not
> > >
> > > Stand
> > >
> > > Peter (for example)?
> > >
> > > Love, Kirsten
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> > > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
> > > >Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 21:36:12 -0400
> > > >
> > > >Don, what would non-tolerance of certain content
> > > >of thought 'look like' from beginning to end?
> > > >
> > > >It seems interesting to contemplate what the exact
> > > >initiatory point of an "event" is, where "tolerance"
> > > >and non-tolerance are considered to be among the
> > > >optional responses. There are questions about both
> > > >"tolerance" and "non-tolerance" to content because
> > > >of a suspected contribution by either to insanity.
> > > >This of course will have to do with the meanings of
> > > >these two terms though.
> > > >
> > > >Also thinking: "Non-tolerance," in a form that is
> > > >not an insanity ingredient, is just an occurance.
> > > >Likely not even noticed AS "non-tolerance"
> > > >or maybe noticed, but in a very subtle way.
> > > >
> > > >"Thought" here refers to collective thought so
> > > >it doesn't seem to matter to the question here, whether
> > > >the "certain content of thought" arises in "you,"
> > > >in "me" or in "another" (i.e., verbalized by another).
> > > >
> > > >Looking forward to exploring this.
> > > >
> > > >pat
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >PAT:
> > > >Just to get some understanding of what you are saying, can some
> of
> > > the
> > > >words
> > > >that appear on this screen kill "me?"
> > > >
> > > >DON:
> > > >We may have different contexts in mind. In the context of the
> > > "screen
> > > >and
> > > >me", what's on the screen cannot kill me. But that was not the
> > > (my)
> > > >earlier
> > > >context/meaning.
> > > >
> > > >In a larger context, should any content be allowed, even the
> > > meaningless
> > > >nonsense of someone "stuck in a groove" like a broken record,
> > > repeating
> > > >meaninglessness nonsense ..., refusing meaning -- can that kill
> > > you? Can
> > > >it
> > > >actually destroy brain cells as per db?
> > > >
> > > >Seems to me it can, and that when we turn away from "ontic
> > > >ratio/meaning/logos, what is called insanity obtains -- about
> which
> > > has
> > > >long
> > > >been said: "Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad." Does
> > > madness
> > > >kill?
> > > >
> > > >PAT:
> > > >"Is not the content meaningful in that it comes across as
> perverse
> > > and
> > > >destructive?
> > > >
> > > >DON:
> > > >I guess, but what is the meaning of perversion and destruction?
> > > >Ultimately
> > > >(ground and aim), maybe meaning must be interpreted from/within
> > > >experience.
> > > >If reason must be interpreted from experience, then maybe we
> see
> > > the
> > > >"ultimacy" of ratio/reason/logos because that's the only
> meaningful
> > > way
> > > >to
> > > >interpret ... isn't it?
> > > >
> > > >But again, we may have different contexts in mind. -- Don L
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> > > >Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:38 AM
> > > >
> > > > > Should perverse, destructive, meaningless content be
> tolerated,
> > > even if
> > > > > it kills you? (dbl)
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to get some understanding of what you are saying,
> > > > > can some of the words that appear on this screen kill "me?"
> > > > >
> > > > > pat
> > > > >
> > > > > Don, do you see any contradiction within
> > > > >> the terms "perverse, destructive, meaningless?" -- Pat
> > > > >
> > > > > Very interesting question! No, not in the context that the
> > > perverse,
> > > > > destructive, meaningless might kill you/me. Do you? -- Don
> L
> > > > >
> > > > >> Is not the content meaningful in that it
> > > > >> comes across as perverse and destructive? -- Pat
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe I see some logic or reason in what you suggest,
> but it
> > > >neglects
> > > > > to
> > > > > consider the ratio/reason/logic that enables dialogue re
> what is
> > > > > "perverse,
> > > > > destructive, meaningless." That is, if you tolerate
> something
> > > > > destructive,
> > > > > it may kill you. Tolerating the perverse is without
> meaning,
> > > isn't it?
> > > > > Can
> > > > > we think the whole 'intends', means, for us to tolerate that
> > > which is
> > > > > without meaning, meaninglessness? -- Don L
> > > >
> > > > > From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> > > >
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:05 PM
> > > >
> > > > >> Should perverse, destructive, meaningless content be
> tolerated,
> > > even
> > > >if
> > > > >> it>> kills you? (dbl)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Don, do you see any contradiction within
> > > > >> the terms "perverse, destructive, meaningless?"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is not the content meaningful in that it
> > > > >> comes across as perverse and destructive?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What is it that would make the content of
> > > > >> thought "destructive?" Would it not be
> > > > >> the very thought that it IS destructive?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And does this "destruction" in any way
> > > > >> "make room" for a meaning that that
> > > > >> which has been "destroyed" was hiding?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
> > >
>
>http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&sour
c
> >e=wlmailtagline
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo
>
ttp://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://e
xpo.live.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Sun Sep 10 13:33:49 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Sep 11 14:25:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060910.002934.344.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
References: <20060910.002934.344.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <2B81CDFB-FA6A-45BE-AF38-AEB020E5FEAC@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Recently there has been much written on the list about TAS and PIS -
thought as a system and personal identity systems. These systems have
been treated by some here as being mechanical, fixed, unchangeable,
clever, fast, deceptive and destructive in the sense that they cry
out to be defended and inevitably this leads to fragmentation.
Bohm has been quoted here as saying that the thought system leads
us to believe that there is "someone in here" who can control these
fragmenting systems, when there is only the system. Others have been
more optimistic and quoted Bohm elsewhere as also saying that this
isn't the whole thing. Thought may consider itself quite large but it
may only be a small ripple, much like matter.
But in general there appears to be a tendency to treat these systems
as something "other" that has to be seen and understood. For some it
is like an enemy, the other, something separate from our true selves,
whatever they might be. But in the available contexts, who is it who
can see this? And if it can be seen what is to be done?
Bohm has said that seeing is enough, or better, seeing it
passionately. There is nothing else to be done. But after twenty odd
years of dialogue that seems doubtful. However, he also suggested
that the problematic aspects of these systems can be dissolved.
But what might that mean?
Drop a sugar cube into a glass of water. It sits there. If you
carefully take a sip from the edge of the glass the water is not
sweetened by the sugar cube. But give it a good stir and the sugar
dissolves. The cube disappears and its sweetness pervades the entire
volume of water. The water does not transform into sugar, it remains
water, only now it is sweet water.
So if we take this idea literally, we do not reject these systems,
nor do we just look at them, keeping an eye on them and keeping our
guard up. In order to dissolve these systems we need to accept them
wholeheartedly, Stir them into the entire rest of the system that
makes up who we each might really be. We do have that much free will.
Ah, you might argue, but that puts us right back to where we started.
However, I would add that having done this, another ingredient will
have also unfolded - an awareness of the whole system that includes
personal identity and the automatic responses of memory. And the
entire system is thereby sweetened.
don
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 10 05:58:05 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Mon Sep 11 14:50:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <2B81CDFB-FA6A-45BE-AF38-AEB020E5FEAC@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C1294BDD.9394%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Don,
I recently joined the list and have been reading the messages over the last
ten days or so. So I appreciated your message of yours which kind of
summarised the discussion.
And was curious about your sugar cube ... with time the sugar cube will
disolve on its own and the water will become sweet, although there will be a
stronger concentration of sweetness at the bottom. I'm not speaking against
the effect of 'stirring up' the water ... for it certainly speeds up the
process and evenly distributes the sugar ... what are the other effects from
stirring? Is something gained by speeding up the process? Is the unfolding
process helped?
You also say the water is not changed by the sugar ... in a certain way I
agree but I'm thinking of the guy who did the research into the structure of
water when influenced by pollution, hate, love etc (Does somebody remember
his name?) and the structure of the water was significantly altered by these
subtle and not so subtle influences ... so I guess the sugar would transform
the water in a similar way!
At the moment I'm not able to draw any specefic conclusions from my points
but wanted to add them to the discussion.
Gill
> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:33:49 +0100
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
>
> Recently there has been much written on the list about TAS and PIS -
> thought as a system and personal identity systems. These systems have
> been treated by some here as being mechanical, fixed, unchangeable,
> clever, fast, deceptive and destructive in the sense that they cry
> out to be defended and inevitably this leads to fragmentation.
>
> Bohm has been quoted here as saying that the thought system leads
> us to believe that there is "someone in here" who can control these
> fragmenting systems, when there is only the system. Others have been
> more optimistic and quoted Bohm elsewhere as also saying that this
> isn't the whole thing. Thought may consider itself quite large but it
> may only be a small ripple, much like matter.
>
> But in general there appears to be a tendency to treat these systems
> as something "other" that has to be seen and understood. For some it
> is like an enemy, the other, something separate from our true selves,
> whatever they might be. But in the available contexts, who is it who
> can see this? And if it can be seen what is to be done?
>
> Bohm has said that seeing is enough, or better, seeing it
> passionately. There is nothing else to be done. But after twenty odd
> years of dialogue that seems doubtful. However, he also suggested
> that the problematic aspects of these systems can be dissolved.
>
> But what might that mean?
>
> Drop a sugar cube into a glass of water. It sits there. If you
> carefully take a sip from the edge of the glass the water is not
> sweetened by the sugar cube. But give it a good stir and the sugar
> dissolves. The cube disappears and its sweetness pervades the entire
> volume of water. The water does not transform into sugar, it remains
> water, only now it is sweet water.
>
> So if we take this idea literally, we do not reject these systems,
> nor do we just look at them, keeping an eye on them and keeping our
> guard up. In order to dissolve these systems we need to accept them
> wholeheartedly, Stir them into the entire rest of the system that
> makes up who we each might really be. We do have that much free will.
>
> Ah, you might argue, but that puts us right back to where we started.
> However, I would add that having done this, another ingredient will
> have also unfolded - an awareness of the whole system that includes
> personal identity and the automatic responses of memory. And the
> entire system is thereby sweetened.
>
> don
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Sep 10 14:19:27 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Sep 11 15:10:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <C1294BDD.9394%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
References: <C1294BDD.9394%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <5F12FEE3-5B84-44C8-944E-6D8868E9B135@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Welcome aboard, Gill. I suppose we could play with the analogy a bit
and find more hooks to hang further ideas on.
But no analogy is ever perfect. My idea was simply to try to use it
to help understand Bohm's suggestions about dissolving
rather than defeating the systems in question. It seems to me that
the picture of a glass full of sugar water, would be a little
like Bohm's description of a hologram, where the entire picture is
present at every point in the plate. In this case, dissolving
makes the sweetness available at every point.
It also lead me into a way to look at the situation in the Middle
East, as an example. If they could stir up all the separate
lumps of belief, ideology, fear and defensiveness into one whole
system, a new insight might pop uo that might reveal
way out of the mess But how to do that remains well beyond me.
don
On 10 Sep 2006, at 04:58, Gill Wyatt wrote:
> Hi Don,
>
> I recently joined the list and have been reading the messages over
> the last
> ten days or so. So I appreciated your message of yours which kind of
> summarised the discussion.
>
> And was curious about your sugar cube ... with time the sugar cube
> will
> disolve on its own and the water will become sweet, although there
> will be a
> stronger concentration of sweetness at the bottom. I'm not speaking
> against
> the effect of 'stirring up' the water ... for it certainly speeds
> up the
> process and evenly distributes the sugar ... what are the other
> effects from
> stirring? Is something gained by speeding up the process? Is the
> unfolding
> process helped?
>
> You also say the water is not changed by the sugar ... in a certain
> way I
> agree but I'm thinking of the guy who did the research into the
> structure of
> water when influenced by pollution, hate, love etc (Does somebody
> remember
> his name?) and the structure of the water was significantly altered
> by these
> subtle and not so subtle influences ... so I guess the sugar would
> transform
> the water in a similar way!
>
> At the moment I'm not able to draw any specefic conclusions from my
> points
> but wanted to add them to the discussion.
>
> Gill
>
>> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:33:49 +0100
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>>
>>
>> Recently there has been much written on the list about TAS and PIS -
>> thought as a system and personal identity systems. These systems have
>> been treated by some here as being mechanical, fixed, unchangeable,
>> clever, fast, deceptive and destructive in the sense that they cry
>> out to be defended and inevitably this leads to fragmentation.
>>
>> Bohm has been quoted here as saying that the thought system leads
>> us to believe that there is "someone in here" who can control these
>> fragmenting systems, when there is only the system. Others have been
>> more optimistic and quoted Bohm elsewhere as also saying that this
>> isn't the whole thing. Thought may consider itself quite large but it
>> may only be a small ripple, much like matter.
>>
>> But in general there appears to be a tendency to treat these systems
>> as something "other" that has to be seen and understood. For some it
>> is like an enemy, the other, something separate from our true selves,
>> whatever they might be. But in the available contexts, who is it who
>> can see this? And if it can be seen what is to be done?
>>
>> Bohm has said that seeing is enough, or better, seeing it
>> passionately. There is nothing else to be done. But after twenty odd
>> years of dialogue that seems doubtful. However, he also suggested
>> that the problematic aspects of these systems can be dissolved.
>>
>> But what might that mean?
>>
>> Drop a sugar cube into a glass of water. It sits there. If you
>> carefully take a sip from the edge of the glass the water is not
>> sweetened by the sugar cube. But give it a good stir and the sugar
>> dissolves. The cube disappears and its sweetness pervades the entire
>> volume of water. The water does not transform into sugar, it remains
>> water, only now it is sweet water.
>>
>> So if we take this idea literally, we do not reject these systems,
>> nor do we just look at them, keeping an eye on them and keeping our
>> guard up. In order to dissolve these systems we need to accept them
>> wholeheartedly, Stir them into the entire rest of the system that
>> makes up who we each might really be. We do have that much free will.
>>
>> Ah, you might argue, but that puts us right back to where we started.
>> However, I would add that having done this, another ingredient will
>> have also unfolded - an awareness of the whole system that includes
>> personal identity and the automatic responses of memory. And the
>> entire system is thereby sweetened.
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 14:35:37 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 11 15:26:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060910.002934.344.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F57A33A5BCA0E46DCEEEC9A8350@phx.gbl>
What's the difference Fraulein Franis?
(To click on a link or mov.file)
Love, Kirsten
>no, we don't send images here, only links - Franis
>
>On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 12:06:53 -0400 "kirsten schneide"
><kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Dear Franis,
> >
> > "Ransom movie" -
> >
> > So what 's the bigfuckingdeal?
> >
> > 'S there a 'point' I do not get?
> >
> > &
> >
> > Would it be okay to send a clip of a soup-chicken getting butchered?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I look at any thinkg, dear!
> >
> > Love, Kirsten
> >
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
> > >Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:45:34 -0700
> > >
> > >With no explanation or warning, Peter Krauss posted one of the
> > ransom
> > >movies that was made to prove the subject was, in fact, killed.
> > Many
> > >people unsubscribed. No apology was offered by Peter, and he
> > defended his
> > >right to do it again.
> > >Franis
> > >
> > >
> > >On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:36:14 -0400 "kirsten schneide"
> > ><kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > > Why could Dialog not
> > > >
> > > > Stand
> > > >
> > > > Peter (for example)?
> > > >
> > > > Love, Kirsten
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> > > > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
> > > > >Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 21:36:12 -0400
> > > > >
> > > > >Don, what would non-tolerance of certain content
> > > > >of thought 'look like' from beginning to end?
> > > > >
> > > > >It seems interesting to contemplate what the exact
> > > > >initiatory point of an "event" is, where "tolerance"
> > > > >and non-tolerance are considered to be among the
> > > > >optional responses. There are questions about both
> > > > >"tolerance" and "non-tolerance" to content because
> > > > >of a suspected contribution by either to insanity.
> > > > >This of course will have to do with the meanings of
> > > > >these two terms though.
> > > > >
> > > > >Also thinking: "Non-tolerance," in a form that is
> > > > >not an insanity ingredient, is just an occurance.
> > > > >Likely not even noticed AS "non-tolerance"
> > > > >or maybe noticed, but in a very subtle way.
> > > > >
> > > > >"Thought" here refers to collective thought so
> > > > >it doesn't seem to matter to the question here, whether
> > > > >the "certain content of thought" arises in "you,"
> > > > >in "me" or in "another" (i.e., verbalized by another).
> > > > >
> > > > >Looking forward to exploring this.
> > > > >
> > > > >pat
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >PAT:
> > > > >Just to get some understanding of what you are saying, can some
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > >words
> > > > >that appear on this screen kill "me?"
> > > > >
> > > > >DON:
> > > > >We may have different contexts in mind. In the context of the
> > > > "screen
> > > > >and
> > > > >me", what's on the screen cannot kill me. But that was not the
> > > > (my)
> > > > >earlier
> > > > >context/meaning.
> > > > >
> > > > >In a larger context, should any content be allowed, even the
> > > > meaningless
> > > > >nonsense of someone "stuck in a groove" like a broken record,
> > > > repeating
> > > > >meaninglessness nonsense ..., refusing meaning -- can that kill
> > > > you? Can
> > > > >it
> > > > >actually destroy brain cells as per db?
> > > > >
> > > > >Seems to me it can, and that when we turn away from "ontic
> > > > >ratio/meaning/logos, what is called insanity obtains -- about
> > which
> > > > has
> > > > >long
> > > > >been said: "Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad." Does
> > > > madness
> > > > >kill?
> > > > >
> > > > >PAT:
> > > > >"Is not the content meaningful in that it comes across as
> > perverse
> > > > and
> > > > >destructive?
> > > > >
> > > > >DON:
> > > > >I guess, but what is the meaning of perversion and destruction?
> > > > >Ultimately
> > > > >(ground and aim), maybe meaning must be interpreted from/within
> > > > >experience.
> > > > >If reason must be interpreted from experience, then maybe we
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > >"ultimacy" of ratio/reason/logos because that's the only
> > meaningful
> > > > way
> > > > >to
> > > > >interpret ... isn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > >But again, we may have different contexts in mind. -- Don L
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> > > > >Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:38 AM
> > > > >
> > > > > > Should perverse, destructive, meaningless content be
> > tolerated,
> > > > even if
> > > > > > it kills you? (dbl)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just to get some understanding of what you are saying,
> > > > > > can some of the words that appear on this screen kill "me?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pat
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don, do you see any contradiction within
> > > > > >> the terms "perverse, destructive, meaningless?" -- Pat
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Very interesting question! No, not in the context that the
> > > > perverse,
> > > > > > destructive, meaningless might kill you/me. Do you? -- Don
> > L
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Is not the content meaningful in that it
> > > > > >> comes across as perverse and destructive? -- Pat
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe I see some logic or reason in what you suggest,
> > but it
> > > > >neglects
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > consider the ratio/reason/logic that enables dialogue re
> > what is
> > > > > > "perverse,
> > > > > > destructive, meaningless." That is, if you tolerate
> > something
> > > > > > destructive,
> > > > > > it may kill you. Tolerating the perverse is without
> > meaning,
> > > > isn't it?
> > > > > > Can
> > > > > > we think the whole 'intends', means, for us to tolerate that
> > > > which is
> > > > > > without meaning, meaninglessness? -- Don L
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:05 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Should perverse, destructive, meaningless content be
> > tolerated,
> > > > even
> > > > >if
> > > > > >> it>> kills you? (dbl)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Don, do you see any contradiction within
> > > > > >> the terms "perverse, destructive, meaningless?"
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Is not the content meaningful in that it
> > > > > >> comes across as perverse and destructive?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What is it that would make the content of
> > > > > >> thought "destructive?" Would it not be
> > > > > >> the very thought that it IS destructive?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> And does this "destruction" in any way
> > > > > >> "make room" for a meaning that that
> > > > > >> which has been "destroyed" was hiding?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
> > > >
> >
> >http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&sour
>c
> > >e=wlmailtagline
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo
> >
>ttp://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://e
>xpo.live.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Search from any web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live
Toolbar Today! http://get.live.com/toolbar/overview
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 14:38:49 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 11 15:30:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Problem?
In-Reply-To: <2B81CDFB-FA6A-45BE-AF38-AEB020E5FEAC@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F1443374F3774B523EA4C8FA8350@phx.gbl>
Dear Don,
What do you thinkg 'a':
>PROBLEM<
Is
Does
?
LovBot
>Recently there has been much written on the list about TAS and PIS -
>thought as a system and personal identity systems. These systems have been
>treated by some here as being mechanical, fixed, unchangeable, clever,
>fast, deceptive and destructive in the sense that they cry out to be
>defended and inevitably this leads to fragmentation.
>
> Bohm has been quoted here as saying that the thought system leads us to
>believe that there is "someone in here" who can control these fragmenting
>systems, when there is only the system. Others have been more optimistic
>and quoted Bohm elsewhere as also saying that this isn't the whole thing.
>Thought may consider itself quite large but it may only be a small ripple,
>much like matter.
>
>But in general there appears to be a tendency to treat these systems as
>something "other" that has to be seen and understood. For some it is like
>an enemy, the other, something separate from our true selves, whatever
>they might be. But in the available contexts, who is it who can see this?
>And if it can be seen what is to be done?
>
>Bohm has said that seeing is enough, or better, seeing it passionately.
>There is nothing else to be done. But after twenty odd years of dialogue
>that seems doubtful. However, he also suggested that the problematic
>aspects of these systems can be dissolved.
>
>But what might that mean?
>
>Drop a sugar cube into a glass of water. It sits there. If you carefully
>take a sip from the edge of the glass the water is not sweetened by the
>sugar cube. But give it a good stir and the sugar dissolves. The cube
>disappears and its sweetness pervades the entire volume of water. The
>water does not transform into sugar, it remains water, only now it is
>sweet water.
>
>So if we take this idea literally, we do not reject these systems, nor do
>we just look at them, keeping an eye on them and keeping our guard up. In
>order to dissolve these systems we need to accept them wholeheartedly,
>Stir them into the entire rest of the system that makes up who we each
>might really be. We do have that much free will.
>
>Ah, you might argue, but that puts us right back to where we started.
>However, I would add that having done this, another ingredient will have
>also unfolded - an awareness of the whole system that includes personal
>identity and the automatic responses of memory. And the entire system is
>thereby sweetened.
>
>don
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo
ttp://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com/
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 14:52:20 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 11 15:43:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <2B81CDFB-FA6A-45BE-AF38-AEB020E5FEAC@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F20B114314F1D6D09E82A93A8350@phx.gbl>
Dear Don
Who are you (not) trying to kid {fool}
Beside your selves:
Elements in a complex system cannot "know" what is
happening in the system as a whole. If they could, all the
complexity would have to be present in that very element. Yet
since the complexity is created by the relationships between
elements (sub-systems) that is simply impossible.
A corollary of this is: that no element in the
system could hope to control the system.
A(nother) corollary of this is: that no thinkg
in the system could hope to get, to understand the system.
Some Dons keep beating them selves [Donl] to pieces
'Other" Dons keep stroking them selves [Donf] to peaces.
You (free)will never 'GET' ("awareness")
Quotethewholesystemendquote, Donf
..... But
Byanymeans:::
Keep it up, dear ;-!
LovBot
>Ah, you might argue, but that puts us right back to where we started.
>However, I would add that having done this, another ingredient will have
>also unfolded - an awareness of the whole system that includes personal
>identity and the automatic responses of memory. And the entire system is
>thereby sweetened.
>
>don
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Sep 10 15:58:39 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Sep 11 17:10:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
Message-ID: <20060910.101832.1608.3.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Consider this example of personal identification
interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
(Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
between the confines of the identity. The person one is
relating to can now only be related to, according to
the images supplied by the beliefs that support
the identity. Intelligence is blocked by the
walls in which the particular self/world
is contained. There is no true relationship).
It might be argued that such identification
is necessary to protect the child but consider
that the above description can only apply to
homo saps.
What are some of the beliefs that support
such an identity?
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Sep 10 16:18:24 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Sep 11 17:10:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060910.101832.1608.4.ae.dropper@juno.com>
What is "destroyed" dbl, when the symbols below (symbolizing what, I
don't know),
are "tolerated?"
Is there another alternative perhaps to "tolerance"
or "intolerance?" Is one, or the other, an absolute necessity?
What part of "that which is" supplies "red flags" regarding
squiggles on a screen? (pat, pat, pat)
"When people exhibit little or no awareness of the logos, verbum, ratio,
rationality, necessity in thought -- no effort to share participatory
awareness of logos, verbum, ratio, rationality, etc, ..." (dbl)
What percentage of the people you know
exhibit such awareness or effort? (pat)
In a larger context, should any content be allowed, even the meaningless
nonsense of someone "stuck in a groove" like a broken record, repeating
meaninglessness nonsense ..., refusing meaning -- can that kill you? Can
it
actually destroy brain cells as per db? (dbl)
How does this possible "killing" relate to the "fear of death" of
which we speak recently?
Is there a distinction to be made here that would be of interest
between squiggles on a screen and a thought about them? (pat, pat)
and that when we turn away from "ontic
ratio/meaning/logos, what is called insanity obtains -- about which has
long
been said: "Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad." Does madness
kill? (dbl)
Can the words of another force insanity? If so, to some
who 'hear' them, or all? If the power to "make insane" resides
in the 'utterance' are we not all at the mercy of the words or
squiggles of another? (pat)
If the above demonstrate misunderstanding (which is quite possible)
please forgive my thickheadedness.
pat
duplicate for Pat.
From: ae.dropper@juno.com Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:36 PM
Don, what would non-tolerance of certain content
of thought 'look like' from beginning to end? [ Don L: Maybe first it is
necessary to look at and talk about intolerable behaviour, then reason
about the thought which gives rise to that behaviour. I'm saying it is
destructive to tollerate such language (behaviour) as:
"Don, why do you di/os[e] ** and then
ppp black/red/green
as {sometimes} saying
fff?"
When people exhibit little or no awareness of the logos, verbum, ratio,
rationality, necessity in thought -- no effort to share participatory
awareness of logos, verbum, ratio, rationality, etc, -- I'm saying that
that which is informs me with intolerance, red flags, danger signals. --
Don L
It seems interesting to contemplate what the exact
initiatory point of an "event" is, where "tolerance"
and non-tolerance are considered to be among the
optional responses. There are questions about both
"tolerance" and "non-tolerance" to content because
of a suspected contribution by either to insanity.
This of course will have to do with the meanings of
these two terms though.
Also thinking: "Non-tolerance," in a form that is
not an insanity ingredient, is just an occurance.
Likely not even noticed AS "non-tolerance"
or maybe noticed, but in a very subtle way.
"Thought" here refers to collective thought so
it doesn't seem to matter to the question here, whether
the "certain content of thought" arises in "you,"
in "me" or in "another" (i.e., verbalized by another).
Looking forward to exploring this.
pat
PAT:
Just to get some understanding of what you are saying, can some of the
words
that appear on this screen kill "me?"
DON:
We may have different contexts in mind. In the context of the "screen
and
me", what's on the screen cannot kill me. But that was not the (my)
earlier
context/meaning.
In a larger context, should any content be allowed, even the meaningless
nonsense of someone "stuck in a groove" like a broken record, repeating
meaninglessness nonsense ..., refusing meaning -- can that kill you? Can
it
actually destroy brain cells as per db?
Seems to me it can, and that when we turn away from "ontic
ratio/meaning/logos, what is called insanity obtains -- about which has
long
been said: "Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad." Does madness
kill?
PAT:
"Is not the content meaningful in that it comes across as perverse and
destructive?
DON:
I guess, but what is the meaning of perversion and destruction?
Ultimately
(ground and aim), maybe meaning must be interpreted from/within
experience.
If reason must be interpreted from experience, then maybe we see the
"ultimacy" of ratio/reason/logos because that's the only meaningful way
to
interpret ... isn't it?
But again, we may have different contexts in mind. -- Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060910/9d13754c/attachment.html
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Sun Sep 10 16:21:08 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Mon Sep 11 17:12:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]PIS
In-Reply-To: <CF964CE8-50AD-4277-ABB1-12BEBCE8F314@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20060910142108.19807.qmail@web61014.mail.yahoo.com>
But my main interest in this topic would be to ask
what is the
positive value of pis?
Does it have one? What would it be like not to have a
personal
identity?
Everything has it is own value even very small and
insignificant but nevertheless it is a some sort of
value.
Regarding ?PIS.? One IS IDENTIFING all the time with
something or somebody. First it is identification as
an individual, which then identify with the group.
This inner identification is valid and important but
it is limited within it is context. This
identification points to who am I, what am I, and
where I am going with what is my purpose and so on. I
am communicating with myself and with another through
such identification. Needless to say, I have the
ability to go beyond such identification into the
realm of insight or call it creativity and perception
through the mind, which clearly stands independent of
thought process even though uses thought later. It is
obvious that when If, I am communicating with myself
or with another through such identification, it
doesn?t leave a lot of room for creativity but rather
locks the door through inability to go beyond such
though process, which is merely rather mechanical in
it is nature. Here in our dialogue, I would think one
is beyond such blind operation at least to the point
in being able to have a glimpse to such movement with
possibility to move out of it.
If, I presume that this pis is based on thought system
operating in me rather mechanical way, it has
therefore a tremendous power to sustain itself or to
control me so do speak in many different ways. If, I
presume that there is some real entity beyond this
mechanism then the question would rise in is this real
self-independent or absolute from this mechanical
system or is it part of the mechanical system?
If, I would trim so do speak all the images build up
upon my consciousness then there would be either some
real entity or everything is build up through such
image making machinery. Am I just an image? Is there
something real to me, which I am not able to grasp or
get hold of? I am talking now about the psyche.
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Sep 10 16:52:40 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Sep 11 17:45:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060910.105247.1608.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Bohm has said that seeing is enough, or better, seeing it
passionately. There is nothing else to be done. But after twenty odd
years of dialogue that seems doubtful. (don)
"Bohm was wrong about 'seeing is enough'" is one possible meaning.
What are some others?
...we do not reject these systems,
nor do we just look at them, keeping an eye on them and keeping our
guard up. (don)
Rejection no. Deep appreciation. Yes. "Keeping the guard up"
could easily be a form of rejection. "Guard" is just 'more of
same'. Awareness, appreciation, and inquiry into the "language"
of "these systems" is a helpful attitude. "Reading" the "systems"
for their ever deeper meanings is appropriate and fruitful. "Literacy"
regarding, and "fluency" with, these "systems" is developed.
Affection for, and even embracing of, what unfolds from these
"systems" is a key. (pat)
But in general there appears to be a tendency to treat these systems
as something "other" that has to be seen and understood. For some it
is like an enemy, the other, something separate from our true selves,
whatever they might be. (don)
These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way
the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and
'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation
in a domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations'
bang into each other and it hurts if one of them is "me."
*"Fixity" is "not useful" if that which is 'fixed'
is not appropriately 'objectifiable'.
pat
Recently there has been much written on the list about TAS and PIS -
thought as a system and personal identity systems. These systems have
been treated by some here as being mechanical, fixed, unchangeable,
clever, fast, deceptive and destructive in the sense that they cry
out to be defended and inevitably this leads to fragmentation.
Bohm has been quoted here as saying that the thought system leads
us to believe that there is "someone in here" who can control these
fragmenting systems, when there is only the system. Others have been
more optimistic and quoted Bohm elsewhere as also saying that this
isn't the whole thing. Thought may consider itself quite large but it
may only be a small ripple, much like matter.
But in general there appears to be a tendency to treat these systems
as something "other" that has to be seen and understood. For some it
is like an enemy, the other, something separate from our true selves,
whatever they might be. But in the available contexts, who is it who
can see this? And if it can be seen what is to be done?
Bohm has said that seeing is enough, or better, seeing it
passionately. There is nothing else to be done. But after twenty odd
years of dialogue that seems doubtful. However, he also suggested
that the problematic aspects of these systems can be dissolved.
But what might that mean?
Drop a sugar cube into a glass of water. It sits there. If you
carefully take a sip from the edge of the glass the water is not
sweetened by the sugar cube. But give it a good stir and the sugar
dissolves. The cube disappears and its sweetness pervades the entire
volume of water. The water does not transform into sugar, it remains
water, only now it is sweet water.
So if we take this idea literally, we do not reject these systems,
nor do we just look at them, keeping an eye on them and keeping our
guard up. In order to dissolve these systems we need to accept them
wholeheartedly, Stir them into the entire rest of the system that
makes up who we each might really be. We do have that much free will.
Ah, you might argue, but that puts us right back to where we started.
However, I would add that having done this, another ingredient will
have also unfolded - an awareness of the whole system that includes
personal identity and the automatic responses of memory. And the
entire system is thereby sweetened.
don
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sun Sep 10 17:09:20 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Sep 11 18:01:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]PIS
Message-ID: <20060910.110922.1608.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
But my main interest in this topic would be to ask
what is the
positive value of pis?
Does it have one? What would it be like not to have a
personal
identity?
Everything has it is own value even very small and
insignificant but nevertheless it is a some sort of
value.
Regarding ?PIS.? One IS IDENTIFING all the time with
something or somebody. First it is identification as
an individual, which then identify with the group.
This inner identification is valid and important but
it is limited within it is context. This
identification points to who am I, what am I, and
where I am going with what is my purpose and so on. I
am communicating with myself and with another through
such identification. Needless to say, I have the
ability to go beyond such identification into the
realm of insight or call it creativity and perception
through the mind, which clearly stands independent of
thought process even though uses thought later. It is
obvious that when If, I am communicating with myself
or with another through such identification, it
doesn?t leave a lot of room for creativity but rather
locks the door through inability to go beyond such
though process, which is merely rather mechanical in
it is nature. Here in our dialogue, I would think one
is beyond such blind operation at least to the point
in being able to have a glimpse to such movement with
possibility to move out of it.
If, I presume that this pis is based on thought system
operating in me rather mechanical way, it has
therefore a tremendous power to sustain itself or to
control me so do speak in many different ways. If, I
presume that there is some real entity beyond this
mechanism then the question would rise in is this real
self-independent or absolute from this mechanical
system or is it part of the mechanical system?
If, I would trim so do speak all the images build up
upon my consciousness then there would be either some
real entity or everything is build up through such
image making machinery. Am I just an image? Is there
something real to me, which I am not able to grasp or
get hold of? I am talking now about the psyche.
Fanda
We could say the "I" cannot see itself - except
in relationship. So, to see "I" more clearly,
relationship AS mirror, comes into view and
the capacity to see so called "other" AS "I"
develops. "How to read," once this is seen,
is simply a skill. Nothing mystifying.
Not mystifying, but endlessly fascinating.
When I was very young and very constantly
analytical in my conversations with friends,
there was one friend who was more poetic
than analytical. She was a very good listener
and would often respond to one of my lengthy
analytical presentations with "It's all done
with mirrors." She said this often and that would
"settle it" every time. And indeed it did.
Incidentally, she went on to become a film maker
in which she often used fragments of mirrors.
pat
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Sun Sep 10 18:01:41 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Mon Sep 11 18:52:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]PIS
In-Reply-To: <20060910.110922.1608.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20060910160141.77676.qmail@web61012.mail.yahoo.com>
The "I" cannot see it - except
In relationship.
Then RELATIONSHIP is one of the fundamental movements.
It is like inner mirror of myself, which I hold up
against the surrounding world.
When I look at myself in the mirror in the ordinary
way, I can see myself physically, and I look at myself
as well regarding this inner mirror, which is pointing
to my attributes so do speak. It is an image of mine
physically as well psychologically. This image of my
physical appearance is real as I can observe it and
change it through the willpower of mine. As well my
inner image of myself I can change through the
willpower of mine. Are these two images or mirrors
separate or one? If, they do exist or it is existence
is dependent upon relationship then this dependence is
drawn through the outside world regarding comparison.
It is a movement in constant becoming and comparison
with many things. I am this but I want to become that.
I am better then another, and I want to achieve or
reach some state physically as well psychologically.
If, I perceive this movement as being fallacy then
what happens? If, I stop this movement of comparison
and therefore measurement then I am moving away from
this constant struggle to become. I may find myself in
a state without going anywhere, which would mean what?
Is the self-foremost purpose to function in such
state?
Fanda
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From donlay at gte.net Sun Sep 10 18:55:22 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Sep 11 19:47:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
References: <20060910.105247.1608.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <001f01c6d4fa$00e30bb0$0141153f@DL01>
These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way
the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and
'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation
in a domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations'
bang into each other and it hurts if one of them is "me." -- Pat
Would the -- 'banging into each other and the hurts' suggest
destructiveness? -- Don L
What is "destroyed" dbl, when the symbols below (symbolizing what, I don't
know), are "tolerated?" -- Pat
Rephrasing this question (perhaps for both contexts) ..., What is destroyed
when we tolerate fixations that bang into each other, that "make no sense"
and create confusion? Is anything destroyed when conflicting thoughts,
systems of thoughts, occur and are somehow fused in a persona life? Is
anything destroyed when the large scale persona is conflicted, confused, by
small scale systems of thought?
Is anything destructive about teaching a child to hate? to lie? to ignore
reason, ratio, etc? --
From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
> Bohm has said that seeing is enough, or better, seeing it
> passionately. There is nothing else to be done. But after twenty odd
> years of dialogue that seems doubtful. (don)
>
> "Bohm was wrong about 'seeing is enough'" is one possible meaning.
> What are some others?
>
> ...we do not reject these systems,
> nor do we just look at them, keeping an eye on them and keeping our
> guard up. (don)
>
> Rejection no. Deep appreciation. Yes. "Keeping the guard up"
> could easily be a form of rejection. "Guard" is just 'more of
> same'. Awareness, appreciation, and inquiry into the "language"
> of "these systems" is a helpful attitude. "Reading" the "systems"
> for their ever deeper meanings is appropriate and fruitful. "Literacy"
> regarding, and "fluency" with, these "systems" is developed.
> Affection for, and even embracing of, what unfolds from these
> "systems" is a key. (pat)
>
> But in general there appears to be a tendency to treat these systems
> as something "other" that has to be seen and understood. For some it
> is like an enemy, the other, something separate from our true selves,
> whatever they might be. (don)
>
> These "systems" are [in theory and sometimes in experience ] the way
> the unlimited sets limits. If the fluidity of the 'zoomings' and
> 'shapings' is inhibited by a felt necessity to 'fix' a limitation
> in a domain where such fixity is not *useful, those 'fixations'
> bang into each other and it hurts if one of them is "me."
>
> *"Fixity" is "not useful" if that which is 'fixed'
> is not appropriately 'objectifiable'.
>
> pat
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Sep 10 19:02:37 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Sep 11 19:53:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060910.105247.1608.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060910.105247.1608.5.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <E0FC56CC-AB21-43E4-8A1D-8082714E8D01@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 10 Sep 2006, at 15:52, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> "Bohm was wrong about 'seeing is enough'" is one possible meaning.
> What are some others?
I don't think that Bohm's theory was wrong, only incomplete. And I
think that
he would have been the first to acknowledge this - regarding just
about any
content in any context.
I also think that this is why we are here.
don
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Sep 10 19:28:53 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Sep 11 20:20:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Identity
In-Reply-To: <20060910.101832.1608.3.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20060910.101832.1608.3.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <969F3E66-E637-4B86-BFFB-4FD3422E935F@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 10 Sep 2006, at 14:58, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Consider this example of personal identification
> interfering with sanity. I AM YOUR MOTHER."
> (Add an object to "I AM" in thought and any amount of
> systemic chemical and neorophysiological involvement in a
> given moment, and perception rapidly shrinks to a point
> between the confines of the identity.
But does it really? Necessarily? My mother might have told me that
she was my mother and that implied a particular sort of relationship,
but I also knew that she was an artist and a pretty good poker player
each of which provided different but overlapping categories. In fact,
sub-consciously I also know that she was had a great many other
qualities. So, these all blend into, not so much an image of
the person or the relationship, but a set of image that flow in and out
of each other, more like a bunch of film clips that anything static.
> The person one is
> relating to can now only be related to, according to
> the images supplied by the beliefs that support
> the identity.
Possibly. But more likely different situations and contexts will call
forth
different aspects of the image cluster, or different strips of the film.
> Intelligence is blocked by the
> walls in which the particular self/world
> is contained.
> There is no true relationship).
But if one had no idea about who this person was - if she was a total
stranger - would intelligence then be able to inform us of what a true
relationship might be?
>
> It might be argued that such identification
> is necessary to protect the child but consider
> that the above description can only apply to
> homo saps.
I am not certain, because I only understand a couple of
homo sap languages. But I do know that a puppy recognises
its mother and behaves differently toward her than others and
vice versa, as do most other mammals.
>
> What are some of the beliefs that support
> such an identity?
I find it more interesting to ask this question from
the point of view of a self-world-view. I would have to say that
in the world there a mother's and their offspring. They form what
some would call a logical type. I would call it a specific sort or
category of relationship. Within this category there are many
variations and my relationship with my mother - who BTW, died
more than thirty years ago - would fit somewhere within this
category. One thing I could say specifically is that my feeling about
her now, are warmer than they were when she was alive.
>
> pat
don
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Sun Sep 10 19:53:59 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Mon Sep 11 20:45:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F20B114314F1D6D09E82A93A8350@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F20B114314F1D6D09E82A93A8350@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <626E1F27-7B6A-49D6-91CF-04FD8A77B343@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 10 Sep 2006, at 13:52, kirsten schneide wrote:
> Dear Don
>
> Who are you (not) trying to kid {fool}
> Beside your selves:
>
> Elements in a complex system cannot "know" what is
> happening in the system as a whole. If they could, all the
> complexity would have to be present in that very element. Yet
> since the complexity is created by the relationships between
> elements (sub-systems) that is simply impossible.
First, let me say that whatever compels you to accept this position
includes a belief or an assumption that the current state of scientific
investigation has led to an agreement amongst scientists, that there
are no remaining open questions about consciousness, that we know
all about how the brain and nervous system works along with how all
of the content of consciousness arises. If that were the case, then
all the
neuroscientist would by now have packed their bags and gone home
to rest on their laurels.
In this context you might consider looking beyond those who work within
the dominant materialist, reductionist paradigm. There are other
paradigms.
And, by the way, no paradigm is ever complete. All that any one of
them claims
is to define the limits of normal science.
One other paradigm might be termed the holographic paradigm which
extends
to the general model of a participatory universe. Within this
paradigm it is possible
for the parts to "know" the whole and even perhaps to influence the
whole system.
Also, it may be worth your noticing that the argument that the
complexity is a product
of the relationship between the parts or subsystems is, itself a
product of the dominant
assumptions within that reductionist paradigm, so one could say that
it becomes
hopelessly illogical once you step outside of those defining limits.
But please keep up your defence of the realm if you think it is worth
your while.
don
>
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 20:44:11 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 11 21:35:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Holo&graphic
In-Reply-To: <626E1F27-7B6A-49D6-91CF-04FD8A77B343@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F254A6848280C5D9224B16DA8350@phx.gbl>
Dear Don
You might want to read up on
The 'working(s)' of holograms....
The smaller a piece of the whole
The more blurred the (re&constructed) image=idea=vision
If you throw around ("alternative") paradigms
Don't you want to have at least the(ir) basics 'nailed down' :-?
LovBot
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>One other paradigm might be termed the holographic paradigm which extends
>to the general model of a participatory universe. Within this paradigm it
>is possible
>for the parts to "know" the whole and even perhaps to influence the whole
>system.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 20:48:02 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 11 21:39:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <626E1F27-7B6A-49D6-91CF-04FD8A77B343@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F1954EFED7CEDC02E21C77CA8350@phx.gbl>
Dear Don, can you
Please
State below in a different word-set?
..... in its current form/version
it does not ring here
on the 'other' end
Love, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>Also, it may be worth your noticing that the argument that the complexity
>is a product
>of the relationship between the parts or subsystems is, itself a product
>of the dominant
>assumptions within that reductionist paradigm, so one could say that it
>becomes
>hopelessly illogical once you step outside of those defining limits.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=42.336065~-109.392273&style=r&lvl=4&scene=3712634&trfc=1
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 22:42:02 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 11 23:33:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Pregnant, Little bit
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D169551770@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F27A3FB293132028EE72031A8350@phx.gbl>
Dear Stulberg
A little bit pregnant?
"Free Will" that comes (ships) in Quanta?
Ah! Please!
You can have it. Pfff
LovBot
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: Fw: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] intelligence
>Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 12:13:30 -0400
>
>I say free will has its parameters. Within a certain context there is
>choice. Free will is circumscribed.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Karilen Mays
>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:24 AM
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Fw: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] intelligence
>
>
>i think eckhart tolle says something about free will being a nice
>illusion. or something like that.
>:)
>kari
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2006 7:14:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] intelligence
>
>
>
>It has always seemed that 'the way' was clear and obvious. That the only
>situations "requiring" decision, while quite infrequent, were just cases
>of temporarily [while necessarily] limited awareness, that waiting and
>watching were all that was required. "Free will" seems to be a quality
>of the whole, which is participated in to the degree that wholeness
>[health] is realized. At this point though, it is seen that "freedom"
>and "non-freedom" are exactly the same, which is entirely freeing.
>
>pat
>
>On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 05:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>writes:
>
> Hi Pat - "Free Will"? Can you please give an example of it! 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 22:47:48 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 11 23:39:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] to hate? to lie? to
In-Reply-To: <001f01c6d4fa$00e30bb0$0141153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F58BCDD315A2606399FD8FA8350@phx.gbl>
Dear Lay,
How else would a child
Survive, hm?
Thus: Constructive measures
A No-Brainer, No?
Love, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>Is anything destructive about teaching a child to hate? to lie? to ignore
>reason, ratio, etc? --
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 22:57:02 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 11 23:48:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Listener", Very good (one)
In-Reply-To: <20060910.110922.1608.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F118423D64CC9E70DBE0071A8350@phx.gbl>
What is that
"Averygoodlistener" ??
What 'does'
"It"
'do'?
Kiss, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>When I was very young and very constantly
>analytical in my conversations with friends,
>there was one friend who was more poetic
>than analytical. She was a very good listener
>and
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site.
http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Sun Sep 10 22:57:34 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Mon Sep 11 23:48:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Listener", Very good (one)
In-Reply-To: <20060910.110922.1608.6.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F36799F86B646A445036F2FA8350@phx.gbl>
What is that
"Averygoodlistener" ??
What 'does'
"It"
'do'?
Kiss, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>When I was very young and very constantly
>analytical in my conversations with friends,
>there was one friend who was more poetic
>than analytical. She was a very good listener
>and
_________________________________________________________________
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline