From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 00:01:16 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:05:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F1EA1FA25B7FB87E8AE3C5A5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <012f01c706ae$75e1b1b0$ed78480c@HOME>
What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to allow
both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix" either one
of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
> "felt up" so she can come back
> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that e-mail
> from Zoe's e-mail address?
> Did she mention anything about it at all?
> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
> I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I asked
> first.
>
>
>
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>
>>Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with your
>>reasoning! (k)
>>
>>I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be OK, right
>>K? (pat)
>>
>>Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>folk hero. (k)
>>
>>"Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>"obsession"
>>regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>and questions. (pat)
>>
>>His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>history
>>look at us? LOL (k)
>>
>>Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>
>>Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an extended
>>time.
>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special designation in
>>
>>the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's does.
>>It
>>says UK. (k)
>>
>>Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of us will
>>know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in maybe 6
>>months.
>>And what an interesting 6 months!
>>
>>Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>
>>What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be "felt
>>
>>up" so she can come back? (k)
>>
>>K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>she mention anything about it at all?
>>
>>pat
>>
>>
>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>> >
>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at
>> >whatever time,
>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for
>>a
>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>> >considering
>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>> >would
>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>> >might
>> >look undesirable.
>> >
>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>> >suggestion
>> >of "craziness").
>> >
>> >pat
>> >
>> >
>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if
>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a woman
>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her phone
>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter thing?
>> >
>> >Susan
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> >
>> >
>> >But, alright,
>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>> >
>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>> >actually misread the purpose?
>> >
>> >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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 00:04:53 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:09:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F13D4409E51FE05F1C0C602A5F50@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F13D4409E51FE05F1C0C602A5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <479B4B86-2350-4AF5-AC7A-7C8F7E109447@dc.rr.com>
Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the
world's ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of
Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
> We agree on that. k
>
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>>
>> Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we want
>> to deny
>> peter's importance to this process.
>>
>> pat
>>
>>
>> Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's
>> having one
>> hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact this
>> group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>
>>
>> It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>> number at
>> whatever time,
>> than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>> arranged for a
>> call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>> obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>> might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>> considering
>> William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>> would
>> have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>> might
>> look undesirable.
>>
>> What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>> suggestion
>> of "craziness").
>>
>> pat
>>
>>
>> How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>> whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>> silly if
>> you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a
>> woman
>> friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her
>> phone
>> number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter
>> thing?
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>
>>
>> But, alright,
>> if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>
>> William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>> actually misread the purpose?
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Nov 13 00:10:23 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:15:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <012f01c706ae$75e1b1b0$ed78480c@HOME>
References: <BAY22-F1EA1FA25B7FB87E8AE3C5A5F50@phx.gbl>
<012f01c706ae$75e1b1b0$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <1BD9BD8A-475F-4AD1-9B16-F95448DB57E1@dc.rr.com>
This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't quite
see how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting truths can
engage in any kind of understanding, unless they forget about the
subject at hand and agree not to discuss it, and just enjoy being
friends. But then is that possible? And is that the condition we want
to end up with?
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way
> to allow both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to
> "fix" either one of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
> <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself
>> to be "felt up" so she can come back
>> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send
>> that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that
>> way? I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first,
>> because I asked first.
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>
>>> Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with
>>> your
>>> reasoning! (k)
>>>
>>> I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be
>>> OK, right
>>> K? (pat)
>>>
>>> Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>> folk hero. (k)
>>>
>>> "Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>> "obsession"
>>> regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>> and questions. (pat)
>>>
>>> His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>> pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>> history
>>> look at us? LOL (k)
>>>
>>> Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>> That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>
>>> Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an
>>> extended
>>> time.
>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special
>>> designation in
>>>
>>> the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's
>>> does.
>>> It
>>> says UK. (k)
>>>
>>> Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>> which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of
>>> us will
>>> know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in
>>> maybe 6
>>> months.
>>> And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>> any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>> level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>
>>> What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to
>>> be "felt
>>>
>>> up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>
>>> K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>> to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>> she mention anything about it at all?
>>>
>>> pat
>>>
>>>
>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>> >
>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>> number at
>>> >whatever time,
>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>> arranged for
>>> a
>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>> >considering
>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>> number, he
>>> >would
>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>> trickster
>>> >might
>>> >look undesirable.
>>> >
>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>>> the
>>> >suggestion
>>> >of "craziness").
>>> >
>>> >pat
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>> telling
>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>>> silly if
>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>>> a woman
>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>>> her phone
>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>> Peter thing?
>>> >
>>> >Susan
>>> >
>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >But, alright,
>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>> >
>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>> >
>>> >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 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Nov 13 00:11:26 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:16:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F13D4409E51FE05F1C0C602A5F50@phx.gbl>
<479B4B86-2350-4AF5-AC7A-7C8F7E109447@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <013c01c706af$e1bb2410$ed78480c@HOME>
But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a really good
example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see this as a narrow
focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in this one small way,
then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger scopes.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the world's
> ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
>
> I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of
> Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
>
> don
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>
>>
>> We agree on that. k
>>
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>>>
>>> Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we want to
>>> deny
>>> peter's importance to this process.
>>>
>>> pat
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's having one
>>> hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact this
>>> group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at
>>> whatever time,
>>> than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for
>>> a
>>> call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>> obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>> might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>> considering
>>> William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>>> would
>>> have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>>> might
>>> look undesirable.
>>>
>>> What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>>> suggestion
>>> of "craziness").
>>>
>>> pat
>>>
>>>
>>> How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>>> whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if
>>> you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a
>>> woman
>>> friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her
>>> phone
>>> number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter
>>> thing?
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>
>>>
>>> But, alright,
>>> if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>
>>> William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>> actually misread the purpose?
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 00:16:20 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:21:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <013c01c706af$e1bb2410$ed78480c@HOME>
References: <BAY22-F13D4409E51FE05F1C0C602A5F50@phx.gbl>
<479B4B86-2350-4AF5-AC7A-7C8F7E109447@dc.rr.com>
<013c01c706af$e1bb2410$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BC34DBD8-BC2A-425D-9E8F-EBB87BB72FFC@dc.rr.com>
Well, I can't argue with that. But strangely, rattling around in my
head is this fragment of lyric that seems meaningful here.
Those were the days, my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we'd choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way
Something to do with Zoe maybe.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a
> really good example of what happens in the world at large? I don't
> see this as a narrow focus at all. If we can find ways to solve
> this here in this one small way, then there are ways to broaden it
> and use it in larger scopes.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>> Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the
>> world's ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
>>
>> I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront
>> of Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing
>> philosophy.
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We agree on that. k
>>>
>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>>>>
>>>> Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we
>>>> want to deny
>>>> peter's importance to this process.
>>>>
>>>> pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's
>>>> having one
>>>> hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact
>>>> this
>>>> group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>>> number at
>>>> whatever time,
>>>> than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>>> arranged for a
>>>> call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>>> obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>> might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>> considering
>>>> William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>>> number, he
>>>> would
>>>> have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>>> trickster
>>>> might
>>>> look undesirable.
>>>>
>>>> What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>>>> the
>>>> suggestion
>>>> of "craziness").
>>>>
>>>> pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>>> telling
>>>> whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>>>> silly if
>>>> you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>>>> a woman
>>>> friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>>>> her phone
>>>> number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>>> Peter thing?
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, alright,
>>>> if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>>
>>>> William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>> actually misread the purpose?
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20061112/5ce6b72e/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 00:20:39 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:25:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F1EA1FA25B7FB87E8AE3C5A5F50@phx.gbl><012f01c706ae$75e1b1b0$ed78480c@HOME>
<1BD9BD8A-475F-4AD1-9B16-F95448DB57E1@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <014501c706b1$2aecf9a0$ed78480c@HOME>
They can very easily hold onto their own (conflicting) truths and still be
friends. What they can't do is to insist that the other change their truth
or that the other is wrong or less in value because they have a different
truth. Otherwise, people would not be able to hold on to their own inner
conflicting truths. So the question is, to my way of thinking, how can a
group operate (co-operate) with conflicting truths? It can only happen if
we do no insist on the primacy of "one" truth.
Susan
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't quite see
> how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting truths can engage in
> any kind of understanding, unless they forget about the subject at hand
> and agree not to discuss it, and just enjoy being friends. But then is
> that possible? And is that the condition we want to end up with?
> don
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>> What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to
>> allow both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix"
>> either one of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>
>>
>>> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>> "felt up" so she can come back
>>> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
>>> e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
>>> I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I
>>> asked first.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with your
>>>> reasoning! (k)
>>>>
>>>> I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be OK,
>>>> right
>>>> K? (pat)
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>>> folk hero. (k)
>>>>
>>>> "Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>>> "obsession"
>>>> regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>>> and questions. (pat)
>>>>
>>>> His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>>> pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>>> history
>>>> look at us? LOL (k)
>>>>
>>>> Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>>> That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an extended
>>>> time.
>>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special designation
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>> the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's does.
>>>> It
>>>> says UK. (k)
>>>>
>>>> Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>>> which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of us
>>>> will
>>>> know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in maybe 6
>>>> months.
>>>> And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>>> any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>>> level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>>
>>>> What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>>> "felt
>>>>
>>>> up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>>
>>>> K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>>> to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>>> she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>
>>>> pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>>> >
>>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>>> number at
>>>> >whatever time,
>>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>>> arranged for
>>>> a
>>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>> >considering
>>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>>> number, he
>>>> >would
>>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>>> trickster
>>>> >might
>>>> >look undesirable.
>>>> >
>>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>>>> the
>>>> >suggestion
>>>> >of "craziness").
>>>> >
>>>> >pat
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>>> telling
>>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>>>> silly if
>>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>>>> a woman
>>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>>>> her phone
>>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>>> Peter thing?
>>>> >
>>>> >Susan
>>>> >
>>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >But, alright,
>>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>> >
>>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>>> >
>>>> >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 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Mon Nov 13 00:23:26 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:28:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F13D4409E51FE05F1C0C602A5F50@phx.gbl><479B4B86-2350-4AF5-AC7A-7C8F7E109447@dc.rr.com><013c01c706af$e1bb2410$ed78480c@HOME>
<BC34DBD8-BC2A-425D-9E8F-EBB87BB72FFC@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <015401c706b1$8ee99800$ed78480c@HOME>
Something to do with holding on to yesterdays values and yesterdays ways? Or something about youth being so certain they have "the" truth? Do we throw out (exclude) the young?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Well, I can't argue with that. But strangely, rattling around in my head is this fragment of lyric that seems meaningful here.
Those were the days, my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we'd choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way
Something to do with Zoe maybe.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a really good example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see this as a narrow focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in this one small way, then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger scopes.
Susan
----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the world's ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
We agree on that. k
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we want to deny
peter's importance to this process.
pat
Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's having one
hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact this
group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at
whatever time,
than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for a
call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
considering
William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
would
have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
might
look undesirable.
What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
suggestion
of "craziness").
pat
How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if
you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a woman
friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her phone
number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter thing?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
But, alright,
if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
actually misread the purpose?
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
_______________________________________________
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/20061112/9a902879/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 00:27:14 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:31:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <014501c706b1$2aecf9a0$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1667F88AC9FDC70B9DF050A5F50@phx.gbl>
Isn't that called "agree to disagree"? My childhood friend and I are still
close, even if she still lives in the thinkgs of the South. 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] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:20:39 -0700
>
>They can very easily hold onto their own (conflicting) truths and still be
>friends. What they can't do is to insist that the other change their truth
>or that the other is wrong or less in value because they have a different
>truth. Otherwise, people would not be able to hold on to their own inner
>conflicting truths. So the question is, to my way of thinking, how can a
>group operate (co-operate) with conflicting truths? It can only happen if
>we do no insist on the primacy of "one" truth.
>
>Susan
>.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>>This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't quite see
>>how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting truths can engage in
>>any kind of understanding, unless they forget about the subject at hand
>>and agree not to discuss it, and just enjoy being friends. But then is
>>that possible? And is that the condition we want to end up with?
>>don
>>
>>On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>>What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to
>>>allow both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix"
>>>either one of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>>>
>>>Susan
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>
>>>
>>>>K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>>>"felt up" so she can come back
>>>>P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
>>>>e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
>>>>I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I
>>>>asked first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with your
>>>>>reasoning! (k)
>>>>>
>>>>>I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be OK,
>>>>>right
>>>>>K? (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>>Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>>>>folk hero. (k)
>>>>>
>>>>>"Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>>>>"obsession"
>>>>>regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>>>>and questions. (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>>His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>>>>pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>>>>history
>>>>>look at us? LOL (k)
>>>>>
>>>>>Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>>>>That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an extended
>>>>>time.
>>>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special
>>>>>designation in
>>>>>
>>>>>the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's does.
>>>>>It
>>>>>says UK. (k)
>>>>>
>>>>>Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>>>>which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of us
>>>>>will
>>>>>know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in maybe 6
>>>>>months.
>>>>>And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>>>
>>>>>Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>>>>any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>>>>level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>>What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>>>>"felt
>>>>>
>>>>>up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>>>
>>>>>K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>>>>to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>>>>she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>pat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>>>>number at
>>>>> >whatever time,
>>>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>>>>arranged for
>>>>>a
>>>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>>> >considering
>>>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>>>>number, he
>>>>> >would
>>>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>>>>trickster
>>>>> >might
>>>>> >look undesirable.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>>>>>the
>>>>> >suggestion
>>>>> >of "craziness").
>>>>> >
>>>>> >pat
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>>>>telling
>>>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>>>>>silly if
>>>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>>>>>a woman
>>>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>>>>>her phone
>>>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>>>>Peter thing?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Susan
>>>>> >
>>>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >But, alright,
>>>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>>> >
>>>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >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 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
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 00:29:09 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:33:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <015401c706b1$8ee99800$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F123BC868219CC6950F8171A5F50@phx.gbl>
Wouldn't it be a better world if youth and age could dialog? 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] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:23:26 -0700
>
>Something to do with holding on to yesterdays values and yesterdays ways?
>Or something about youth being so certain they have "the" truth? Do we
>throw out (exclude) the young?
>
>Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
> Well, I can't argue with that. But strangely, rattling around in my head
>is this fragment of lyric that seems meaningful here.
>
>
> Those were the days, my friend
> We thought they'd never end
> We'd sing and dance forever and a day
> We'd live the life we'd choose
> We'd fight and never lose
> For we were young and sure to have our way
>
>
> Something to do with Zoe maybe.
>
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>
> But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a
>really good example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see
>this as a narrow focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in
>this one small way, then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger
>scopes.
>
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>
>
> Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the
>world's ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
>
>
> I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of
>Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
>
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We agree on that. k
>
>
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>
>
> Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we
>want to deny
> peter's importance to this process.
>
>
> pat
>
>
>
>
> Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's
>having one
> hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact
>this
> group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>
>
> It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>number at
> whatever time,
> than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>arranged for a
> call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that
>not
> obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
> might seem more difficult with William than with Don -
>especially
> considering
> William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>number, he
> would
> have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>trickster
> might
> look undesirable.
>
>
> What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>the
> suggestion
> of "craziness").
>
>
> pat
>
>
>
>
> How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>telling
> whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>silly if
> you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>a woman
> friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>her phone
> number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>Peter thing?
>
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>
>
> But, alright,
> if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>
>
> William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> actually misread the purpose?
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 00:41:16 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:45:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <013c01c706af$e1bb2410$ed78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F636C73B63B0CE7844A6FFA5F50@phx.gbl>
S: Isn't this a really good example of what happens in the world at large?
K: Didn't i read something in The Essential Bohm on that? I think he agreed
with you - or the other way around. 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] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:11:26 -0700
>
>But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a really
>good example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see this as a
>narrow focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in this one
>small way, then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger scopes.
>
>Susan
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>>Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the world's
>>ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
>>
>>I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of
>>Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
>>
>>don
>>
>>
>>On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>We agree on that. k
>>>
>>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>>>>
>>>>Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we want to
>>>>deny
>>>>peter's importance to this process.
>>>>
>>>>pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's having one
>>>>hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact this
>>>>group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>>>>
>>>>Susan
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at
>>>>whatever time,
>>>>than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for
>>>>a
>>>>call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>>>obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>>might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>>considering
>>>>William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>>>>would
>>>>have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>>>>might
>>>>look undesirable.
>>>>
>>>>What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>>>>suggestion
>>>>of "craziness").
>>>>
>>>>pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>>>>whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if
>>>>you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a woman
>>>>friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her phone
>>>>number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter thing?
>>>>
>>>>Susan
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But, alright,
>>>>if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>>phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>>
>>>>William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>>find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>>number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>>actually misread the purpose?
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 Mon Nov 13 00:47:01 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 01:51:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <1BD9BD8A-475F-4AD1-9B16-F95448DB57E1@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F44D2A390632D28B3D9CBBA5F50@phx.gbl>
just enjoy being friends. - But then is that possible? I've been able to
do that.
And is that the condition we want to end up with? - well, didn't Bohm say
that our focus was to watch the process of thought, not come to conclusions?
Not proselytizing would come under that category. He said, as i recall,
that if someone came to an understanding (correct word?), as a side effect,
that was good.
Sometimes, i think we just have to let a person come to his/her own
conclusions in their own time, but not let it hold back the group's deeping
understanding. Actually, even that can deepen group understanding on the
nature of change itself. Can be frustrating, tho. 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] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:10:23 -0800
>
>This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't quite see
>how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting truths can engage in any
>kind of understanding, unless they forget about the subject at hand and
>agree not to discuss it, and just enjoy being friends. But then is that
>possible? And is that the condition we want to end up with?
>don
>
>On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>>What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to
>>allow both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix"
>>either one of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>
>>
>>>K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>>"felt up" so she can come back
>>>P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
>>>e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>>K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
>>>I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I asked
>>>first.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>>
>>>>Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with your
>>>>reasoning! (k)
>>>>
>>>>I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be OK,
>>>>right
>>>>K? (pat)
>>>>
>>>>Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>>>folk hero. (k)
>>>>
>>>>"Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>>>"obsession"
>>>>regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>>>and questions. (pat)
>>>>
>>>>His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>>>pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>>>history
>>>>look at us? LOL (k)
>>>>
>>>>Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>>>That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an extended
>>>>time.
>>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special designation
>>>>in
>>>>
>>>>the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's does.
>>>>It
>>>>says UK. (k)
>>>>
>>>>Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>>>which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of us
>>>>will
>>>>know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in maybe 6
>>>>months.
>>>>And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>>
>>>>Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>>>any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>>>level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>>
>>>>What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>>>>"felt
>>>>
>>>>up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>>
>>>>K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>>>to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>>>she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>
>>>>pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>>> >
>>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number
>>>>at
>>>> >whatever time,
>>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged
>>>>for
>>>>a
>>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>> >considering
>>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>>>> >would
>>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>>>> >might
>>>> >look undesirable.
>>>> >
>>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>>>> >suggestion
>>>> >of "craziness").
>>>> >
>>>> >pat
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly
>>>>if
>>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a
>>>>woman
>>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her
>>>>phone
>>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter
>>>>thing?
>>>> >
>>>> >Susan
>>>> >
>>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >But, alright,
>>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>> >
>>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>>> >
>>>> >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 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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 00:59:04 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:03:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <20061112.170145.2144.14.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
P: And Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless during his first
incarnation (or was it the second? Or both?).
K: That's something to consider. Should a moderator have considered that
flaming, or should that kind of conversation be taken off the list, just
like the moderator asked Kris and me to take ours off the list? Or what
other options would we have? k
>In fact, it seems that if the "Alpha males" could get their relationships
>figured out we could combine some of these smaller groups and have getting
>requisite numbers for the sustained experiment made easier..
Maybe i've been online too long, but what's coming up in my mind as I read
is that all these alpha male pairs - including maybe Peter and William - are
competing for power over the herd? I must be too tired to understand,
because that's certainly not the purpose of Bohm. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:01:43 -0500
>
>And William might be a "Fool me twice, shame on me" type person.
>
>To consider as well is what can be perceived in an archetypal
>alpha male/alpha male type confrontation. As much "trouble"
>as Peter gives everyone, including Don, Don to him seems to
>be not much more qualitatively, than an inclusion, one of the people
>who he likes to attack, and who is easier to attack both because
>he posts so much and because he is an authority figure.
>
>But William? Peter's first post as Kirsten mentioned
>that "William was obviously the smartest one on the list,"
>and he talked about how much he LOVED Alpha males.
>
>And Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless
>during his first incarnation (or was it the second? Or both?).
>For whatever reason, William was silent for a good long time after
>Peter was ousted.
>
>I was very excited about a year ago when there were
>two (and coincidentally, even 3) "alpha males" in one of our
>local groups. They both managed to stay to the end. NEVER such
>electricity! It was otherworldly! I PRAYED for a month that
>they would be back at the same time next month. This had been
>a first. Many times I have seen such twosomes in a dialogue setting
>where they only way the two could stay at the meeting place was by doing
>what
>Einstein and Bohr did at that famous gathering Bohm loved to talk about.
>Stay in separate corners. But they would NEVER agree to meet again. They
>have, quite consistently, gone off to start their own groups (I attend
>many of these groups, started by these "alpha males") and many are on
>each others mailing lists but they never show up at the "other's"
>dialogue groups. And, incidentally, my PRAYING
>did not work.
>
>In fact, it seems that if the "Alpha males" could get their relationships
>figured out
>we could combine some of these smaller groups and have getting requisite
>numbers for the sustained experiment made easier..
>
>It's expecting a lot though. Seems biologically based. But if it surfaced
>as a phenomenon and an issue, that alone would be refreshing, and a
>beginning.
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 01:09:50 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:14:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F44D2A390632D28B3D9CBBA5F50@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F44D2A390632D28B3D9CBBA5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <EC712CA4-8AAF-475A-8FEB-F3F88976CB48@dc.rr.com>
I guess there are various kinds or categories of friendship. I too
have friends who I don't share a lot of meanings with, but there is
always a sense of something incomplete in those relationships. Mainly
it is the fact that there is no cultural precedent for inquiring
together. My wife and I often disagree, but we are usually able,
sometimes it takes a long while, to suspend them and talk about
them. Bohm's idea was that if we can suspend our disagreements then
it is possible for there to unfold a new set of meanings that can
transcend the two. I have seen that happen but not all that often.
Often, this sort of transcendence has a character where we don't even
notice that our point of view has changed. That's the curious part.
For me, the question is, What do we mean by truth? Are there
different levels of truth? It seems to me that there are, so probably
its a linguistic difficulty. But at its worst its when our notions of
truth take on the character of absolute necessity.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> just enjoy being friends. - But then is that possible? I've been
> able to do that.
>
> And is that the condition we want to end up with? - well, didn't
> Bohm say that our focus was to watch the process of thought, not
> come to conclusions? Not proselytizing would come under that
> category. He said, as i recall, that if someone came to an
> understanding (correct word?), as a side effect, that was good.
>
> Sometimes, i think we just have to let a person come to his/her own
> conclusions in their own time, but not let it hold back the group's
> deeping understanding. Actually, even that can deepen group
> understanding on the nature of change itself. Can be frustrating,
> tho. 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] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:10:23 -0800
>>
>> This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't
>> quite see how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting
>> truths can engage in any kind of understanding, unless they
>> forget about the subject at hand and agree not to discuss it, and
>> just enjoy being friends. But then is that possible? And is that
>> the condition we want to end up with?
>> don
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>> What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a
>>> way to allow both people to have their own "truth's" without
>>> needing to "fix" either one of them by having them adopt our
>>> "truth:?
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
>>> <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>
>>>
>>>> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow
>>>> herself to be "felt up" so she can come back
>>>> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send
>>>> that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>>> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question
>>>> that way? I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you
>>>> first, because I asked first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up
>>>>> with your
>>>>> reasoning! (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to
>>>>> be OK, right
>>>>> K? (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>>>> folk hero. (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>>>> "obsession"
>>>>> regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>>>> and questions. (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>>>> pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How
>>>>> will
>>>>> history
>>>>> look at us? LOL (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>>>> That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an
>>>>> extended
>>>>> time.
>>>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special
>>>>> designation in
>>>>>
>>>>> the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country?
>>>>> Don's does.
>>>>> It
>>>>> says UK. (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>>>> which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some
>>>>> of us will
>>>>> know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in
>>>>> maybe 6
>>>>> months.
>>>>> And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>>>> any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>>>> level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself
>>>>> to be "felt
>>>>>
>>>>> up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>>>> to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>>>> she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> pat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>>>> number at
>>>>> >whatever time,
>>>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>>>> arranged for
>>>>> a
>>>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is
>>>>> that not
>>>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>>> >considering
>>>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>>>> number, he
>>>>> >would
>>>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>>>> trickster
>>>>> >might
>>>>> >look undesirable.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even
>>>>> in the
>>>>> >suggestion
>>>>> >of "craziness").
>>>>> >
>>>>> >pat
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>>>> telling
>>>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is
>>>>> really silly if
>>>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily
>>>>> get a woman
>>>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she
>>>>> sends her phone
>>>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>>>> Peter thing?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Susan
>>>>> >
>>>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >But, alright,
>>>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>>> >
>>>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >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 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https://
> voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 01:09:56 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:14:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <001001c706b8$0df4e1d0$ae77480c@HOME>
And yet, we have them. What do you do, exclude the alpha males?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> P: And Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless during his
> first incarnation (or was it the second? Or both?).
> K: That's something to consider. Should a moderator have considered that
> flaming, or should that kind of conversation be taken off the list, just
> like the moderator asked Kris and me to take ours off the list? Or what
> other options would we have? k
>
>>In fact, it seems that if the "Alpha males" could get their relationships
>>figured out we could combine some of these smaller groups and have getting
>>requisite numbers for the sustained experiment made easier..
> Maybe i've been online too long, but what's coming up in my mind as I read
> is that all these alpha male pairs - including maybe Peter and William -
> are competing for power over the herd? I must be too tired to understand,
> because that's certainly not the purpose of Bohm. k
>
>
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:01:43 -0500
>>
>>And William might be a "Fool me twice, shame on me" type person.
>>
>>To consider as well is what can be perceived in an archetypal
>>alpha male/alpha male type confrontation. As much "trouble"
>>as Peter gives everyone, including Don, Don to him seems to
>>be not much more qualitatively, than an inclusion, one of the people
>>who he likes to attack, and who is easier to attack both because
>>he posts so much and because he is an authority figure.
>>
>>But William? Peter's first post as Kirsten mentioned
>>that "William was obviously the smartest one on the list,"
>>and he talked about how much he LOVED Alpha males.
>>
>>And Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless
>>during his first incarnation (or was it the second? Or both?).
>>For whatever reason, William was silent for a good long time after
>>Peter was ousted.
>>
>>I was very excited about a year ago when there were
>>two (and coincidentally, even 3) "alpha males" in one of our
>>local groups. They both managed to stay to the end. NEVER such
>>electricity! It was otherworldly! I PRAYED for a month that
>>they would be back at the same time next month. This had been
>>a first. Many times I have seen such twosomes in a dialogue setting
>>where they only way the two could stay at the meeting place was by doing
>>what
>>Einstein and Bohr did at that famous gathering Bohm loved to talk about.
>>Stay in separate corners. But they would NEVER agree to meet again. They
>>have, quite consistently, gone off to start their own groups (I attend
>>many of these groups, started by these "alpha males") and many are on
>>each others mailing lists but they never show up at the "other's"
>>dialogue groups. And, incidentally, my PRAYING
>>did not work.
>>
>>In fact, it seems that if the "Alpha males" could get their relationships
>>figured out
>>we could combine some of these smaller groups and have getting requisite
>>numbers for the sustained experiment made easier..
>>
>>It's expecting a lot though. Seems biologically based. But if it surfaced
>>as a phenomenon and an issue, that alone would be refreshing, and a
>>beginning.
>>
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 01:28:31 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:33:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <937B8786-9CD3-4BF7-A075-7B7FDEDD09DC@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> I must be too tired to understand, because that's certainly not
> the purpose of Bohm. k
Not necessarily. This may be something worth looking at. It was
certainly Bohm's intent but that doesn't mean that this kind of thing
doesn't slip in.
I know that I have been guilty of pulling rank in the sense that
having had a unique access to Bohm, at least amongst those who are
active participants on this list, I can try to set the record
straight when I think somebody has got it wrong. But then, what
makes me
think that I have the truth?
Bohm, too, often made the remark that whatever he said was a proposal
for further inquiry. It was never the truth, and certainly not a
commandment. Only once did I hear him claim that something was
absolutely true, or as near to an absolute truth as you can get.
Here it is, with a little context.
PeterGarrett ...the fact that it's one system (everyone in the
group) means that we are in direct participation.
DonFactor Whether we know it or not.
PG ... within the whole system all the time, and whether one
becomes proprioceptive in a world issue apparently, or a personal
issue apparently, seems to me to be the same thing. It's displayed
in different ways.
DF Do we really believe this ?
David Bohm It's true. This is as absolute a truth I think as
you'll ever find.
DF Do we behave as if it's?
DB No we don't, but that's what we have to get into.
PG That's why it's important to talk about.
DB I think that this is a very clear truth. Why don't we pay more
attention to it? That's the question. There's an incoherence we have
to look at. Either somebody can come along and say, ?That's a lot of
nonsense?, but I don't see anybody ever doing that. We are one
body... and I'm trying to say we've gone a long way in seeing how
different [the dialogue] is from the dinner table conversation.
???
I guess this is the problem of truth? We all believe in our own
truth. Some people attribute this to God and others simply to their own
perceptive skills. You may notice that I have changed the subject of
this thread. Anyone can change it back and just continue on with
talking about Zoe, Peter and William as before. But I think that
maybe this is another way toward understanding the same problem.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/e255b8bf/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 01:30:30 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:35:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <001001c706b8$0df4e1d0$ae77480c@HOME>
References: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
<001001c706b8$0df4e1d0$ae77480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <E497A040-5252-43BD-A315-27FBA7673A95@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 12, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> And yet, we have them. What do you do, exclude the alpha males?
>
> Susan
> But don't you know, we grow on trees.
\
don
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 01:31:52 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:36:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F44D2A390632D28B3D9CBBA5F50@phx.gbl>
<EC712CA4-8AAF-475A-8FEB-F3F88976CB48@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c706bb$1de338f0$ae77480c@HOME>
I would say what I have described is the suspension of the absolute
necessity of a truth. What Pat is talking about with two alpha males is
simply two men who believe in the necessity that one of their truths be held
primary by both of them. And I know Bohm hoped that we could go beyond
simply agreeing to disagree as Kathy says, but I would settle for that to
begin with. You have to start somewhere.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>I guess there are various kinds or categories of friendship. I too have
>friends who I don't share a lot of meanings with, but there is always a
>sense of something incomplete in those relationships. Mainly it is the
>fact that there is no cultural precedent for inquiring together. My wife
>and I often disagree, but we are usually able, sometimes it takes a long
>while, to suspend them and talk about them. Bohm's idea was that if we
>can suspend our disagreements then it is possible for there to unfold a
>new set of meanings that can transcend the two. I have seen that happen
>but not all that often. Often, this sort of transcendence has a character
>where we don't even notice that our point of view has changed. That's the
>curious part.
>
> For me, the question is, What do we mean by truth? Are there different
> levels of truth? It seems to me that there are, so probably its a
> linguistic difficulty. But at its worst its when our notions of truth
> take on the character of absolute necessity.
>
> don
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> just enjoy being friends. - But then is that possible? I've been able
>> to do that.
>>
>> And is that the condition we want to end up with? - well, didn't Bohm
>> say that our focus was to watch the process of thought, not come to
>> conclusions? Not proselytizing would come under that category. He
>> said, as i recall, that if someone came to an understanding (correct
>> word?), as a side effect, that was good.
>>
>> Sometimes, i think we just have to let a person come to his/her own
>> conclusions in their own time, but not let it hold back the group's
>> deeping understanding. Actually, even that can deepen group
>> understanding on the nature of change itself. Can be frustrating, tho.
>> 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] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:10:23 -0800
>>>
>>> This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't quite
>>> see how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting truths can
>>> engage in any kind of understanding, unless they forget about the
>>> subject at hand and agree not to discuss it, and just enjoy being
>>> friends. But then is that possible? And is that the condition we want
>>> to end up with?
>>> don
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>
>>>> What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to
>>>> allow both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to
>>>> "fix" either one of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
>>>> <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to
>>>>> be "felt up" so she can come back
>>>>> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
>>>>> e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that
>>>>> way? I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first,
>>>>> because I asked first.
>>>>>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 01:34:42 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:39:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe Zoe Zoe
Message-ID: <BAY22-F52DF803F4EB84F8F69AD3A5F40@phx.gbl>
Zoe and I talked extensively last night after she received Don’s email. Let
me share some of that conversation with you. Edited, so it won’t be too
long, but nothing juicy taken out. This picks up at the point she got Don's
email. Also, the image is from her. Not offensive.
Z: Kay - I do not want to be a part of that. I hope you can see my
point, Kay, even tho we seem to disagree here... May those people run their
'dialogue'-joint, do (don't do) as they please. There is enough, more than
enough, of that rubbish in this world; already. I am not a masochist, or,
since, as I suspect, we are all somehow on some level/s masochist, may I
better say: I am not that much one, Kay, friend. --- Zoe
K: Yes, Zoe. I can see it. But I’m in a bind for helping you further
because my point was in large part based on the fact that you’re not Peter,
and now it looks to them like you are – like you’re pleading the 5th.
Z: Kay - I see your point. Even tho i think it is rather unhealthy to argue
something that is twisted, sick, to begin with. But this is what i propose:
I will send a letter like the following to Don. Your feedback is not just
welcome, but appreciated --- Zoe
Don - I am not inclined to provide you with my phone-number. But, as it
appears, you want to hear my voice so badly, let's us do it this way: you
give me your number, and I shall call you at my convenience. But do not
expect any lengthy chat or conversation, since all I have to say and want
to say is meant for the group, not some old men feeling they need to sniff
up on me via phone. What a profoundly embarrassing and shameful situation,
I at least feel that way. But, alright, if that is what you desire: Send
me your phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe
There ensued another lengthy conversation between us on the “sniffing up”
imagery
deafening the recipient to the content of the words. This morning, I
received:
Kay - No make-up, Kay. I pretty much just sent what I had drafted last
night. I also sent that image. If I can not express my feelings, my
thoughts, my hopes, my vision .... --- I do not wish to be part of such a
club/cult(ure). As simple as that. I do not want to, and I will not fight to
be part of people that identify/treat me as a disease of their "health".
This whole thinkg is sick, but maybe I am alone with that feeling, that
sensing, that percept. Thanks Kay --- Zoe
On asking if I could share with the group some of our dialog:
Kay – I am not your editor, nor do I want to be. Add to that: nor do I want
to be editor to anybody. Anybody can and should speak. For 'themselves',
meaning: With their voice. Voices. Make-up-off. Go ahead and post. Thinkgs
are there to be looked at, gotten into, talked about --- No matter what kind
of thinkg. There is not much worse than looking the other way, to repress
“thinkgs” that are clearly “out” there. If we like them, or not. The
courage to do so, to engage, is, for me, one of the beauties of dialogue.
To SHARE things/thinks. I believe in the power of dialogue, not, as they
calld it once at TT: diablock. --- Zoe
She did ask me to share this quote from Chomsky with you:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum ‹ even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives
people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the
presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the
range of the debate.
Noam Chomsky
As you see, we have no difficulty, and it was so before she was booted. But
then, I never had problems with Kris, either. I wonder how many of us
actually did - or was this really an "alpha male" thing" k
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1973clasped hands.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23289 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/27d70efa/1973claspedhands.jpg
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 01:36:17 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:40:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
References: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
<937B8786-9CD3-4BF7-A075-7B7FDEDD09DC@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <002c01c706bb$bc2ceba0$ae77480c@HOME>
Well, what you seem to be saying about truth to me is that everyone believes their truth is absolute or primary and therefore, everyone else "should" adopt their truth. That's the problem with truth. We don't know how to accept and live with multiple truths about the same thing.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
I must be too tired to understand, because that's certainly not the purpose of Bohm. k
Not necessarily. This may be something worth looking at. It was certainly Bohm's intent but that doesn't mean that this kind of thing doesn't slip in.
I know that I have been guilty of pulling rank in the sense that having had a unique access to Bohm, at least amongst those who are
active participants on this list, I can try to set the record straight when I think somebody has got it wrong. But then, what makes me
think that I have the truth?
Bohm, too, often made the remark that whatever he said was a proposal for further inquiry. It was never the truth, and certainly not a
commandment. Only once did I hear him claim that something was absolutely true, or as near to an absolute truth as you can get.
Here it is, with a little context.
PeterGarrett ...the fact that it's one system (everyone in the group) means that we are in direct participation.
DonFactor Whether we know it or not.
PG ... within the whole system all the time, and whether one becomes proprioceptive in a world issue apparently, or a personal issue apparently, seems to me to be the same thing. It's displayed in different ways.
DF Do we really believe this ?
David Bohm It's true. This is as absolute a truth I think as you'll ever find.
DF Do we behave as if it's?
DB No we don't, but that's what we have to get into.
PG That's why it's important to talk about.
DB I think that this is a very clear truth. Why don't we pay more attention to it? That's the question. There's an incoherence we have to look at. Either somebody can come along and say, ?That's a lot of nonsense?, but I don't see anybody ever doing that. We are one body... and I'm trying to say we've gone a long way in seeing how different [the dialogue] is from the dinner table conversation.
???
I guess this is the problem of truth? We all believe in our own truth. Some people attribute this to God and others simply to their own
perceptive skills. You may notice that I have changed the subject of this thread. Anyone can change it back and just continue on with
talking about Zoe, Peter and William as before. But I think that maybe this is another way toward understanding the same problem.
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/c1bd1d11/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 01:41:40 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:46:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe Zoe Zoe
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1974C1995ABD3BE80D1304A5F40@phx.gbl>
Zoe and I spoke extensively last night after she received Don’s email. Let
me share some of that conversation with you. Edited, so it won’t be too
long, but nothing juicy taken out. This picks up upon where she has just
received Don’s email.
Z: Kay - I do not want to be a part of that. I hope you can see my
point, Kay, even tho we seem to disagree here... May those people run their
'dialogue'-joint, do (don't do) as they please. There is enough, more than
enough, of that rubbish in this world; already. I am not a masochist, or,
since, as I suspect, we are all somehow on some level/s masochist, may I
better say: I am not that much one, Kay, friend. --- Zoe
K: Yes, Zoe. I can see it. But I’m in a bind for helping you further
because my point was in large part based on the fact that you’re not Peter,
and now it looks to them like you are – like you’re pleading the 5th.
Z: Kay - I see your point. Even tho i think it is rather unhealthy to argue
something that is twisted, sick, to begin with. But this is what i propose:
I will send a letter like the following to Don. Your feedback is not just
welcome, but appreciated --- Zoe
Don - I am not inclined to provide you with my phone-number. But, as it
appears, you want to hear my voice so badly, let's us do it this way: you
give me your number, and I shall call you at my convenience. But do not
expect any lengthy chat or conversation, since all I have to say and want
to say is meant for the group, not some old men feeling they need to sniff
up on me via phone. What a profoundly embarrassing and shameful situation,
I at least feel that way. But, alright, if that is what you desire: Send
me your phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe
There ensued another lengthy conversation between us on the “sniffing up”
imagery
deafening the recipient to the content of the words. This morning, I
received:
Kay - No make-up, Kay. I pretty much just sent what I had drafted last
night. I also sent that image. If I can not express my feelings, my
thoughts, my hopes, my vision .... --- I do not wish to be part of such a
club/cult(ure). As simple as that. I do not want to, and I will not fight to
be part of people that identify/treat me as a disease of their "health".
This whole thinkg is sick, but maybe I am alone with that feeling, that
sensing, that percept. Thanks Kay --- Zoe
On asking if I could share with the group some of our dialog:
Kay – I am not your editor, nor do I want to be. Add to that: nor do I want
to be editor to anybody. Anybody can and should speak. For 'themselves',
meaning: With their voice. Voices. Make-up-off. Go ahead and post. Thinkgs
are there to be looked at, gotten into, talked about --- No matter what kind
of thinkg. There is not much worse than looking the other way, to repress
“thinkgs” that are clearly “out” there. If we like them, or not. The
courage to do so, to engage, is, for me, one of the beauties of dialogue.
To SHARE things/thinks. I believe in the power of dialogue, not, as they
calld it once at TT: diablock. --- Zoe
She did request I include this quote from Chomsky:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum ‹ even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives
people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the
presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the
range of the debate.
Noam Chomsky
My relationship with her has always been on this plane.
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 01:43:05 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:47:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe Zoe Zoe
References: <BAY22-F52DF803F4EB84F8F69AD3A5F40@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <004701c706bc$afe97740$ae77480c@HOME>
I like Zoe's metaphor of "no make-up". That's pretty much my style also.
But when it comes to Peter, any of us who have been through his incarnations
can tell you that yes, he can be very charming and interesting at times.
But only when he feels things are going his way. And I can assure that Kris
is Peter. I have no doubts on that one.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:34 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe Zoe Zoe
> Zoe and I talked extensively last night after she received Don's email.
> Let
> me share some of that conversation with you. Edited, so it won't be too
> long, but nothing juicy taken out. This picks up at the point she got
> Don's
> email. Also, the image is from her. Not offensive.
>
> Z: Kay - I do not want to be a part of that. I hope you can see my
> point, Kay, even tho we seem to disagree here... May those people run
> their
> 'dialogue'-joint, do (don't do) as they please. There is enough, more than
> enough, of that rubbish in this world; already. I am not a masochist, or,
> since, as I suspect, we are all somehow on some level/s masochist, may I
> better say: I am not that much one, Kay, friend. --- Zoe
>
> K: Yes, Zoe. I can see it. But I'm in a bind for helping you further
> because my point was in large part based on the fact that you're not
> Peter,
> and now it looks to them like you are - like you're pleading the 5th.
>
> Z: Kay - I see your point. Even tho i think it is rather unhealthy to
> argue
> something that is twisted, sick, to begin with. But this is what i
> propose:
> I will send a letter like the following to Don. Your feedback is not just
> welcome, but appreciated --- Zoe
>
> Don - I am not inclined to provide you with my phone-number. But, as it
> appears, you want to hear my voice so badly, let's us do it this way: you
> give me your number, and I shall call you at my convenience. But do not
> expect any lengthy chat or conversation, since all I have to say and want
> to say is meant for the group, not some old men feeling they need to sniff
> up on me via phone. What a profoundly embarrassing and shameful situation,
> I at least feel that way. But, alright, if that is what you desire: Send
> me your phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe
>
> There ensued another lengthy conversation between us on the "sniffing up"
> imagery
> deafening the recipient to the content of the words. This morning, I
> received:
>
> Kay - No make-up, Kay. I pretty much just sent what I had drafted last
> night. I also sent that image. If I can not express my feelings, my
> thoughts, my hopes, my vision .... --- I do not wish to be part of such a
> club/cult(ure). As simple as that. I do not want to, and I will not fight
> to
> be part of people that identify/treat me as a disease of their "health".
> This whole thinkg is sick, but maybe I am alone with that feeling, that
> sensing, that percept. Thanks Kay --- Zoe
>
> On asking if I could share with the group some of our dialog:
>
> Kay - I am not your editor, nor do I want to be. Add to that: nor do I
> want
> to be editor to anybody. Anybody can and should speak. For 'themselves',
> meaning: With their voice. Voices. Make-up-off. Go ahead and post. Thinkgs
> are there to be looked at, gotten into, talked about --- No matter what
> kind
> of thinkg. There is not much worse than looking the other way, to repress
> "thinkgs" that are clearly "out" there. If we like them, or not. The
> courage to do so, to engage, is, for me, one of the beauties of dialogue.
> To SHARE things/thinks. I believe in the power of dialogue, not, as they
> calld it once at TT: diablock. --- Zoe
>
> She did ask me to share this quote from Chomsky with you:
>
> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
> spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
> spectrum < even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That
> gives
> people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time
> the
> presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on
> the
> range of the debate.
>
> Noam Chomsky
>
> As you see, we have no difficulty, and it was so before she was booted.
> But
> then, I never had problems with Kris, either. I wonder how many of us
> actually did - or was this really an "alpha male" thing" k
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 01:44:24 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 02:49:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] oops!
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1C6B7922192BACFED32B9A5F40@phx.gbl>
Sorry about the double post. My computer is acting up. I hate Hotmail! If
i had know when I switched providers what I know now, I would have used
Yahoo. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! k
_________________________________________________________________
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 Mon Nov 13 01:58:34 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 03:03:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <20061112.170145.2144.14.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F186E04F3A4D728B2966B29A5F40@phx.gbl>
P: Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless
K: How "merciless", how "nasty"? Could you give some examples? I prefer
to "see" for myself, and not just to be told.
My teacher training included showing us how to write the content of
specifics - incident reports, they were called - because general terms
mostly provide opinion, not fact. Just like Don posted that almost
unintelligible contribution by Kris to let us see for ourselves what he
meant. It's invaluable for developing procedural guidelines. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:01:43 -0500
>
>And William might be a "Fool me twice, shame on me" type person.
>
>To consider as well is what can be perceived in an archetypal
>alpha male/alpha male type confrontation. As much "trouble"
>as Peter gives everyone, including Don, Don to him seems to
>be not much more qualitatively, than an inclusion, one of the people
>who he likes to attack, and who is easier to attack both because
>he posts so much and because he is an authority figure.
>
>But William? Peter's first post as Kirsten mentioned
>that "William was obviously the smartest one on the list,"
>and he talked about how much he LOVED Alpha males.
>
>And Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless
>during his first incarnation (or was it the second? Or both?).
>For whatever reason, William was silent for a good long time after
>Peter was ousted.
>
>I was very excited about a year ago when there were
>two (and coincidentally, even 3) "alpha males" in one of our
>local groups. They both managed to stay to the end. NEVER such
>electricity! It was otherworldly! I PRAYED for a month that
>they would be back at the same time next month. This had been
>a first. Many times I have seen such twosomes in a dialogue setting
>where they only way the two could stay at the meeting place was by doing
>what
>Einstein and Bohr did at that famous gathering Bohm loved to talk about.
>Stay in separate corners. But they would NEVER agree to meet again. They
>have, quite consistently, gone off to start their own groups (I attend
>many of these groups, started by these "alpha males") and many are on
>each others mailing lists but they never show up at the "other's"
>dialogue groups. And, incidentally, my PRAYING
>did not work.
>
>In fact, it seems that if the "Alpha males" could get their relationships
>figured out
>we could combine some of these smaller groups and have getting requisite
>numbers for the sustained experiment made easier..
>
>It's expecting a lot though. Seems biologically based. But if it surfaced
>as a phenomenon and an issue, that alone would be refreshing, and a
>beginning.
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 02:18:43 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 03:23:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
In-Reply-To: <002c01c706bb$bc2ceba0$ae77480c@HOME>
References: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
<937B8786-9CD3-4BF7-A075-7B7FDEDD09DC@dc.rr.com>
<002c01c706bb$bc2ceba0$ae77480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <685871DE-2CCF-4778-8346-634A72B63027@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 12, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> Well, what you seem to be saying about truth to me is that everyone
> believes their truth is absolute or primary and therefore, everyone
> else "should" adopt their truth. That's the problem with truth.
> We don't know how to accept and live with multiple truths about the
> same thing.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> I must be too tired to understand, because that's certainly not
>> the purpose of Bohm. k
>
> Not necessarily. This may be something worth looking at. It was
> certainly Bohm's intent but that doesn't mean that this kind of
> thing doesn't slip in.
>
> I know that I have been guilty of pulling rank in the sense that
> having had a unique access to Bohm, at least amongst those who are
> active participants on this list, I can try to set the record
> straight when I think somebody has got it wrong. But then, what
> makes me
> think that I have the truth?
>
> Bohm, too, often made the remark that whatever he said was a
> proposal for further inquiry. It was never the truth, and certainly
> not a
> commandment. Only once did I hear him claim that something was
> absolutely true, or as near to an absolute truth as you can get.
>
> Here it is, with a little context.
>
> PeterGarrett ...the fact that it's one system (everyone in the
> group) means that we are in direct participation.
>
> DonFactor Whether we know it or not.
>
> PG ... within the whole system all the time, and whether one
> becomes proprioceptive in a world issue apparently, or a personal
> issue apparently, seems to me to be the same thing. It's displayed
> in different ways.
>
> DF Do we really believe this ?
>
> David Bohm It's true. This is as absolute a truth I think as
> you'll ever find.
>
> DF Do we behave as if it's?
>
> DB No we don't, but that's what we have to get into.
>
> PG That's why it's important to talk about.
>
> DB I think that this is a very clear truth. Why don't we pay
> more attention to it? That's the question. There's an incoherence
> we have to look at. Either somebody can come along and say, ?That's
> a lot of nonsense?, but I don't see anybody ever doing that. We are
> one body... and I'm trying to say we've gone a long way in seeing
> how different [the dialogue] is from the dinner table conversation.
>
> ???
>
>
> I guess this is the problem of truth? We all believe in our own
> truth. Some people attribute this to God and others simply to their
> own
> perceptive skills. You may notice that I have changed the subject
> of this thread. Anyone can change it back and just continue on with
> talking about Zoe, Peter and William as before. But I think that
> maybe this is another way toward understanding the same problem.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/5ab9e925/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 02:27:42 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 03:32:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
In-Reply-To: <002c01c706bb$bc2ceba0$ae77480c@HOME>
References: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl>
<937B8786-9CD3-4BF7-A075-7B7FDEDD09DC@dc.rr.com>
<002c01c706bb$bc2ceba0$ae77480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <F1EF0AFC-41A4-44DE-A2E5-DEDCAA831886@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 12, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> We don't know how to accept and live with multiple truths about the
> same thing.
A moment ago I think i pushed the send button and that's the truth.
The above sentence of yours appears to contradict what you have said
before about truth.
Do you think that there is such a creature as a truth that is not
absolute?
I guess you are not talking about truth in the sense of saying
something like, "I am sitting here typing at the keyboard."
It does seem to me that in the context of deliberations here the use
of the word truth, means absolutely true, unless proven
false. Or something like that.
All this also made me wonder why Pilate, in the New Testament is
given the line, "What is truth?" It must mean that such
questions were current even back in those days in the far out
provinces of Rome. And the Roman's of course were the
bad guys, But has some of that sort of assumption stuck in our
culture? What do you think? Do we need to believe that
we have the truth in order to feel good about ourselves?
don>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/7203ea77/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 02:55:50 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 04:00:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
References: <BAY22-F113495F34F0F1DC3EC2AD1A5F50@phx.gbl><937B8786-9CD3-4BF7-A075-7B7FDEDD09DC@dc.rr.com><002c01c706bb$bc2ceba0$ae77480c@HOME>
<F1EF0AFC-41A4-44DE-A2E5-DEDCAA831886@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00f401c706c6$d9352ae0$ae77480c@HOME>
Saying I am sitting here typing on my keyboard right now would only be a truth to someone familiar with typing and keyboards. It would be senseless and meaningless to anyone who was not familiar with this technology. And it would also be senseless and useless to someone who did not speak English. To my way of thinking truths are context dependent just like everything else. And the context includes our own culture, experience, and backgrounds.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
On Nov 12, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
We don't know how to accept and live with multiple truths about the same thing.
A moment ago I think i pushed the send button and that's the truth.
The above sentence of yours appears to contradict what you have said before about truth.
Do you think that there is such a creature as a truth that is not absolute?
I guess you are not talking about truth in the sense of saying something like, "I am sitting here typing at the keyboard."
It does seem to me that in the context of deliberations here the use of the word truth, means absolutely true, unless proven
false. Or something like that.
All this also made me wonder why Pilate, in the New Testament is given the line, "What is truth?" It must mean that such
questions were current even back in those days in the far out provinces of Rome. And the Roman's of course were the
bad guys, But has some of that sort of assumption stuck in our culture? What do you think? Do we need to believe that
we have the truth in order to feel good about ourselves?
don>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/b32b0b11/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 13 03:14:02 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 14 05:20:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061112.221221.2144.23.ae.dropper@juno.com>
K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
"felt up" so she can come back
P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
e-mail
from Zoe's e-mail address?
Did she mention anything about it at all?
K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I asked
first.
P: Yer funny, K . Sounds like that "When did you stop beating your wife?"
question. Do you remember that one? There is an acute awareness at
this moment of a difference between face to face dialogue & e-mail.
Can't see if your tongue is in your cheek. Mine is.
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 13 03:30:41 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 14 05:20:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061112.221221.2144.26.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Ths "snake" unties itself, word by word. It's very beautiful
to watch and be a part of.
pat
But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a really
good
example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see this as a
narrow
focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in this one small
way,
then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger scopes.
Susan
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 13 03:23:59 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 14 05:20:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061112.221221.2144.25.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the
world's ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
don
This betrays a distracted focus, don.
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 13 04:09:58 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 14 05:20:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061112.221221.2144.27.ae.dropper@juno.com>
P: Peter was vicious to William, absolutely merciless
K: How "merciless", how "nasty"? Could you give some examples? I
prefer
to "see" for myself, and not just to be told.
My teacher training included showing us how to write the content of
specifics - incident reports, they were called - because general terms
mostly provide opinion, not fact. Just like Don posted that almost
unintelligible contribution by Kris to let us see for ourselves what he
meant. It's invaluable for developing procedural guidelines. k
I couldn't imitate peter in a million years, especially
a couple of years worth of relentless while ever-evolving stabs.
pat
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Nov 13 03:18:12 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 14 05:20:18 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061112.221221.2144.24.ae.dropper@juno.com>
What two people are referenced here?
pat
What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to
allow
both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix" either
one
of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
> "felt up" so she can come back
> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
e-mail
> from Zoe's e-mail address?
> Did she mention anything about it at all?
> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
> I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I
asked
> first.
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 05:07:37 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 06:12:18 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <20061112.221221.2144.24.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <010601c706d9$41cafb40$ae77480c@HOME>
pick two. any two you like.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> What two people are referenced here?
>
> pat
>
>
> What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to
> allow
> both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix" either
> one
> of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
>
>> "felt up" so she can come back
>> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that
> e-mail
>> from Zoe's e-mail address?
>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
>
>> I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I
> asked
>> first.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 franis_franis at juno.com Mon Nov 13 05:21:58 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Nov 14 06:31:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] re:moderation, mediation, middle way
Message-ID: <20061112.202159.156.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
J: aren't we all trolls in some
> form or fashion, at least some of the time? I am sure I am, at least
>
> right now, in that I am being critical
> of what others do, and I am repeating myself, insisting on trying to
>
> get heard, etc. The difference between
> me and Peter or Kirsten is only quantitative. Deep down, I am doing
>
> the same thing:
> trying to get a response by pushing some buttons; trying to be
> understood; to feel connected...
when I first meet someone, I see only the similarities. As I know them
longer, the differences emerge and control.
Franis
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:47:24 -0600 Joachim Faust
<joachimfaust@earthlink.net> writes:
> Hi Pat,
>
> Thanks for arranging the statements below in this specific sequence.
> It reveals an interesting layer of meaning.
> I think you are right, "suspension of immediate response" is a very
>
> important factor, since
> this is/seems to be a necessary condition for "awareness" to unfold.
>
> Great question: is
> "delay of response" closely associated with "responsibility
> ("response-ability") for/to the whole"?
>
> In my experience, the dominant response style here on this list
> reminds a bit of
> knee-jerk reactions: quick, apodictic ("this is the way it is...")
> without showing much care to
> reveal awareness of possible cultural and personal assumptions (I
> think Gill has said
> something similar a few days ago, if I recall correctly.)
>
> I think the essence of what I have been trying to say in my recent
> posts is: aren't we all trolls in some
> form or fashion, at least some of the time? I am sure I am, at least
>
> right now, in that I am being critical
> of what others do, and I am repeating myself, insisting on trying to
>
> get heard, etc. The difference between
> me and Peter or Kirsten is only quantitative. Deep down, I am doing
>
> the same thing:
> trying to get a response by pushing some buttons; trying to be
> understood; to feel connected...
>
> All right, enough of this. Time to go back to the periphery... :)
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
> On 13.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
> >
> >> Do I, perhaps, first and foremost need to "moderate"
> >> myself? What would happen if we all moderated ourselves? Or: If
> we
> >> all were more moderate, as far as both quality and quantity of
> our
> > talk are concerned? (J)
> >
> > That is the ideal state and here on this list people have
> moderated
> > themselves very well and within reason. (D)
> >
> > I am hearing J differently. I am hearing, among other things,
> > an idea of "suspension" of immediate response. There are lots of
> times
> > when this is necessary because of time constraints. During many
> > of these times, a feeling of "response to the whole" comes
> > with the delayed posting. It's a nice feeling.
> >
> > pat
> >
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From franis_franis at juno.com Mon Nov 13 06:58:04 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Tue Nov 14 08:07:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061112.215805.156.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
I'm trying to think here about how to circumvent the whole thing about
Zoe feeling as if she's being "felt up" - so that wouldn't be an issue.
First off - I've met DonF before - he has a lovely wife who he is madly
in love with. If he was so letcherous, he would have made a pass at me
when we met, because I'm much more in his age range! So you don't have to
worry about Don breathing heavily and thinking about phone sex during a
phone call, Zoe.
I can think of some other ways, if you want to prove identity - what's
wrong with sending a copy of a student ID, library card, utility bill,
rent receipt, etc. etc. in Zoe's name - as anyone else would want who
accepted a check from Zoe? - such as references for job/apt. roommates,
etc. from people who know her in person. Then DonF could call and talk to
them about her.
On the phone thing; it doesn't matter who calls who; the way for a phone
call to prove identity is for Zoe's name to show up on the Caller ID by
revealing that number for that one call - *82. In that case, Zoe
wouldn't have to say a thing - just the caller ID would prove she is
someone that is not Peter. (I don't have a caller ID, except on my cell
phone which I'd be willing to give her privately.)
Of course, if Zoe doesn't have a phone in her name - her calling "proves"
nothing - this call could come from anywhere. The more time that goes by
on this, the more time to arrange a "faked" Zoe Chu.
I accept Zoe's apology. I think she should be allowed back on the list
once she proves that she's someone other than Peter Krauss. Perhaps Zoe
has better ideas exactly how she could prove to DonF that she is not
another version of Peter?
Franis
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:44:08 -0600 "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
writes:
> r. Sending Don's phone number to "zoe" defeats the purpose.
>
> K: how so? W is looking for a male voice with a German accent.
> Doesn't
> matter who calls who for that! I stayed in Boston at one of the
> inexpensive
> dormatory places when I went to Harvard. We shared a single bath
> for the
> whole floor, and had no phones in the room. People had to leave
> messages,
> and we had to return the call. When I got home, I found out people
> had
> called me, and the messages were never delivered. And I don't
> think Zoe
> has a wireless. k
>
>
> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:24:08 -0500
> >
> >But, alright,
> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
> >
> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> >actually misread the purpose?
> >
> >pat
>
>
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Nov 13 07:48:23 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Nov 14 08:53:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival(online no-one hears you scream!!!!)
Message-ID: <20061113064823.60601.qmail@web52911.mail.yahoo.com>
I do love the smell of cookies...
----- Original Message ----
From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:24:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival(online no-one hears you scream!!!!)
I don't think theres too much subtlety in the people we've mentioned (not giviing them anymore namechecks). It's not too hard to spot someone who's taking the p*##. For them it works because they are playing on the good hearts of certain individuasls, taking advantage of some peoples beliefs that everyone has a right to free speech. And of course they have a right to say whatever they wish, but the odd thing about the internet is knowing when/if you have been listened to.
In a regular dialogue one could cough, laugh or any number of things to get attention or show ones dissatisfaction.Online no-one hears you scream. If you get personal you will probably get attention for a while, but many close their ears (and dont read that persons posts),so that means you then have to get personal about the people who are sure to respond (eventually). Maybe some of these people need help, maybe they use this place as an outlet for frustrations develped elsewhere in their lives.I don't care. I couldnt care less about them. I care about the people here that I've got to know, especially the ones I often disagree with, but I couldnt care less about people who's aim is disruption and pulling things apart. Ask yourself how long some of these people would last behaving in such a way at work.Most companies have a trial period these days where they can legally let you go if you arent quite what they're looking for.They'd be out on their arse (ass) straight away in
most firms.Most circles of friends wouldnt accomodate them either. I think they know just how to treat people in real life but see this place as somewhere they can have a moan at Don and just try to disrupt what has worked successfully and seems to be growing. I think its what has happened here that bugs the crap outa these people.From what ive seen of their pages/groups I'm not surprised they have a small number of readers(if any).When we react they win, thats why I have no issue to the moderator involvement amping up a little. I know the moderator is immensely wise and sage like,handsome beyond compare and probably smells like cookies,so my posts will arrive unedited.
;~)
Have a great day people
Don Lay <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
Don F: What do such people hope to achieve? In what way are we implicated? -- don F
dbl: Maybe we're implicated in the sense of not knowing exactly what to do, in being uncertain. Is there some way to be certain? Maybe ATTENTION is what they "hope to achieve", and they're getting it.
Pat: ... it is a "sensing" thing.
dbl: I agree. Maybe what is 'sensed' is the subtle. It is a subtle thing that, seems to me, is usually lost when attention is directed to the self. -- dbl
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
Anyway, it seems that this phenomenon is wide-spread. And therefore, it is certainly worth inquiring into. What does it mean? What do such people hope to achieve? In what way are we implicated? (don)
People are smart like foxes (as well as being smart like people).
They know how to access energy from other people. They (we) can
sense which people are available energy sources. They (we) can "smell"
it." It's not really a "smell" thing necessarily - although it can be,
but it is a "sensing" thing.
I used to have a friend who would have to remember to put on her
"white light" around certain people. For her this was literal. For me it was
metaphorical for something similar I had learned to "do." Although
it wasn't really something I "did" but something I "understood."
I had another friend who used to say "Don't give it any energy."
Now SHE was one who could actually smell it.
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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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/20061112/cd3f84ec/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Nov 13 07:53:55 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Nov 14 08:58:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: altered states
Message-ID: <20061113065355.92928.qmail@web52913.mail.yahoo.com>
as i ponder "what is my/our/the natural state?" (which i have done before), i realize i may not know or i may know, conceptually, experientially, or whatever, and/or i may not be able to say what it is, and either way it can be exciting. thank you for this thread!
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Dorothy Stulberg <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:58:22 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: altered states
Real meaning "the natural state is one that is consantly being altered".
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 4:33 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: altered states
Rodger __thats funny, my father also prefered his so called natural state of consciousness over altered states. Unfortunately, neither strong intellect, genuis IQ, or natural state, saved him from dying with more regret than fulfiment about his life.
Also Chinese medicine and/or nutritionalists can tell us how our natural state is produced and altered by our diet.
I.e. aluminum in table salt = altzheimers = memory erosion // sugar = x, wheat = y // minerals or lack of, in water = w // and so on, and so on.
I tend to think the natural state is one that is constantly being altered._R
.
.
From: "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering/Consiousness
.
I trust my natural state of consciousness to serve me better than altered states.
.
.
_______________________________________________
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/20061112/694341b8/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Nov 13 07:59:37 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Nov 14 09:04:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
Message-ID: <20061113065938.22982.qmail@web52909.mail.yahoo.com>
Ditto! Well said Pat!
----- Original Message ----
From: Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:36:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
Here! Here! and Hallelujah!
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] survival
We said that this is not a dialogue because we didn't think it was
possible to have a dialogue in the Bohm sense of the word online. But
now I would say that this has become a dialogue, often clumsy,
sometimes marvelously uplifting, endlessly surprising and always
intriguing. Speaking personally, it makes me think a lot more than is
comfortable. It has the spirit of dialogue much more than it has,
say, the spirit of debate or argument but there is more, and that is
something new. David Bohm had no first-hand experience of the
internet, and this sort of forum had barely emerged by the time he
died. So I think that this is a new phase of the experiment that he
first proposed, and now we are stuck with the job of finding our way
in this new domain.
don
I don't find anything about face to face bohm dialogue that is not 'overly
compensated for' by the online version. They are like two breeds of dog,
but still dog. It growls, it barks, its tail wags. What else matters?
And I think there is a disadvantage in not calling this a full blown Bohmian
Dialogue. It can still be qualified as "Online Bohm Dialogue."
And for those who participate in both, the differences are quite interesting
to notice, but if I have noticed any fundamental difference it might lean
toward "Online" as being "fundamentally better." Take that with the usual
grain of salt. A completely convincing "case" can be made either way. And THAT
fact is reason enough for beginning here a total legitimization - articulating
it in the introduction as well as realizing it - of the process here as a Bohm
Dialogue process.
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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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/20061112/7fe7d655/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Nov 13 08:03:29 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Nov 14 09:08:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
Message-ID: <20061113070330.32154.qmail@web52912.mail.yahoo.com>
Totally Pat! I have over a hundred draft emails and more files on my computers.
All of the above/below and more.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:06:44 AM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] self moderation
Another way that "self - moderation" happens here.
Does anyone else put HUGE amounts to the stuff they
write into the black hole of their "draft file?" Even really
"good" stuff. Very interesting to note the "why" thoughts
with each of these occurrences.
There are the times when the writing feels perfect
but the timing seems not quite right.
Or, when the writing is excellent and very insightful
but it might just hurt someone's feelings at a moment
where that might not be a good idea. Timing again.
Or, the writing is perfect but irrelevant.
Or, maybe mostly, the writing is lousy.
Lousy writing AND irrelevant?
Just plain nasty?
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
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/45f67d9c/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Nov 13 08:12:24 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Nov 14 09:17:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061113071224.69137.qmail@web52911.mail.yahoo.com>
I can understand the purpose and I also agree with Susan that it sounds crazy (not sure if you said that, but for dialogue purposes it doesnt really matter if you actually said it), and want to add that i laughed when i read the whole exchange and found it oddly humorous, like a short story. i have been noticing much of my own life seems like a strange and funny story though.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:09:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at whatever time,
than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for a call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially considering
William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he would
have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster might
look undesirable.
What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the suggestion
of "craziness").
pat
How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a woman friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her phone number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter thing?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
But, alright,
if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
actually misread the purpose?
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
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/34c59ba6/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Nov 13 08:15:13 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Nov 14 09:19:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061113071513.30249.qmail@web52908.mail.yahoo.com>
the fascination with an email supposedly sent from someone else's email also amazes me. i find it odd to even think about really, but i know others feel differently.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:57:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
"felt up" so she can come back
P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that e-mail
from Zoe's e-mail address?
Did she mention anything about it at all?
K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I asked
first.
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>
>Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with your
>reasoning! (k)
>
>I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be OK, right
>K? (pat)
>
>Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>folk hero. (k)
>
>"Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>"obsession"
>regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>and questions. (pat)
>
>His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>history
>look at us? LOL (k)
>
>Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>
>Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an extended
>time.
> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special designation in
>
>the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's does.
>It
>says UK. (k)
>
>Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of us will
>know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in maybe 6
>months.
>And what an interesting 6 months!
>
>Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>
>What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be "felt
>
>up" so she can come back? (k)
>
>K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>she mention anything about it at all?
>
>pat
>
>
> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
> >
> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at
> >whatever time,
> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for
>a
> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
> >considering
> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
> >would
> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
> >might
> >look undesirable.
> >
> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
> >suggestion
> >of "craziness").
> >
> >pat
> >
> >
> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if
> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a woman
> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her phone
> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter thing?
> >
> >Susan
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >
> >
> >But, alright,
> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
> >
> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> >actually misread the purpose?
> >
> >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 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
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/ec0d7e1a/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Nov 13 08:16:28 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Nov 14 09:21:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061113071628.12222.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
susan,
these are good questions.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:01:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a way to allow
both people to have their own "truth's" without needing to "fix" either one
of them by having them adopt our "truth:?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be
> "felt up" so she can come back
> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send that e-mail
> from Zoe's e-mail address?
> Did she mention anything about it at all?
> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question that way?
> I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you first, because I asked
> first.
>
>
>
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>
>>Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up with your
>>reasoning! (k)
>>
>>I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to be OK, right
>>K? (pat)
>>
>>Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>folk hero. (k)
>>
>>"Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>"obsession"
>>regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>and questions. (pat)
>>
>>His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How will
>>history
>>look at us? LOL (k)
>>
>>Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>
>>Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an extended
>>time.
>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special designation in
>>
>>the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country? Don's does.
>>It
>>says UK. (k)
>>
>>Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some of us will
>>know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in maybe 6
>>months.
>>And what an interesting 6 months!
>>
>>Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>
>>What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself to be "felt
>>
>>up" so she can come back? (k)
>>
>>K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>she mention anything about it at all?
>>
>>pat
>>
>>
>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>> >
>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone number at
>> >whatever time,
>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind] arranged for
>>a
>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that not
>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>> >considering
>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone number, he
>> >would
>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a trickster
>> >might
>> >look undesirable.
>> >
>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in the
>> >suggestion
>> >of "craziness").
>> >
>> >pat
>> >
>> >
>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of telling
>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really silly if
>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get a woman
>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends her phone
>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this Peter thing?
>> >
>> >Susan
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> >
>> >
>> >But, alright,
>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>> >
>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>> >actually misread the purpose?
>> >
>> >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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
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/20061112/5b3b6a15/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Nov 13 08:17:44 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Nov 14 09:22:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061113071744.1451.qmail@web52913.mail.yahoo.com>
Yeah...oh wait that seems like it is my world in a way. lucky me!
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: Morgan Jett <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:29:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Wouldn't it be a better world if youth and age could dialog? 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] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:23:26 -0700
>
>Something to do with holding on to yesterdays values and yesterdays ways?
>Or something about youth being so certain they have "the" truth? Do we
>throw out (exclude) the young?
>
>Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
> Well, I can't argue with that. But strangely, rattling around in my head
>is this fragment of lyric that seems meaningful here.
>
>
> Those were the days, my friend
> We thought they'd never end
> We'd sing and dance forever and a day
> We'd live the life we'd choose
> We'd fight and never lose
> For we were young and sure to have our way
>
>
> Something to do with Zoe maybe.
>
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>
> But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a
>really good example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see
>this as a narrow focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in
>this one small way, then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger
>scopes.
>
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>
>
> Maybe, but isn't it possible that we might have dissolved all the
>world's ills while we have been so narrowly focused on this matter?
>
>
> I would love to visit Lebanon and sit in a cafe on the waterfront of
>Beirut drinking their thick sweet coffee and discussing philosophy.
>
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We agree on that. k
>
>
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:08:49 -0500
>
>
> Neither would we want to deny Peter a good time nor would we
>want to deny
> peter's importance to this process.
>
>
> pat
>
>
>
>
> Well, I'll tell you one thing, if Zoe is Peter I'll bet he's
>having one
> hell of a good time knowing how much he is still able to impact
>this
> group and how important we've made him to us in the process.
>
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>
>
> It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>number at
> whatever time,
> than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>arranged for a
> call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is that
>not
> obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
> might seem more difficult with William than with Don -
>especially
> considering
> William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>number, he
> would
> have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>trickster
> might
> look undesirable.
>
>
> What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even in
>the
> suggestion
> of "craziness").
>
>
> pat
>
>
>
>
> How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>telling
> whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is really
>silly if
> you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily get
>a woman
> friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she sends
>her phone
> number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>Peter thing?
>
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>
>
> But, alright,
> if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>
>
> William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> actually misread the purpose?
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
_______________________________________________
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/20061112/6249ba21/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Nov 13 08:20:09 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Nov 14 09:24:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061113072009.37832.qmail@web52912.mail.yahoo.com>
ooooh--absolute necessity. very scary it is. juicy!
and curious is a great way to describe the shifting of perspective.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:09:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
I guess there are various kinds or categories of friendship. I too
have friends who I don't share a lot of meanings with, but there is
always a sense of something incomplete in those relationships. Mainly
it is the fact that there is no cultural precedent for inquiring
together. My wife and I often disagree, but we are usually able,
sometimes it takes a long while, to suspend them and talk about
them. Bohm's idea was that if we can suspend our disagreements then
it is possible for there to unfold a new set of meanings that can
transcend the two. I have seen that happen but not all that often.
Often, this sort of transcendence has a character where we don't even
notice that our point of view has changed. That's the curious part.
For me, the question is, What do we mean by truth? Are there
different levels of truth? It seems to me that there are, so probably
its a linguistic difficulty. But at its worst its when our notions of
truth take on the character of absolute necessity.
don
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> just enjoy being friends. - But then is that possible? I've been
> able to do that.
>
> And is that the condition we want to end up with? - well, didn't
> Bohm say that our focus was to watch the process of thought, not
> come to conclusions? Not proselytizing would come under that
> category. He said, as i recall, that if someone came to an
> understanding (correct word?), as a side effect, that was good.
>
> Sometimes, i think we just have to let a person come to his/her own
> conclusions in their own time, but not let it hold back the group's
> deeping understanding. Actually, even that can deepen group
> understanding on the nature of change itself. Can be frustrating,
> tho. 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] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:10:23 -0800
>>
>> This question or proposal has come up before. But I still can't
>> quite see how two (or more) people holding onto conflicting
>> truths can engage in any kind of understanding, unless they
>> forget about the subject at hand and agree not to discuss it, and
>> just enjoy being friends. But then is that possible? And is that
>> the condition we want to end up with?
>> don
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>> What if it's not about "proving" anything but about finding a
>>> way to allow both people to have their own "truth's" without
>>> needing to "fix" either one of them by having them adopt our
>>> "truth:?
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett"
>>> <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:57 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>
>>>
>>>> K: What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow
>>>> herself to be "felt up" so she can come back
>>>> P: , did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able to send
>>>> that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address?
>>>> Did she mention anything about it at all?
>>>> K: I asked my question first! Why did you evade my question
>>>> that way? I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. And you
>>>> first, because I asked first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:28:40 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I'm beginning to feel a little crazy trying to keep up
>>>>> with your
>>>>> reasoning! (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I am assuming correctly in thinking you are going to
>>>>> be OK, right
>>>>> K? (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention, again, the fixation on Peter. He's becoming a
>>>>> folk hero. (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fixation" sounds strangely close to don's characterization of
>>>>> "obsession"
>>>>> regarding your interest, and info exchange, and comments,
>>>>> and questions. (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> His very absence, plus Zoe's being unsubscribed is what I see
>>>>> pushing real dialog into cyberspace and the 21st Century. How
>>>>> will
>>>>> history
>>>>> look at us? LOL (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't we GREAT! And getting better exponentially!
>>>>> That's the way it happens though, isn't it. (Pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I understand that Peter is someplace in Europe for an
>>>>> extended
>>>>> time.
>>>>> Zoe's here. Don't the emails from Europe have a special
>>>>> designation in
>>>>>
>>>>> the TO, etc part that tells if you're out of the country?
>>>>> Don's does.
>>>>> It
>>>>> says UK. (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> Without "zoe" here, all we have are these technical indicators,
>>>>> which require a technician to decipher. With "zoe" here, some
>>>>> of us will
>>>>> know before long if "zoe" is peter. And all of us will know in
>>>>> maybe 6
>>>>> months.
>>>>> And what an interesting 6 months!
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, no matter what arises in the content, no one can keep
>>>>> any of us from looking at the function of thought. And the "heat"
>>>>> level for quite some time has been at an optimal place. (pat)
>>>>>
>>>>> What will we really prove by insisting that Zoe allow herself
>>>>> to be "felt
>>>>>
>>>>> up" so she can come back? (k)
>>>>>
>>>>> K, did Zoe ever mention to you how Kirsten was able
>>>>> to send that e-mail from Zoe's e-mail address? Did
>>>>> she mention anything about it at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> pat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:09:23 -0500
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It would be quite different if William called the "zoe" phone
>>>>> number at
>>>>> >whatever time,
>>>>> >than if the potential Master Trickster [in William's mind]
>>>>> arranged for
>>>>> a
>>>>> >call to be made to Don. It could be anyone calling Don. Is
>>>>> that not
>>>>> >obvious? Also William has met Peter. Disguise
>>>>> >might seem more difficult with William than with Don - especially
>>>>> >considering
>>>>> >William's skepticism. Also, if William had the "zoe" phone
>>>>> number, he
>>>>> >would
>>>>> >have potential access to "back up" information. That, to a
>>>>> trickster
>>>>> >might
>>>>> >look undesirable.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >What's this about "crazy?" I notice no "craziness" (not even
>>>>> in the
>>>>> >suggestion
>>>>> >of "craziness").
>>>>> >
>>>>> >pat
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >How does it defeat the purpose? Isn't Don just as capable of
>>>>> telling
>>>>> >whether she's a man or a woman? And the whole think is
>>>>> really silly if
>>>>> >you ask me. If she really is Peter, he could just as easily
>>>>> get a woman
>>>>> >friend in the US to say she's Zoe even if we request she
>>>>> sends her phone
>>>>> >number to William. How crazy are we going to get with this
>>>>> Peter thing?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Susan
>>>>> >
>>>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>>>> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>>>>> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
>>>>> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >But, alright,
>>>>> >if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
>>>>> >phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>>>>> >
>>>>> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>>> >find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>>> >number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>>> >actually misread the purpose?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >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 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061112/07dfefcd/attachment.html
From stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com Mon Nov 13 08:23:04 2006
From: stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com (STEPHEN DEVLIN)
Date: Tue Nov 14 09:27:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <20061112.152419.2144.10.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20061113072304.66273.qmail@web86507.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Any where else online and the group would get no consultation whatsoever as to the exclusion of a list-member. We all know how to behave, if someone gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault. I don't see what all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed necessary then there is a trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not be allowed back.
As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed their hands up first the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be Having The Last Laugh - On Vatican looks cold.
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
actually misread the purpose?
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
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/7467f5b0/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com Mon Nov 13 08:28:21 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Tue Nov 14 09:33:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
Message-ID: <20061113072821.14964.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
if you are right susan then that is the problem of our lives, not the problem of truth.
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:18:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
On Nov 12, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
Well, what you seem to be saying about truth to me is that everyone believes their truth is absolute or primary and therefore, everyone else "should" adopt their truth. That's the problem with truth. We don't know how to accept and live with multiple truths about the same thing.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] what is truth?
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
I must be too tired to understand, because that's certainly not the purpose of Bohm. k
Not necessarily. This may be something worth looking at. It was certainly Bohm's intent but that doesn't mean that this kind of thing doesn't slip in.
I know that I have been guilty of pulling rank in the sense that having had a unique access to Bohm, at least amongst those who are
active participants on this list, I can try to set the record straight when I think somebody has got it wrong. But then, what makes me
think that I have the truth?
Bohm, too, often made the remark that whatever he said was a proposal for further inquiry. It was never the truth, and certainly not a
commandment. Only once did I hear him claim that something was absolutely true, or as near to an absolute truth as you can get.
Here it is, with a little context.
PeterGarrett ...the fact that it's one system (everyone in the group) means that we are in direct participation.
DonFactor Whether we know it or not.
PG ... within the whole system all the time, and whether one becomes proprioceptive in a world issue apparently, or a personal issue apparently, seems to me to be the same thing. It's displayed in different ways.
DF Do we really believe this ?
David Bohm It's true. This is as absolute a truth I think as you'll ever find.
DF Do we behave as if it's?
DB No we don't, but that's what we have to get into.
PG That's why it's important to talk about.
DB I think that this is a very clear truth. Why don't we pay more attention to it? That's the question. There's an incoherence we have to look at. Either somebody can come along and say, ?That's a lot of nonsense?, but I don't see anybody ever doing that. We are one body... and I'm trying to say we've gone a long way in seeing how different [the dialogue] is from the dinner table conversation.
???
I guess this is the problem of truth? We all believe in our own truth. Some people attribute this to God and others simply to their own
perceptive skills. You may notice that I have changed the subject of this thread. Anyone can change it back and just continue on with
talking about Zoe, Peter and William as before. But I think that maybe this is another way toward understanding the same problem.
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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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/20061112/4d46eb04/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Mon Nov 13 10:23:47 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Tue Nov 14 11:28:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
References: <007901c704fe$7e021b20$ec78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <455839A3.000001.05016@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Susan Clemons
>Yes. And saying (as William seems to imply) that any change
>in consciousness or altered state of consciousness can only be
>a result of (or result in) brain damage seems to be much too
>limiting of an idea. It could just as easily be brain enhancing.
Did I say that? Sorry, I only meant to question the value of altered states
of consciousness by means of damaging the brain. It is possible to get
expanded" consciousness, heightened creativity, sense of wholeness and loss
of separation, seeing intense colours, hearing pure sounds or the voice of
God, or knowing the Truth with a capital T, etc. All these things are very
nice and interesting but, to me, it looks like a form of regress to an
earlier stage of evolution.
I like to think that consciousness has evolved over a long time, and that
this evolution is still in progress. If we can think of consciousness as an
evolving ongoing process then it seems reasonable to assume that future
states of consciousness may be something different from what we know now
(and also different from these "altered states of consciousness" that we
already know). I am curious where this is leading to, so I tend to more
interested in progress rather than regress.
William
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/3a3c4af3/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 13 12:57:08 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Tue Nov 14 14:10:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <C17A2BC4.38F6%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C17E0E14.39D3%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
William and Don ...
I'd be curious to hear each of your response to this email of mine. And
also I'd like to understand the tone that each of you seem to take when you
addressed Zoe. I think in one email one of you referred to Zoe as 'it'.
Gill
on 10/11/06 13:14, Gill Wyatt at earthsky@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> Don, Kathryn and all,
>
> I need to be brief as work is calling ...
>
> I feel fine about there being a Moderator for this list However in the
> future I would like the moderator to discuss with the group thoughts and
> proposals re kicking anybody off. There had been some discussion on the list
> re PK ... but because I think an assumption was made that Zoe was PK there
> was no or little discussion about kicking Zoe off.
>
> I was surprised about this at the time ... Interestingly if Zoe is PK I'm OK
> about Zoe being kicked off but I am not convinced she is!! And if Zoe isn't
> then I think 'we' ie this list has treated her uncaringly and badly!
>
> I would support Zoe being invited back as long as she accepts that this is a
> moderated list and that in the future the moderator would act after dialogue
> with the whole group re moderation decisions re kicking somebody off.
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 10/11/06 12:50, Morgan Jett at griffyn23@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Good Morning Don and Fellow Group Members -
>>
>> Here is what I have to say.
>>
>> D: especially your playing protective mum. No offense intended here, this is
>> just the way I feel.
>> K: None taken, Don. I have tried to make clear that this is not just a
>> Zoe-thing, and neither is it a Peter or Kris thing. Nor is it a
>> gender-thing. The present situation reflects all the clashes through
>> history between nations, and the people that make them up. It illustrates
>> that without the proper procedures in place, the same thing can happen to
>> any of us, at any time, anywhere. It is happening in the world as we speak.
>> On a national level, Republicans have just lost complete control of Capitol
>> Hill to the Democrats for this very reason. It has happened throughout
>> history. This seems to be a universally "stuck/blocked" place.
>>
>> In case you missed that particular post, I am a professional mediator,
>> deeply interested in Bohm as well as committed to social justice. I am a
>> member of the Committee for Social Justice at Riverside Church, and very
>> proud to claim the lineage and legacy of William Sloane Coffin, and the Rev.
>> James Forbes. For that reason, I have spoken out about what happened to
>> Zoe, and volunteered to mediate the situation.
>> No offense is meant in my next remarks, or any others. But I can?t help but
>> be curious - could one consider "playing protective mum" a putdown? Is it
>> a ?bootable offense?? If Zoe had made a similar remark, would she have been
>> unsubscribed without warning?
>>
>> D: 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,
>> K: That's exactly my point. As it stands now, it?s all about what William,
>> and William alone, thinks.
>> The issue is not whether we have a moderator. The real issue is what powers
>> shall that moderator have, and from whence shall they derive. Actually, why
>> should there be only one? Why not co-moderators? And why shouldn?t the
>> co-moderators derive their powers from the group? Hmmmmmm. Do I hear the
>> framers of our Constitution speaking, as they visited the Iroquois
>> Confederacy, admired their form of government, and worked on our own?
>>
>> "if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to "work together") they have
>> to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in
>> their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed
>> from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive
>> instruments of this authority." Bohm "On Dialog"
>>
>> These are the words of a man who stood up for what he believed in, protected
>> his colleagues from McCarthy, was consequently ?witch hunted?, and ?booted?
>> from the USA. This is our legacy that we need to honor.
>>
>> Bohm postulates that everything is unceasingly in flux. This is not a
>> Euro-Anglo cultural view. We are conditioned to fear change. The ultimate
>> change is birth to life, and life to death. Whereas our culture holds loss
>> of life as the ultimate punishment, other cultures embrace death as a
>> natural part of life. As a result, we face a ?little death? each time we
>> become conscious of change.
>>
>> The issues we are confronting are about change, and especially hard hitting
>> in a group springing from the ideas and experience of Bohm, and democracy.
>>
>> Those in our culture who have been visionaries, asked the tough questions,
>> and acted on them, have turned (in some peoples? thinkgs) into a kind of
>> ?romance of the outlaw? idea - almost a Manson (cult leader) thing. Maybe
>> kin to the ?Noble Savage? nonsense. I disagree with that view. For example
>> - Have you ever heard of an English scholar of the 14th Century named John
>> Wycliffe? We have his ?romantic outlaw? proclivities to thank for putting
>> the Bible into English, putting our language on a legitimate footing, and
>> thereby taking away the power of the clergy. ?Rooms in quiet Oxford colleges
>> were turned into revolutionary cells, production lines were established ?
>> groups of people secretly translating it, copying it, passing it on...later
>> hundreds would die the most horrible deaths for their part in creating and
>> distributing to the people the first English Bible...? The Church seized
>> Wycliffe, subjected him to a mock trial and killed him, burned his body
>> publicly, thereby presumably depriving him of the possibility of eternal
>> life. (And thereby trying to threaten everybody else with eternal
>> damnation.) His ashes were thrown into a tributary of the Avon. Soon
>> afterwards a prophecy appeared:
>> The Avon to the Severn runs
>> The Severn to the Sea.
>> And Wycliff?s dust shall spread abroad
>> Wide as the waters be.
>>
>> In English. ?The Biography of a Language?, Melvyn Bragg,
>> p/ 87 ? 88
>>
>> Later, there would be Martin Luther. Before, we had Jesus? disciples. Bohm,
>> himself, was one of those visionaries. Is it really accurate to conclude
>> that those of us who explore the principles of dialog, those nameless people
>> lost their lives for copying the Bible into English, and the unnamed who
>> walked beside Martin Luther King, were seduced by some cult leader under the
>> notion that this is romantic? I don?t think so. But one thing cults do have
>> in common ? they are run by a leader who wields absolute power over his/her
>> members.
>>
>> Don, I truly don?t want you to feel that you or William are ?under attack?.
>> I am simply asking the hard questions that have to be asked, to move the
>> percussion into dialog. I have said on more than one occasion that I
>> respect you as a scholar, a thinker, and a gentleman. William needs to
>> respond to these hard questions, confront the blocks, and dialog with us in
>> its true sense, too. We need to be here for each other as we work through
>> these difficult, uncomfortable places. And, as difficult as these
>> questions are, if our group can?t work through them in a supportive manner,
>> keeping true to Bohm ideals and principles, what hope then, is there for the
>> rest of humankind? And of what value have been the lives of those like
>> Wycliff and Bohm, whose shoulders we stand upon?
>>
>> In conclusion, I ask, what is the next step for Dialog? In one of our
>> conversations, Zoe wrote, ?Dialogue shall open doors (windows), NOT close
>> them --- Zoe.? Do any of us disagree? Keeping foremost in mind that Zoe is
>> not Peter or Kris, I feel we should reinstate her without any more
>> discussion/percussion about what is ?acceptable? on her part. She has never
>> spammed, never used confusing language, and I don?t believe she has ever
>> flamed.
>> If anyone has any evidence that she has exhibited ?unacceptable? behavior in
>> the past, please post it now.
>> Until then, my position is that it was un/?acceptable? to boot her ?on
>> suspicion?, without warning, without due process, and without proceeding
>> openly. It is un/?acceptable" to conduct any group that way. Let our group
>> ? which used to include her, come together again. Bring her back in without
>> further ado, and let us prove naturally and fairly what it is that all of us
>> expect from, and have to offer, without expecting perfection, and by helping
>> each other to get better and better. Then, if she/we indeed be found
>> wanting, let the decision to remove her come from, and be enacted by us all
>> - The Bohm Dialog Group, walking in good conscience and right relationship
>> to each other, and all our relations. That is what I have to say. Hozhoon,
>> 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: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:23:14 -0800
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
>> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 13 13:22:56 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Tue Nov 14 14:32:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <002d01c704ea$f9e4ac80$ec78480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C17E1420.39D5%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Susan,
I have been with family and friends over the weekend so this is the first
chance I've had to respond ...
Yes I agree we have made 'a connection'. I guess connections can have very
many different qualities. They can be gentle, caring, warm, authorative,
cold, hard, arrogant and dismissive. And of course an infinitive number of
other qualities.
I'm glad your intention has not been to teach me about dialogue ... Its
rather paradoxical really ... Because I am very open to learning about
myself and dialogue, this is what my life is about ... Yet I will speak up
and check out peoples intentions when I feel diminished in some way, or feel
restricted and made smaller than I am. Of course my sensitivity in these
areas show you all something of my history, the way that I have been
treated.
But please don't interpret this as me misperceiving situations ... It could
be, and I'll work hard to recognise these situations ... And it could be
that I am recognising qualities that other people are sometimes not open to
seeing. Will others work as hard?
And no I do not feel better after telling you a little about my background.
I'll feel better when I feel you are not making assumptions about me. Each
time you have replied to me I have felt that you gave yourself some type of
authority which I haven't understood. I felt it again in this email of yours
when you say you found my email defensive.
Its kinda interesting ... Each time you have replied to me I've wondered
about whether you are being defensive. Until this moment I had decided to
'suspend' using that word.
Gill
on 10/11/06 17:09, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Hi Gill. Well, as far as I can tell I haven't made any assumptions about
> you yet at all. I can see where my posts may have sounded as though I was
> trying to teach you something, but that really wasn't my intention at all.
> I have simply been posting my own thoughts and ideas with the intention of
> making them available to the list as a whole.
>
> It does seem that I have misinterpreted what you where trying to say about
> making a connection. But isn't that how dialogue works? Someone says
> something, another responds, the first person gives feedback, etc. To my
> way of thinking we have connected by the very act of being on this list and
> responding to each other. We are connecting now in our attempts to
> communicate our feelings, understandings and responses to each other. It
> seems that somehow that connection doesn't feel satisfactory to you so far.
> I hope posting your credentials about dialogue has resolved some of the
> dissatisfaction for you. Now I know you a little better and you can rest
> assured that I'm not trying to teach you something about dialogue.
>
> I have to say Gill, your response does sound somewhat defensive to me.
> Please rest assured that I do not have the credentials to try to be any kind
> of an authority on Bohm or Dialogue. In fact, Don F. is fond of reminding
> me that I haven't even done any extensive reading of Bohm and my only
> experience of Dialogue is on this list. I've never even done Dialogue face
> to face. And, although I have been on this list from some time, I don't
> think I am considered to be one of the "old timers" on the list who actually
> knew Bohm and went to his seminars.
>
> I hope that clears up any of your assumptions about my assumptions.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>> Hi Susan,
>>
>> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are trying to teach
>> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this from both of
>> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making an assumption
>> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was gorgeous, and maybe
>> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody agrees with
>> me
>> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was meaning it
>> in
>> my message.
>>
>> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David Bohm is saying
>> in
>> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would never mean
>> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the meeting of two
>> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are doing this in
>> this
>> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are making about me.
>> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I guess I am
>> telling
>> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions were. It feels
>> as
>> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to this list
>> that
>> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
>>
>> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have written a
>> Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops introducing the
>> concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many years in how some
>> groups get to dialogue and how the shift in consciousness at a group level
>> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have been the
>> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know about
>> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that kept on
>> occurring
>> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name). Yes, it can be very
>>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on an intimate
>>> level. However, since being in Dialogue I have come to cherish a
>>> different
>>> kind of connection that seems to be just as intimate if not more so. I'm
>>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I look for now.
>>> I
>>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation that comes
>>> from
>>> exploring our differences. So I'll defer to DB's words to describe it:
>>>
>>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one person
>>> says
>>> something, the other person does not in general respond with exactly the
>>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings are
>>> only
>>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies, the
>>> first
>>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and what the other
>>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may then be able to
>>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and to those
>>> of
>>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the continual
>>> emergence of a new content that is common to both participants. Thus, in
>>> a
>>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas or
>>> items
>>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may be said
>>> that
>>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something
>>> new
>>> together."
>>>
>>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together" that I look
>>> for now through the exploration of our differences. I no longer look for
>>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to see what we
>>> can
>>> create out of the hubris of our differences. And when we manage to do
>>> that
>>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the common ground we
>>> share. I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he talks about a
>>> "difference that makes a difference".
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:27 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Susan,
>>>>
>>>> Ok I understand.
>>>>
>>>> I think sometimes I look, perhaps unrealistically for more of an
>>>> explicit
>>>> connection between what I have said and the person who responds to me.
>>>> It
>>>> just feels so gorgeous when it happens.
>>>>
>>>> By the way my name is Gill, short for Gillian ... Not the male American
>>>> Gil.
>>>>
>>>> And yes I do agree that good discussions get triggered by difficulties
>>>> here
>>>> and in the wider world. Well sometimes in the wider world, if that is
>>>> not
>>>> be
>>>> being pessimistic.
>>>>
>>>> Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 9/11/06 21:27, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 13 13:31:52 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Tue Nov 14 14:39:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061110.133031.1496.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C17E1638.39D9%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Francis,
I appreciate what you say here ... I guess my intention is to focus more on
unearthing the assumptions I am making and when I am wanting to focus on
something with another person I work hard at taking responsibility for my
own feelings and thoughts and check out the intentions and parts others may
be playing. I try to walk my talk although I guess I often fail but I never
want to ask somebody to go somewhere where I haven't already been myself.
I guess a 'teacherly' style doesn't do it for me ... But I liked your
honesty and what felt like to me openness.
Gill
on 10/11/06 21:06, Franis Engel at franis_franis@juno.com wrote:
> Yes, Susan and myself both have the "teacherly" tone of writing.
> It's something that has crept into my writing, and I don't necessarily
> intend what I'm writing to come across that way. It seems this tone is
> what happens when you begin to articulate assumptions - or at least,
> that's when it has happened. Often some people feel insulted that you're
> going back to square one with them, as if they do not know what is
> obvious.
> Franis
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:40:27 +0000 Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> writes:
>> Hi Susan,
>>
>> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are trying to
>> teach
>> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this from
>> both of
>> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making an
>> assumption
>> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was gorgeous, and
>> maybe
>> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody agrees
>> with me
>> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was
>> meaning it in
>> my message.
>>
>> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David Bohm is
>> saying in
>> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would never mean
>> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the meeting of
>> two
>> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are doing this
>> in this
>> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are making
>> about me.
>> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I guess I am
>> telling
>> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions were. It
>> feels as
>> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to this
>> list that
>> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
>>
>> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have written
>> a
>> Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops
>> introducing the
>> concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many years in how
>> some
>> groups get to dialogue and how the shift in consciousness at a group
>> level
>> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have been
>> the
>> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know about
>> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that kept on
>> occurring
>> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name). Yes, it can be very
>>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on an
>> intimate
>>> level. However, since being in Dialogue I have come to cherish a
>> different
>>> kind of connection that seems to be just as intimate if not more
>> so. I'm
>>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I look for
>> now. I
>>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation that
>> comes from
>>> exploring our differences. So I'll defer to DB's words to
>> describe it:
>>>
>>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one
>> person says
>>> something, the other person does not in general respond with
>> exactly the
>>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the
>> meanings are only
>>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies,
>> the first
>>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and what the
>> other
>>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may then be
>> able to
>>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and to
>> those of
>>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the
>> continual
>>> emergence of a new content that is common to both participants.
>> Thus, in a
>>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain
>> ideas or items
>>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may be
>> said that
>>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating
>> something new
>>> together."
>>>
>>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together" that
>> I look
>>> for now through the exploration of our differences. I no longer
>> look for
>>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to see
>> what we can
>>> create out of the hubris of our differences. And when we manage
>> to do that
>>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the common
>> ground we
>>> share. I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he talks
>> about a
>>> "difference that makes a difference".
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:27 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Susan,
>>>>
>>>> Ok I understand.
>>>>
>>>> I think sometimes I look, perhaps unrealistically for more of an
>> explicit
>>>> connection between what I have said and the person who responds
>> to me. It
>>>> just feels so gorgeous when it happens.
>>>>
>>>> By the way my name is Gill, short for Gillian ... Not the male
>> American
>>>> Gil.
>>>>
>>>> And yes I do agree that good discussions get triggered by
>> difficulties
>>>> here
>>>> and in the wider world. Well sometimes in the wider world, if
>> that is not
>>>> be
>>>> being pessimistic.
>>>>
>>>> Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 9/11/06 21:27, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Nov 13 13:42:55 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 14:47:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <20061113072304.66273.qmail@web86507.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F11271D7AF69ABD19A1185A5F40@phx.gbl>
I just replied to this, but Hotmail is acting up again. If you get a
duplicate, that's why. So - to repeat:
Sorry, Stephen, but your statement is absolutely inaccurate.
I am compiling a list of URLs to post that present a wide variety of
approaches to this issue. I suggest we start with
www.sierraclub.org/lists/dispute.asp and
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall95-papers/rigby-anonymity.html
- a paper written by a student at MIT on the issue of anonymity.
I will follow up with a list of others. As I read them, I am keeping in
mind the unique nature of Bohm Dialog, for it will be a worthwhile challenge
to reconcile our principles to internet protocol and procedures.
Happy reading and thinkg! k
>From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:04 +0000 (GMT)
>
>Any where else online and the group would get no consultation whatsoever as
>to the exclusion of a list-member. We all know how to behave, if someone
>gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault. I don't see what
>all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed necessary then there is a
>trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not be allowed back.
>
>As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed their hands up first
>the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be Having The Last Laugh -
>On Vatican looks cold.
>
>ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me your
> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>
>William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> actually misread the purpose?
>
> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Mon Nov 13 14:17:54 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Tue Nov 14 15:23:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: history
In-Reply-To: <20061114110005.4EF4F24A54@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF105ACFC6.8D981C27-ON85257225.004751ED-85257225.00490CD7@dialogos.com>
Rodger__ For as long as people play the victim & savior roles, in a world
full of victim & savior self-images __ I very much doubt HISTORY would
bother attempting to discern one victim from another.
All too often, people forego what is unique about themselves, in favor of a
homogenized common ground of complaints._R
.
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
How will history look at us? LOL
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/19c51799/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 14:47:36 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 15:52:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] BD archives
Message-ID: <BAY22-F20FF21102CF8D417C6BEBEA5F40@phx.gbl>
Don, William, Franis - somebody - please -
how do I get access to the archives, and where do I find them? I'd really
like to read them.
Thanks, k
PS - whoever does them, my hat's off to you. I can't keep up with all our
email! It's like the Disney version of the Sorcerer's Apprentice!
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Mon Nov 13 15:09:44 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Tue Nov 14 16:14:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B3B36FE5@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Ive been on several lists for various things, some exceedingly trivial
(movie sites etc). I've never seen moderators have to explain decisions
to kick anyone,I've seen people quibble over it, but I've never sen a
moderator explain the reasons, and that includes sites where you have to
pay to be a member, just like in real life where you can be asked to
leave premises with little or no reason other than the owner of the
premises doesn't want you there. I've seen sites where a new person has
come in and been disruptive, deliberately trying to push peoples buttons
only to get their PC hacked by other site members and all sorts of
damage done to their PC.It certainly stops them coming back with a new
IP address and causing more hassle. But that's how some people manage
these issues.
You do have options, if you don't like the way a moderator runs a site,
you can leave and start your own with your own values re: kicking
people. It happens all the time. Usually the new sites end up with the
exact same problem and end up kicking people for the same reasons.
Lets imagine if a moderator has to submit reasons to kick someone and
there is some sort of vote. When you have an anonymous list such as ours
it's all to easy to subscribe with multiple names to throw any voting
system off. So I don't see why a moderator has to explain themselves.
It's their list to do what they want with.
I've never got the impression that opinion is stifled here, I've seen it
get quite heated, but generally everybody gets to say what they want.
But I've also seen some particularly nasty personal attacks against
people that go beyond what would be allowed on any other sites/lists
(except star wars fan sites where abuse of participants is an art form
and has to be seen to be believed).
I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of guidelines
would be appropriate here, there's only been a few people over the years
who they'd apply to, but maybe there is a place for them. In practice
the moderators here do very little (usually nothing) to anyones posts, I
don't think I've been edited or censored in any way since I first came
here,most people seem quite able to censor themselves, but when they are
unwilling to(for whatever justification they can please themselves with)
the smooth running of the place requires a moderator to suspend them.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: 13 November 2006 12:43
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
I just replied to this, but Hotmail is acting up again. If you get a
duplicate, that's why. So - to repeat:
Sorry, Stephen, but your statement is absolutely inaccurate.
I am compiling a list of URLs to post that present a wide variety of
approaches to this issue. I suggest we start with
www.sierraclub.org/lists/dispute.asp and
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall95-papers/rigby-anon
ymity.html
- a paper written by a student at MIT on the issue of anonymity. I will
follow up with a list of others. As I read them, I am keeping in
mind the unique nature of Bohm Dialog, for it will be a worthwhile
challenge
to reconcile our principles to internet protocol and procedures. Happy
reading and thinkg! k
>From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:04 +0000 (GMT)
>
>Any where else online and the group would get no consultation
>whatsoever as
>to the exclusion of a list-member. We all know how to behave, if
someone
>gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault. I don't see
what
>all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed necessary then there
is a
>trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not be allowed
back.
>
>As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed their hands up
>first
>the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be Having The Last
Laugh -
>On Vatican looks cold.
>
>ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me
your
> phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
>
>William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> actually misread the purpose?
>
> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
_______________________________________________
****************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
****************************************************
This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their consequences.
****************************************************
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 15:17:33 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 16:22:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B3B36FE5@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2232DB45727194D5B209EAA5F40@phx.gbl>
I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of guidelines
would be appropriate here.
K: I think so. Again, no matter what your experience, I suggest you
amplify it by looking at the experiences available by Googling. I hear
anger in your tone. Is there something here that needs exploring? k
PS - I'm not "Mr.". I'm Ms. with two grown sons. Why did you assume I'm
male?
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:09:44 -0000
>
> Ive been on several lists for various things, some exceedingly trivial
>(movie sites etc). I've never seen moderators have to explain decisions
>to kick anyone,I've seen people quibble over it, but I've never sen a
>moderator explain the reasons, and that includes sites where you have to
>pay to be a member, just like in real life where you can be asked to
>leave premises with little or no reason other than the owner of the
>premises doesn't want you there. I've seen sites where a new person has
>come in and been disruptive, deliberately trying to push peoples buttons
>only to get their PC hacked by other site members and all sorts of
>damage done to their PC.It certainly stops them coming back with a new
>IP address and causing more hassle. But that's how some people manage
>these issues.
>
> You do have options, if you don't like the way a moderator runs a site,
>you can leave and start your own with your own values re: kicking
>people. It happens all the time. Usually the new sites end up with the
>exact same problem and end up kicking people for the same reasons.
>
>Lets imagine if a moderator has to submit reasons to kick someone and
>there is some sort of vote. When you have an anonymous list such as ours
>it's all to easy to subscribe with multiple names to throw any voting
>system off. So I don't see why a moderator has to explain themselves.
>It's their list to do what they want with.
>
>I've never got the impression that opinion is stifled here, I've seen it
>get quite heated, but generally everybody gets to say what they want.
>But I've also seen some particularly nasty personal attacks against
>people that go beyond what would be allowed on any other sites/lists
>(except star wars fan sites where abuse of participants is an art form
>and has to be seen to be believed).
>
>I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of guidelines
>would be appropriate here, there's only been a few people over the years
>who they'd apply to, but maybe there is a place for them. In practice
>the moderators here do very little (usually nothing) to anyones posts, I
>don't think I've been edited or censored in any way since I first came
>here,most people seem quite able to censor themselves, but when they are
>unwilling to(for whatever justification they can please themselves with)
>the smooth running of the place requires a moderator to suspend them.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 13 November 2006 12:43
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>I just replied to this, but Hotmail is acting up again. If you get a
>duplicate, that's why. So - to repeat:
>
>Sorry, Stephen, but your statement is absolutely inaccurate.
>I am compiling a list of URLs to post that present a wide variety of
>approaches to this issue. I suggest we start with
>www.sierraclub.org/lists/dispute.asp and
>http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall95-papers/rigby-anon
>ymity.html
>- a paper written by a student at MIT on the issue of anonymity. I will
>follow up with a list of others. As I read them, I am keeping in
>mind the unique nature of Bohm Dialog, for it will be a worthwhile
>challenge
>to reconcile our principles to internet protocol and procedures. Happy
>reading and thinkg! k
>
>
>
>
> >From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:04 +0000 (GMT)
> >
> >Any where else online and the group would get no consultation
> >whatsoever as
> >to the exclusion of a list-member. We all know how to behave, if
>someone
> >gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault. I don't see
>what
> >all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed necessary then there
>is a
> >trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not be allowed
>back.
> >
> >As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed their hands up
> >first
> >the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be Having The Last
>Laugh -
> >On Vatican looks cold.
> >
> >ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> > But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me
>your
> > phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
> >
> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> > find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> > number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> > actually misread the purpose?
> >
> > 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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>****************************************************
>Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
>****************************************************
>This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the
>person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
>and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or
>other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
>persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
>you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately
>and delete the material from your computer.
>
>E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and
>unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for
>any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
>consequences.
>****************************************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
From Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Mon Nov 13 16:14:18 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Tue Nov 14 17:19:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B3B36FE6@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Morgan is a welsh name (I'm half-welsh) and where I'm from its usually
males that have it (in my experience), like Morgan Freeman, apologies
for any offence.
Any anger you perceive maybe a projection of your own btw, and I might
add that I find my experience to be as valid or more valid than anything
I might find on google, but thanks for the tips. One thing about being
involved in the various sites is you know firsthand what people have
said/done and what offends different subscribers. You can't get that
from some summary from MIT.
You don't mention who is the arbiter of internet protocol, neither do
you comment on what you think about the possibility of anonymous
dialogue when there is suspicion as to the motives of certain
subscribers.
I think the anonymity question here relates to "if it walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, its probably a duck", i.e.
Peter, and it is my opinion that the moderator is perfectly entitled to
do as he/she sees fit in the running of the site. They set it up, they
get all the personal flak for it, it should be their rules. If I don't
like them I can exercise my right to unsubscribe and find somewhere else
to go.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: 13 November 2006 14:18
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of guidelines
would be appropriate here.
K: I think so. Again, no matter what your experience, I suggest you
amplify it by looking at the experiences available by Googling. I hear
anger in your tone. Is there something here that needs exploring? k
PS - I'm not "Mr.". I'm Ms. with two grown sons. Why did you assume
I'm
male?
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:09:44 -0000
>
> Ive been on several lists for various things, some exceedingly
>trivial (movie sites etc). I've never seen moderators have to explain
>decisions to kick anyone,I've seen people quibble over it, but I've
>never sen a moderator explain the reasons, and that includes sites
>where you have to pay to be a member, just like in real life where you
>can be asked to leave premises with little or no reason other than the
>owner of the premises doesn't want you there. I've seen sites where a
>new person has come in and been disruptive, deliberately trying to push
>peoples buttons only to get their PC hacked by other site members and
>all sorts of damage done to their PC.It certainly stops them coming
>back with a new IP address and causing more hassle. But that's how some
>people manage these issues.
>
> You do have options, if you don't like the way a moderator runs a
>site, you can leave and start your own with your own values re: kicking
>people. It happens all the time. Usually the new sites end up with the
>exact same problem and end up kicking people for the same reasons.
>
>Lets imagine if a moderator has to submit reasons to kick someone and
>there is some sort of vote. When you have an anonymous list such as
>ours it's all to easy to subscribe with multiple names to throw any
>voting system off. So I don't see why a moderator has to explain
>themselves. It's their list to do what they want with.
>
>I've never got the impression that opinion is stifled here, I've seen
>it get quite heated, but generally everybody gets to say what they
>want. But I've also seen some particularly nasty personal attacks
>against people that go beyond what would be allowed on any other
>sites/lists (except star wars fan sites where abuse of participants is
>an art form and has to be seen to be believed).
>
>I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of
>guidelines would be appropriate here, there's only been a few people
>over the years who they'd apply to, but maybe there is a place for
>them. In practice the moderators here do very little (usually nothing)
>to anyones posts, I don't think I've been edited or censored in any way
>since I first came here,most people seem quite able to censor
>themselves, but when they are unwilling to(for whatever justification
>they can please themselves with) the smooth running of the place
>requires a moderator to suspend them.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 13 November 2006 12:43
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>I just replied to this, but Hotmail is acting up again. If you get a
>duplicate, that's why. So - to repeat:
>
>Sorry, Stephen, but your statement is absolutely inaccurate.
>I am compiling a list of URLs to post that present a wide variety of
>approaches to this issue. I suggest we start with
>www.sierraclub.org/lists/dispute.asp and
>http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall95-papers/rigby-ano
>n
>ymity.html
>- a paper written by a student at MIT on the issue of anonymity. I will
>follow up with a list of others. As I read them, I am keeping in
>mind the unique nature of Bohm Dialog, for it will be a worthwhile
>challenge
>to reconcile our principles to internet protocol and procedures. Happy
>reading and thinkg! k
>
>
>
>
> >From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:04 +0000 (GMT)
> >
> >Any where else online and the group would get no consultation
> >whatsoever as to the exclusion of a list-member. We all know how to
> >behave, if
>someone
> >gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault. I don't
> >see
>what
> >all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed necessary then there
>is a
> >trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not be allowed
>back.
> >
> >As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed their hands up
> >first the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be Having The
> >Last
>Laugh -
> >On Vatican looks cold.
> >
> >ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> > But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me
>your
> > phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
> >
> >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> > find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> > number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> > actually misread the purpose?
> >
> > 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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >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&loc
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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>****************************************************
>Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
>****************************************************
>This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the
>person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
>and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or
>other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by
>persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
If
>you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
immediately
>and delete the material from your computer.
>
>E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and
>unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability
for
>any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
>consequences.
>****************************************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
_______________________________________________
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 16:21:36 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 17:26:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <C17E1420.39D5%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <007701c70737$69721b70$2278480c@HOME>
I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone, including me)
feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing? Personally I think
we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I try to look
at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as enabling and
empowering, not diminishing.
Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's been my
experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite often
different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take inquiry to
sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I suppose the
authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us have equal
authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or less of an
authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or experience. As Don
F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something brand new, a
frontier.
But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as though there's
something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though there is
something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal status here
where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each other to my
way of thinking.
So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we are all equal
authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to say. My
intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group equally.
So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit you in
some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being defensive. Perhaps
you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being someone who
"needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of lack and
so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being defensive? Of
course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into a defensive
position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have rejoined the
group would fall into that category yet.
I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions, not just
some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts also. I try
to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's caring,
warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm aware that
emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch for that, to
use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them against
someone.
And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft" posts. I
seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that is, and I
do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there are enough
people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a little balance
in the area of soft/firm?
Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on reading your
post.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> Hi Susan,
>
> I have been with family and friends over the weekend so this is the first
> chance I've had to respond ...
>
> Yes I agree we have made 'a connection'. I guess connections can have very
> many different qualities. They can be gentle, caring, warm, authorative,
> cold, hard, arrogant and dismissive. And of course an infinitive number of
> other qualities.
>
> I'm glad your intention has not been to teach me about dialogue ... Its
> rather paradoxical really ... Because I am very open to learning about
> myself and dialogue, this is what my life is about ... Yet I will speak up
> and check out peoples intentions when I feel diminished in some way, or
> feel
> restricted and made smaller than I am. Of course my sensitivity in these
> areas show you all something of my history, the way that I have been
> treated.
>
> But please don't interpret this as me misperceiving situations ... It
> could
> be, and I'll work hard to recognise these situations ... And it could be
> that I am recognising qualities that other people are sometimes not open
> to
> seeing. Will others work as hard?
>
> And no I do not feel better after telling you a little about my
> background.
> I'll feel better when I feel you are not making assumptions about me. Each
> time you have replied to me I have felt that you gave yourself some type
> of
> authority which I haven't understood. I felt it again in this email of
> yours
> when you say you found my email defensive.
>
> Its kinda interesting ... Each time you have replied to me I've wondered
> about whether you are being defensive. Until this moment I had decided to
> 'suspend' using that word.
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 10/11/06 17:09, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> Hi Gill. Well, as far as I can tell I haven't made any assumptions about
>> you yet at all. I can see where my posts may have sounded as though I
>> was
>> trying to teach you something, but that really wasn't my intention at
>> all.
>> I have simply been posting my own thoughts and ideas with the intention
>> of
>> making them available to the list as a whole.
>>
>> It does seem that I have misinterpreted what you where trying to say
>> about
>> making a connection. But isn't that how dialogue works? Someone says
>> something, another responds, the first person gives feedback, etc. To my
>> way of thinking we have connected by the very act of being on this list
>> and
>> responding to each other. We are connecting now in our attempts to
>> communicate our feelings, understandings and responses to each other. It
>> seems that somehow that connection doesn't feel satisfactory to you so
>> far.
>> I hope posting your credentials about dialogue has resolved some of the
>> dissatisfaction for you. Now I know you a little better and you can rest
>> assured that I'm not trying to teach you something about dialogue.
>>
>> I have to say Gill, your response does sound somewhat defensive to me.
>> Please rest assured that I do not have the credentials to try to be any
>> kind
>> of an authority on Bohm or Dialogue. In fact, Don F. is fond of
>> reminding
>> me that I haven't even done any extensive reading of Bohm and my only
>> experience of Dialogue is on this list. I've never even done Dialogue
>> face
>> to face. And, although I have been on this list from some time, I don't
>> think I am considered to be one of the "old timers" on the list who
>> actually
>> knew Bohm and went to his seminars.
>>
>> I hope that clears up any of your assumptions about my assumptions.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>>> Hi Susan,
>>>
>>> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are trying to
>>> teach
>>> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this from both
>>> of
>>> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making an
>>> assumption
>>> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was gorgeous, and
>>> maybe
>>> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody agrees
>>> with
>>> me
>>> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was meaning
>>> it
>>> in
>>> my message.
>>>
>>> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David Bohm is
>>> saying
>>> in
>>> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would never mean
>>> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the meeting of two
>>> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are doing this in
>>> this
>>> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are making about
>>> me.
>>> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I guess I am
>>> telling
>>> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions were. It feels
>>> as
>>> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to this list
>>> that
>>> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
>>>
>>> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have written a
>>> Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops introducing
>>> the
>>> concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many years in how some
>>> groups get to dialogue and how the shift in consciousness at a group
>>> level
>>> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have been the
>>> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know about
>>> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that kept on
>>> occurring
>>> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
>>>
>>> Gill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name). Yes, it can be very
>>>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on an intimate
>>>> level. However, since being in Dialogue I have come to cherish a
>>>> different
>>>> kind of connection that seems to be just as intimate if not more so.
>>>> I'm
>>>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I look for now.
>>>> I
>>>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation that comes
>>>> from
>>>> exploring our differences. So I'll defer to DB's words to describe it:
>>>>
>>>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one person
>>>> says
>>>> something, the other person does not in general respond with exactly
>>>> the
>>>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings are
>>>> only
>>>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies, the
>>>> first
>>>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and what the
>>>> other
>>>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may then be able
>>>> to
>>>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and to those
>>>> of
>>>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the continual
>>>> emergence of a new content that is common to both participants. Thus,
>>>> in
>>>> a
>>>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas or
>>>> items
>>>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may be said
>>>> that
>>>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something
>>>> new
>>>> together."
>>>>
>>>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together" that I
>>>> look
>>>> for now through the exploration of our differences. I no longer look
>>>> for
>>>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to see what we
>>>> can
>>>> create out of the hubris of our differences. And when we manage to do
>>>> that
>>>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the common ground
>>>> we
>>>> share. I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he talks about
>>>> a
>>>> "difference that makes a difference".
>>>>
>>>> Susan
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 13 16:33:08 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Tue Nov 14 17:37:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
References: <007901c704fe$7e021b20$ec78480c@HOME>
<455839A3.000001.05016@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <007d01c70739$05f01960$2278480c@HOME>
It looks like I've misinterpreted you. Thanks for clearing that up.
I guess I'm wondering what you would describe as the advances humans have made in consciousness so far then, and what kind of ideas you have of where we might go as a race with consciousness?
To my way of thinking, there have been a few isolated experiences of people having altered states of consciousness but for the most part, the average person seldom allows themselves to experience anything other than their ordinary state. If they do have an altered state they immediately think something is "wrong" with them and they repress it out of fear. And so an advance in consciousness would mean that people would take it as ordinary to have multiple states of consciousness on a regular basis. That people as a whole would begin to explore their own subjective states of consciousness for subtle differences and begin to use those differences more effectively. Particularly in the area of emotions.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: william
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
From: Susan Clemons
>Yes. And saying (as William seems to imply) that any change
>in consciousness or altered state of consciousness can only be
>a result of (or result in) brain damage seems to be much too
>limiting of an idea. It could just as easily be brain enhancing.
Did I say that? Sorry, I only meant to question the value of altered states of consciousness by means of damaging the brain. It is possible to get "expanded" consciousness, heightened creativity, sense of wholeness and loss of separation, seeing intense colours, hearing pure sounds or the voice of God, or knowing the Truth with a capital T, etc. All these things are very nice and interesting but, to me, it looks like a form of regress to an earlier stage of evolution.
I like to think that consciousness has evolved over a long time, and that this evolution is still in progress. If we can think of consciousness as an evolving ongoing process then it seems reasonable to assume that future states of consciousness may be something different from what we know now (and also different from these "altered states of consciousness" that we already know). I am curious where this is leading to, so I tend to more interested in progress rather than regress.
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/20061113/a3bc6200/attachment.html
From Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Mon Nov 13 16:44:46 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Tue Nov 14 17:49:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B3B36FE7@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
"But, it's been my
experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite
often
different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take inquiry
to
sort that out sometimes."
I agree with Susan here (rarely :-) ), this is the biggest handicap to
online dialogue as most of communication is non verbal and most of us
aren't going to turn into Shakespeare anytime soon (thank fully, never
did like Shakey).Its all to easy to fall into the trap of defending a
point of view, and it happens all the time, but when that is going on
dialogue is not happening (in the Bohmian sense as I understand it) as
there is no inquiry, just defense.
"Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything."
-- Homer Simpson
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's
even remotely true!"
-- Homer Simpson
Personally I've learned the most here from the people I almost never sem
to agree with if you examine tone and so on, sometimes it takes a while
for a challenged assumption to alter sufficiently to where change is
noticed.But it's going to happen regardless. We all learn and teach
here, unless we're silent, I have no idea what the silent members get
from this, it's the intellectual equivalent of dogging.
steve
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Susan Clemons
Sent: 13 November 2006 15:22
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone, including
me)
feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing? Personally I
think
we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I try to
look
at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as enabling
and
empowering, not diminishing.
Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's been
my
experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite
often
different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take inquiry
to
sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I suppose the
authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us have
equal
authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or less
of an
authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or experience. As
Don
F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something brand new,
a
frontier.
But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as though
there's
something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though there is
something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal status
here
where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each other to
my
way of thinking.
So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we are all
equal
authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to say.
My
intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
equally.
So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit you in
some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being defensive.
Perhaps
you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being someone
who
"needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of lack
and
so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being defensive? Of
course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into a
defensive
position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have rejoined the
group would fall into that category yet.
I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions, not
just
some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts also. I
try
to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's caring,
warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm aware that
emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch for
that, to
use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them against
someone.
And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft" posts.
I
seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that is, and
I
do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there are
enough
people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a little
balance
in the area of soft/firm?
Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on reading
your
post.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> Hi Susan,
>
> I have been with family and friends over the weekend so this is the
> first chance I've had to respond ...
>
> Yes I agree we have made 'a connection'. I guess connections can have
> very many different qualities. They can be gentle, caring, warm,
> authorative, cold, hard, arrogant and dismissive. And of course an
> infinitive number of other qualities.
>
> I'm glad your intention has not been to teach me about dialogue ...
> Its rather paradoxical really ... Because I am very open to learning
> about myself and dialogue, this is what my life is about ... Yet I
> will speak up and check out peoples intentions when I feel diminished
> in some way, or feel restricted and made smaller than I am. Of course
> my sensitivity in these areas show you all something of my history,
> the way that I have been treated.
>
> But please don't interpret this as me misperceiving situations ... It
> could
> be, and I'll work hard to recognise these situations ... And it could
be
> that I am recognising qualities that other people are sometimes not
open
> to
> seeing. Will others work as hard?
>
> And no I do not feel better after telling you a little about my
> background.
> I'll feel better when I feel you are not making assumptions about me.
Each
> time you have replied to me I have felt that you gave yourself some
type
> of
> authority which I haven't understood. I felt it again in this email of
> yours
> when you say you found my email defensive.
>
> Its kinda interesting ... Each time you have replied to me I've
> wondered about whether you are being defensive. Until this moment I
> had decided to 'suspend' using that word.
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 10/11/06 17:09, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> Hi Gill. Well, as far as I can tell I haven't made any assumptions
>> about you yet at all. I can see where my posts may have sounded as
>> though I was trying to teach you something, but that really wasn't my
>> intention at all.
>> I have simply been posting my own thoughts and ideas with the
intention
>> of
>> making them available to the list as a whole.
>>
>> It does seem that I have misinterpreted what you where trying to say
>> about
>> making a connection. But isn't that how dialogue works? Someone
says
>> something, another responds, the first person gives feedback, etc.
To my
>> way of thinking we have connected by the very act of being on this
list
>> and
>> responding to each other. We are connecting now in our attempts to
>> communicate our feelings, understandings and responses to each other.
It
>> seems that somehow that connection doesn't feel satisfactory to you
so
>> far.
>> I hope posting your credentials about dialogue has resolved some of
the
>> dissatisfaction for you. Now I know you a little better and you can
rest
>> assured that I'm not trying to teach you something about dialogue.
>>
>> I have to say Gill, your response does sound somewhat defensive to
>> me. Please rest assured that I do not have the credentials to try to
>> be any kind of an authority on Bohm or Dialogue. In fact, Don F. is
>> fond of reminding
>> me that I haven't even done any extensive reading of Bohm and my only
>> experience of Dialogue is on this list. I've never even done
Dialogue
>> face
>> to face. And, although I have been on this list from some time, I
don't
>> think I am considered to be one of the "old timers" on the list who
>> actually
>> knew Bohm and went to his seminars.
>>
>> I hope that clears up any of your assumptions about my assumptions.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>>> Hi Susan,
>>>
>>> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are trying to
>>> teach
>>> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this from
both
>>> of
>>> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making an
>>> assumption
>>> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was gorgeous, and
>>> maybe
>>> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody agrees
>>> with
>>> me
>>> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was
meaning
>>> it
>>> in
>>> my message.
>>>
>>> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David Bohm is
>>> saying
>>> in
>>> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would never mean
>>> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the meeting of
two
>>> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are doing this
in
>>> this
>>> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are making
about
>>> me.
>>> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I guess I am
>>> telling
>>> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions were. It
feels
>>> as
>>> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to this
list
>>> that
>>> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
>>>
>>> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have written
>>> a Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops
>>> introducing the concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many
>>> years in how some groups get to dialogue and how the shift in
>>> consciousness at a group level
>>> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have been
the
>>> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know about
>>> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that kept on
>>> occurring
>>> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
>>>
>>> Gill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name). Yes, it can be very
>>>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on an
>>>> intimate level. However, since being in Dialogue I have come to
>>>> cherish a different kind of connection that seems to be just as
>>>> intimate if not more so. I'm
>>>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I look for
now.
>>>> I
>>>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation that
comes
>>>> from
>>>> exploring our differences. So I'll defer to DB's words to describe
it:
>>>>
>>>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one
>>>> person says something, the other person does not in general respond
>>>> with exactly the
>>>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings
are
>>>> only
>>>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies,
the
>>>> first
>>>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and what the
>>>> other
>>>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may then be
able
>>>> to
>>>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and to
those
>>>> of
>>>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the
continual
>>>> emergence of a new content that is common to both participants.
Thus,
>>>> in
>>>> a
>>>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas
or
>>>> items
>>>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may be
said
>>>> that
>>>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating
something
>>>> new
>>>> together."
>>>>
>>>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together" that
>>>> I
>>>> look
>>>> for now through the exploration of our differences. I no longer
look
>>>> for
>>>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to see
what we
>>>> can
>>>> create out of the hubris of our differences. And when we manage to
do
>>>> that
>>>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the common
ground
>>>> we
>>>> share. I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he talks
about
>>>> a
>>>> "difference that makes a difference".
>>>>
>>>> Susan
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
****************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
****************************************************
This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their consequences.
****************************************************
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 16:45:34 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 17:50:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B3B36FE6@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F15941D74FF2C0F132B7704A5F40@phx.gbl>
Hi Steve -
My grandfather Roberts (surname) was Welsh. The Morgan actually comes from
my maternal grandmother who was Irish; maybe a version of Morrigan - Morgan
le Fay, etc. It is a surname in my case. And, thanks for the apology - no
real offense. We went through gender assumptions when you were offline.
AS for experience, I like to match up a lot of experiences. It never ends.
The MIT article isn't a summary. It's a detailed paper that goes into the
pros and cons of anonymity on the internet. It's really quite thought
provoking. Brings up things I had thought about, but were on the back
burner.
My comments on possibilities will come after I read, thought and digested.
It's like doing an essay or a paper. And I hope others will read the MIT
article, and share thinkgs.
Personally, I don't think BD should have one person "taking the flak".
Dialog is about a larger understanding built on multiple experiences,
thinkgs, shared. If Homeland Security comes for Don and William, they need
to take me, too!
As for going somewhere else - not easy. I Googled that, too. As I posted,
I found Peter's (not active, he's out of the country for an extended period)
- plus you have to get through his jargon to understand it, there's one in
Mexico - we have a member who belongs to both, and a really awful travesty
of one calling itself Bohm, and it's good for nothing except by contrast
with ours, showing the difference between a real Bohm group and a real mess.
As Zoe wrote in her appeal - we are a group of great promise where
valuable things are happening. best, k
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:14:18 -0000
>
>Morgan is a welsh name (I'm half-welsh) and where I'm from its usually
>males that have it (in my experience), like Morgan Freeman, apologies
>for any offence.
>
>Any anger you perceive maybe a projection of your own btw, and I might
>add that I find my experience to be as valid or more valid than anything
>I might find on google, but thanks for the tips. One thing about being
>involved in the various sites is you know firsthand what people have
>said/done and what offends different subscribers. You can't get that
>from some summary from MIT.
>
>You don't mention who is the arbiter of internet protocol, neither do
>you comment on what you think about the possibility of anonymous
>dialogue when there is suspicion as to the motives of certain
>subscribers.
>
>I think the anonymity question here relates to "if it walks like a duck,
>quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, its probably a duck", i.e.
>Peter, and it is my opinion that the moderator is perfectly entitled to
>do as he/she sees fit in the running of the site. They set it up, they
>get all the personal flak for it, it should be their rules. If I don't
>like them I can exercise my right to unsubscribe and find somewhere else
>to go.
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 13 November 2006 14:18
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of guidelines
>
>would be appropriate here.
>
>K: I think so. Again, no matter what your experience, I suggest you
>amplify it by looking at the experiences available by Googling. I hear
>anger in your tone. Is there something here that needs exploring? k
>PS - I'm not "Mr.". I'm Ms. with two grown sons. Why did you assume
>I'm
>male?
>
>
> >From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:09:44 -0000
> >
> > Ive been on several lists for various things, some exceedingly
> >trivial (movie sites etc). I've never seen moderators have to explain
> >decisions to kick anyone,I've seen people quibble over it, but I've
> >never sen a moderator explain the reasons, and that includes sites
> >where you have to pay to be a member, just like in real life where you
> >can be asked to leave premises with little or no reason other than the
> >owner of the premises doesn't want you there. I've seen sites where a
> >new person has come in and been disruptive, deliberately trying to push
>
> >peoples buttons only to get their PC hacked by other site members and
> >all sorts of damage done to their PC.It certainly stops them coming
> >back with a new IP address and causing more hassle. But that's how some
>
> >people manage these issues.
> >
> > You do have options, if you don't like the way a moderator runs a
> >site, you can leave and start your own with your own values re: kicking
>
> >people. It happens all the time. Usually the new sites end up with the
> >exact same problem and end up kicking people for the same reasons.
> >
> >Lets imagine if a moderator has to submit reasons to kick someone and
> >there is some sort of vote. When you have an anonymous list such as
> >ours it's all to easy to subscribe with multiple names to throw any
> >voting system off. So I don't see why a moderator has to explain
> >themselves. It's their list to do what they want with.
> >
> >I've never got the impression that opinion is stifled here, I've seen
> >it get quite heated, but generally everybody gets to say what they
> >want. But I've also seen some particularly nasty personal attacks
> >against people that go beyond what would be allowed on any other
> >sites/lists (except star wars fan sites where abuse of participants is
> >an art form and has to be seen to be believed).
> >
> >I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of
> >guidelines would be appropriate here, there's only been a few people
> >over the years who they'd apply to, but maybe there is a place for
> >them. In practice the moderators here do very little (usually nothing)
> >to anyones posts, I don't think I've been edited or censored in any way
>
> >since I first came here,most people seem quite able to censor
> >themselves, but when they are unwilling to(for whatever justification
> >they can please themselves with) the smooth running of the place
> >requires a moderator to suspend them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> >[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
> >Sent: 13 November 2006 12:43
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >
> >
> >I just replied to this, but Hotmail is acting up again. If you get a
> >duplicate, that's why. So - to repeat:
> >
> >Sorry, Stephen, but your statement is absolutely inaccurate.
> >I am compiling a list of URLs to post that present a wide variety of
> >approaches to this issue. I suggest we start with
> >www.sierraclub.org/lists/dispute.asp and
> >http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall95-papers/rigby-ano
> >n
> >ymity.html
> >- a paper written by a student at MIT on the issue of anonymity. I will
> >follow up with a list of others. As I read them, I am keeping in
> >mind the unique nature of Bohm Dialog, for it will be a worthwhile
> >challenge
> >to reconcile our principles to internet protocol and procedures. Happy
> >reading and thinkg! k
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> > >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:04 +0000 (GMT)
> > >
> > >Any where else online and the group would get no consultation
> > >whatsoever as to the exclusion of a list-member. We all know how to
> > >behave, if
> >someone
> > >gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault. I don't
> > >see
> >what
> > >all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed necessary then there
> >is a
> > >trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not be allowed
> >back.
> > >
> > >As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed their hands up
>
> > >first the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be Having The
> > >Last
> >Laugh -
> > >On Vatican looks cold.
> > >
> > >ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> > > But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send me
> >your
> > > phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
> > >
> > >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> > > find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> > > number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> > > actually misread the purpose?
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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&loc
>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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >****************************************************
> >Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
> >****************************************************
> >This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the
> >person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> >and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or
> >other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
>information by
> >persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
>If
> >you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
>immediately
> >and delete the material from your computer.
> >
> >E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and
> >unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability
>for
> >any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
> >consequences.
> >****************************************************
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Mon Nov 13 16:52:09 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 17:56:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <007701c70737$69721b70$2278480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F16D66B5286C616C85F4389A5F40@phx.gbl>
Wow, Susan. What introspection, and what a great reply! I especially liked
the exploration of underlying assumptions on teaching and learning. There's
so much to explore here. Absolutely we all have something to teach and
learn from each other. But teachers are getting a bad rap, as I see it, in
a political power struggle. My ideas on that would consume an essay, and I
have other priorities at the moment. I keep getting lured back to dialog,
no matter how hard i try to take care of other things! 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: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:21:36 -0700
>
>I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone, including
>me) feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing? Personally I
>think we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I try
>to look at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as enabling and
>empowering, not diminishing.
>
>Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's been my
>experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite often
>different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take inquiry to
>sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I suppose the
>authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us have equal
>authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or less of
>an authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or experience. As
>Don F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something brand new,
>a frontier.
>
>But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as though there's
>something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though there is
>something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal status here
>where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each other to my
>way of thinking.
>
>So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we are all
>equal authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to say. My
>intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group equally.
>
>So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit you in
>some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being defensive.
>Perhaps you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being
>someone who "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind
>of lack and so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being
>defensive? Of course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall
>into a defensive position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have
>rejoined the group would fall into that category yet.
>
>I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions, not just
>some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts also. I
>try to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's caring,
>warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm aware that
>emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch for that,
>to use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them against
>someone.
>
>And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft" posts. I
>seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that is, and I
>do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there are enough
>people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a little
>balance in the area of soft/firm?
>
>Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on reading your
>post.
>
>Susan
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>>Hi Susan,
>>
>>I have been with family and friends over the weekend so this is the first
>>chance I've had to respond ...
>>
>>Yes I agree we have made 'a connection'. I guess connections can have very
>>many different qualities. They can be gentle, caring, warm, authorative,
>>cold, hard, arrogant and dismissive. And of course an infinitive number of
>>other qualities.
>>
>>I'm glad your intention has not been to teach me about dialogue ... Its
>>rather paradoxical really ... Because I am very open to learning about
>>myself and dialogue, this is what my life is about ... Yet I will speak up
>>and check out peoples intentions when I feel diminished in some way, or
>>feel
>>restricted and made smaller than I am. Of course my sensitivity in these
>>areas show you all something of my history, the way that I have been
>>treated.
>>
>>But please don't interpret this as me misperceiving situations ... It
>>could
>>be, and I'll work hard to recognise these situations ... And it could be
>>that I am recognising qualities that other people are sometimes not open
>>to
>>seeing. Will others work as hard?
>>
>>And no I do not feel better after telling you a little about my
>>background.
>>I'll feel better when I feel you are not making assumptions about me. Each
>>time you have replied to me I have felt that you gave yourself some type
>>of
>>authority which I haven't understood. I felt it again in this email of
>>yours
>>when you say you found my email defensive.
>>
>>Its kinda interesting ... Each time you have replied to me I've wondered
>>about whether you are being defensive. Until this moment I had decided to
>>'suspend' using that word.
>>
>>Gill
>>
>>
>>on 10/11/06 17:09, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Gill. Well, as far as I can tell I haven't made any assumptions about
>>>you yet at all. I can see where my posts may have sounded as though I
>>>was
>>>trying to teach you something, but that really wasn't my intention at
>>>all.
>>>I have simply been posting my own thoughts and ideas with the intention
>>>of
>>>making them available to the list as a whole.
>>>
>>>It does seem that I have misinterpreted what you where trying to say
>>>about
>>>making a connection. But isn't that how dialogue works? Someone says
>>>something, another responds, the first person gives feedback, etc. To my
>>>way of thinking we have connected by the very act of being on this list
>>>and
>>>responding to each other. We are connecting now in our attempts to
>>>communicate our feelings, understandings and responses to each other. It
>>>seems that somehow that connection doesn't feel satisfactory to you so
>>>far.
>>>I hope posting your credentials about dialogue has resolved some of the
>>>dissatisfaction for you. Now I know you a little better and you can rest
>>>assured that I'm not trying to teach you something about dialogue.
>>>
>>>I have to say Gill, your response does sound somewhat defensive to me.
>>>Please rest assured that I do not have the credentials to try to be any
>>>kind
>>>of an authority on Bohm or Dialogue. In fact, Don F. is fond of
>>>reminding
>>>me that I haven't even done any extensive reading of Bohm and my only
>>>experience of Dialogue is on this list. I've never even done Dialogue
>>>face
>>>to face. And, although I have been on this list from some time, I don't
>>>think I am considered to be one of the "old timers" on the list who
>>>actually
>>>knew Bohm and went to his seminars.
>>>
>>>I hope that clears up any of your assumptions about my assumptions.
>>>
>>>Susan
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:40 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Susan,
>>>>
>>>>I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are trying to
>>>>teach
>>>>me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this from both
>>>>of
>>>>your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making an
>>>>assumption
>>>>about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was gorgeous, and
>>>>maybe
>>>>about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody agrees
>>>>with
>>>>me
>>>>... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was meaning
>>>>it
>>>>in
>>>>my message.
>>>>
>>>>I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David Bohm is
>>>>saying
>>>>in
>>>>his quote that you include in your message. Connect would never mean
>>>>agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the meeting of two
>>>>people via the connection they make. I don't think we are doing this in
>>>>this
>>>>conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are making about
>>>>me.
>>>>And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I guess I am
>>>>telling
>>>>you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions were. It feels
>>>>as
>>>>if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to this list
>>>>that
>>>>I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have written a
>>>>Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops introducing
>>>>the
>>>>concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many years in how some
>>>>groups get to dialogue and how the shift in consciousness at a group
>>>>level
>>>>and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have been the
>>>>facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know about
>>>>dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that kept on
>>>>occurring
>>>>that took me to David Bohm's writing.
>>>>
>>>>Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name). Yes, it can be very
>>>>>intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on an intimate
>>>>>level. However, since being in Dialogue I have come to cherish a
>>>>>different
>>>>>kind of connection that seems to be just as intimate if not more so.
>>>>>I'm
>>>>>struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I look for now.
>>>>>I
>>>>>guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation that comes
>>>>>from
>>>>>exploring our differences. So I'll defer to DB's words to describe it:
>>>>>
>>>>>"For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one person
>>>>>says
>>>>>something, the other person does not in general respond with exactly
>>>>>the
>>>>>same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings are
>>>>>only
>>>>>similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies, the
>>>>>first
>>>>>person sees a difference between what he meant to say and what the
>>>>>other
>>>>>person understood. On considering this difference, he may then be able
>>>>>to
>>>>>see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and to those
>>>>>of
>>>>>the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the continual
>>>>>emergence of a new content that is common to both participants. Thus,
>>>>>in
>>>>>a
>>>>>dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas or
>>>>>items
>>>>>of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may be said
>>>>>that
>>>>>the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something
>>>>>new
>>>>>together."
>>>>>
>>>>>It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together" that I
>>>>>look
>>>>>for now through the exploration of our differences. I no longer look
>>>>>for
>>>>>what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to see what we
>>>>>can
>>>>>create out of the hubris of our differences. And when we manage to do
>>>>>that
>>>>>I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the common ground
>>>>>we
>>>>>share. I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he talks about
>>>>>a
>>>>>"difference that makes a difference".
>>>>>
>>>>>Susan
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Mon Nov 13 16:59:08 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 18:03:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B3B36FE7@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F14F1AA6E8A2A31367FD35DA5F40@phx.gbl>
S: Personally I've learned the most here from the people I almost never sem
to agree with if you examine tone and so on, sometimes it takes a while
for a challenged assumption to alter sufficiently to where change is
noticed.But it's going to happen regardless. We all learn and teach
here, unless we're silent,
K: Absolutely. That's what makes me feel safe to be vulnerable.
S: I have no idea what the silent members get from this,
K: Hopefully, the courage to post.
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.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: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:44:46 -0000
>
>"But, it's been my
>experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite
>often
>different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take inquiry
>to
>sort that out sometimes."
>
>I agree with Susan here (rarely :-) ), this is the biggest handicap to
>online dialogue as most of communication is non verbal and most of us
>aren't going to turn into Shakespeare anytime soon (thank fully, never
>did like Shakey).Its all to easy to fall into the trap of defending a
>point of view, and it happens all the time, but when that is going on
>dialogue is not happening (in the Bohmian sense as I understand it) as
>there is no inquiry, just defense.
>
>"Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything."
>-- Homer Simpson
>
>"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's
>even remotely true!"
>-- Homer Simpson
>
>Personally I've learned the most here from the people I almost never sem
>to agree with if you examine tone and so on, sometimes it takes a while
>for a challenged assumption to alter sufficiently to where change is
>noticed.But it's going to happen regardless. We all learn and teach
>here, unless we're silent, I have no idea what the silent members get
>from this, it's the intellectual equivalent of dogging.
>
>steve
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Susan Clemons
>Sent: 13 November 2006 15:22
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone, including
>me)
>feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing? Personally I
>think
>we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I try to
>look
>at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as enabling
>and
>empowering, not diminishing.
>
>Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's been
>my
>experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite
>often
>different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take inquiry
>to
>sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I suppose the
>authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us have
>equal
>authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or less
>of an
>authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or experience. As
>Don
>F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something brand new,
>a
>frontier.
>
>But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as though
>there's
>something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though there is
>
>something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal status
>here
>where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each other to
>my
>way of thinking.
>
>So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we are all
>equal
>authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to say.
>My
>intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
>equally.
>
>So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit you in
>
>some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being defensive.
>Perhaps
>you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being someone
>who
>"needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of lack
>and
>so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being defensive? Of
>course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into a
>defensive
>position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have rejoined the
>group would fall into that category yet.
>
>I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions, not
>just
>some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts also. I
>try
>to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's caring,
>warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm aware that
>emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch for
>that, to
>use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them against
>
>someone.
>
>And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft" posts.
>I
>seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that is, and
>I
>do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there are
>enough
>people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a little
>balance
>in the area of soft/firm?
>
>Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on reading
>your
>post.
>
>Susan
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
> > Hi Susan,
> >
> > I have been with family and friends over the weekend so this is the
> > first chance I've had to respond ...
> >
> > Yes I agree we have made 'a connection'. I guess connections can have
> > very many different qualities. They can be gentle, caring, warm,
> > authorative, cold, hard, arrogant and dismissive. And of course an
> > infinitive number of other qualities.
> >
> > I'm glad your intention has not been to teach me about dialogue ...
> > Its rather paradoxical really ... Because I am very open to learning
> > about myself and dialogue, this is what my life is about ... Yet I
> > will speak up and check out peoples intentions when I feel diminished
> > in some way, or feel restricted and made smaller than I am. Of course
> > my sensitivity in these areas show you all something of my history,
> > the way that I have been treated.
> >
> > But please don't interpret this as me misperceiving situations ... It
> > could
> > be, and I'll work hard to recognise these situations ... And it could
>be
> > that I am recognising qualities that other people are sometimes not
>open
> > to
> > seeing. Will others work as hard?
> >
> > And no I do not feel better after telling you a little about my
> > background.
> > I'll feel better when I feel you are not making assumptions about me.
>Each
> > time you have replied to me I have felt that you gave yourself some
>type
> > of
> > authority which I haven't understood. I felt it again in this email of
>
> > yours
> > when you say you found my email defensive.
> >
> > Its kinda interesting ... Each time you have replied to me I've
> > wondered about whether you are being defensive. Until this moment I
> > had decided to 'suspend' using that word.
> >
> > Gill
> >
> >
> > on 10/11/06 17:09, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Gill. Well, as far as I can tell I haven't made any assumptions
> >> about you yet at all. I can see where my posts may have sounded as
> >> though I was trying to teach you something, but that really wasn't my
>
> >> intention at all.
> >> I have simply been posting my own thoughts and ideas with the
>intention
> >> of
> >> making them available to the list as a whole.
> >>
> >> It does seem that I have misinterpreted what you where trying to say
> >> about
> >> making a connection. But isn't that how dialogue works? Someone
>says
> >> something, another responds, the first person gives feedback, etc.
>To my
> >> way of thinking we have connected by the very act of being on this
>list
> >> and
> >> responding to each other. We are connecting now in our attempts to
> >> communicate our feelings, understandings and responses to each other.
>It
> >> seems that somehow that connection doesn't feel satisfactory to you
>so
> >> far.
> >> I hope posting your credentials about dialogue has resolved some of
>the
> >> dissatisfaction for you. Now I know you a little better and you can
>rest
> >> assured that I'm not trying to teach you something about dialogue.
> >>
> >> I have to say Gill, your response does sound somewhat defensive to
> >> me. Please rest assured that I do not have the credentials to try to
> >> be any kind of an authority on Bohm or Dialogue. In fact, Don F. is
> >> fond of reminding
> >> me that I haven't even done any extensive reading of Bohm and my only
> >> experience of Dialogue is on this list. I've never even done
>Dialogue
> >> face
> >> to face. And, although I have been on this list from some time, I
>don't
> >> think I am considered to be one of the "old timers" on the list who
> >> actually
> >> knew Bohm and went to his seminars.
> >>
> >> I hope that clears up any of your assumptions about my assumptions.
> >>
> >> Susan
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:40 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Susan,
> >>>
> >>> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are trying to
> >>> teach
> >>> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this from
>both
> >>> of
> >>> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making an
> >>> assumption
> >>> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was gorgeous, and
> >>> maybe
> >>> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody agrees
>
> >>> with
> >>> me
> >>> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was
>meaning
> >>> it
> >>> in
> >>> my message.
> >>>
> >>> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David Bohm is
> >>> saying
> >>> in
> >>> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would never mean
> >>> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the meeting of
>two
> >>> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are doing this
>in
> >>> this
> >>> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are making
>about
> >>> me.
> >>> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I guess I am
> >>> telling
> >>> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions were. It
>feels
> >>> as
> >>> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to this
>list
> >>> that
> >>> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have written
>
> >>> a Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops
> >>> introducing the concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many
>
> >>> years in how some groups get to dialogue and how the shift in
> >>> consciousness at a group level
> >>> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have been
>the
> >>> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know about
> >>> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that kept on
> >>> occurring
> >>> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
> >>>
> >>> Gill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name). Yes, it can be very
> >>>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on an
> >>>> intimate level. However, since being in Dialogue I have come to
> >>>> cherish a different kind of connection that seems to be just as
> >>>> intimate if not more so. I'm
> >>>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I look for
>now.
> >>>> I
> >>>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation that
>comes
> >>>> from
> >>>> exploring our differences. So I'll defer to DB's words to describe
>it:
> >>>>
> >>>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one
> >>>> person says something, the other person does not in general respond
>
> >>>> with exactly the
> >>>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings
>are
> >>>> only
> >>>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies,
>the
> >>>> first
> >>>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and what the
> >>>> other
> >>>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may then be
>able
> >>>> to
> >>>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and to
>those
> >>>> of
> >>>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the
>continual
> >>>> emergence of a new content that is common to both participants.
>Thus,
> >>>> in
> >>>> a
> >>>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas
>or
> >>>> items
> >>>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may be
>said
> >>>> that
> >>>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating
>something
> >>>> new
> >>>> together."
> >>>>
> >>>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together" that
> >>>> I
> >>>> look
> >>>> for now through the exploration of our differences. I no longer
>look
> >>>> for
> >>>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to see
>what we
> >>>> can
> >>>> create out of the hubris of our differences. And when we manage to
>do
> >>>> that
> >>>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the common
>ground
> >>>> we
> >>>> share. I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he talks
>about
> >>>> a
> >>>> "difference that makes a difference".
> >>>>
> >>>> Susan
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>****************************************************
>Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
>****************************************************
>This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the
>person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
>and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or
>other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
>persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
>you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately
>and delete the material from your computer.
>
>E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and
>unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for
>any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
>consequences.
>****************************************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Mon Nov 13 17:00:25 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Tue Nov 14 18:05:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B3B36FE8@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Hi,
In the welsh sense of the word in means "born of the water", or Sprite,
but it became a common Gaelic name too.
One of my bugbears is waiting until you read essays/books before
announcing you r opinion/view. I prefer to say what I think, and then
read, and see what changes. Any opinion I have is subject to change,
I've watched so many of them alter over the years the force of
attachment is not so strong as it used to be, and I'm happier for it.
On the subject of Zoe I think personal responsibility is something that
almost never gets a mention these days. We are responsible for what we
say and do. We are intelligent enough to get the lay of the land before
we respond in certain fashions. We should also expect consequences when
we start calling people ignorant, we expect consequences at work for
comments like that, is there any reason why online conversation has to
be any different in how you treat others? I don't think so.
There's a reason why this place is different from the other groups
online, part of it is the experience of some of the participants, part
of it is the freedom, and part of it is personal responsibility and
behaviour.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: 13 November 2006 15:46
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Hi Steve -
My grandfather Roberts (surname) was Welsh. The Morgan actually comes
from
my maternal grandmother who was Irish; maybe a version of Morrigan -
Morgan
le Fay, etc. It is a surname in my case. And, thanks for the apology -
no
real offense. We went through gender assumptions when you were offline.
AS for experience, I like to match up a lot of experiences. It never
ends.
The MIT article isn't a summary. It's a detailed paper that goes into
the
pros and cons of anonymity on the internet. It's really quite thought
provoking. Brings up things I had thought about, but were on the back
burner.
My comments on possibilities will come after I read, thought and
digested.
It's like doing an essay or a paper. And I hope others will read the
MIT
article, and share thinkgs.
Personally, I don't think BD should have one person "taking the flak".
Dialog is about a larger understanding built on multiple experiences,
thinkgs, shared. If Homeland Security comes for Don and William, they
need
to take me, too!
As for going somewhere else - not easy. I Googled that, too. As I
posted,
I found Peter's (not active, he's out of the country for an extended
period)
- plus you have to get through his jargon to understand it, there's one
in
Mexico - we have a member who belongs to both, and a really awful
travesty
of one calling itself Bohm, and it's good for nothing except by contrast
with ours, showing the difference between a real Bohm group and a real
mess.
As Zoe wrote in her appeal - we are a group of great promise where
valuable things are happening. best, k
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:14:18 -0000
>
>Morgan is a welsh name (I'm half-welsh) and where I'm from its usually
>males that have it (in my experience), like Morgan Freeman, apologies
>for any offence.
>
>Any anger you perceive maybe a projection of your own btw, and I might
>add that I find my experience to be as valid or more valid than
>anything I might find on google, but thanks for the tips. One thing
>about being involved in the various sites is you know firsthand what
>people have said/done and what offends different subscribers. You can't
>get that from some summary from MIT.
>
>You don't mention who is the arbiter of internet protocol, neither do
>you comment on what you think about the possibility of anonymous
>dialogue when there is suspicion as to the motives of certain
>subscribers.
>
>I think the anonymity question here relates to "if it walks like a
>duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, its probably a duck",
>i.e. Peter, and it is my opinion that the moderator is perfectly
>entitled to do as he/she sees fit in the running of the site. They set
>it up, they get all the personal flak for it, it should be their rules.
>If I don't like them I can exercise my right to unsubscribe and find
>somewhere else to go.
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 13 November 2006 14:18
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of
>guidelines
>
>would be appropriate here.
>
>K: I think so. Again, no matter what your experience, I suggest you
>amplify it by looking at the experiences available by Googling. I hear
>anger in your tone. Is there something here that needs exploring? k
>PS - I'm not "Mr.". I'm Ms. with two grown sons. Why did you assume
>I'm male?
>
>
> >From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:09:44 -0000
> >
> > Ive been on several lists for various things, some exceedingly
> >trivial (movie sites etc). I've never seen moderators have to explain
> >decisions to kick anyone,I've seen people quibble over it, but I've
> >never sen a moderator explain the reasons, and that includes sites
> >where you have to pay to be a member, just like in real life where
> >you can be asked to leave premises with little or no reason other
> >than the owner of the premises doesn't want you there. I've seen
> >sites where a new person has come in and been disruptive,
> >deliberately trying to push
>
> >peoples buttons only to get their PC hacked by other site members and
> >all sorts of damage done to their PC.It certainly stops them coming
> >back with a new IP address and causing more hassle. But that's how
> >some
>
> >people manage these issues.
> >
> > You do have options, if you don't like the way a moderator runs a
> >site, you can leave and start your own with your own values re:
> >kicking
>
> >people. It happens all the time. Usually the new sites end up with
> >the exact same problem and end up kicking people for the same
> >reasons.
> >
> >Lets imagine if a moderator has to submit reasons to kick someone and
> >there is some sort of vote. When you have an anonymous list such as
> >ours it's all to easy to subscribe with multiple names to throw any
> >voting system off. So I don't see why a moderator has to explain
> >themselves. It's their list to do what they want with.
> >
> >I've never got the impression that opinion is stifled here, I've seen
> >it get quite heated, but generally everybody gets to say what they
> >want. But I've also seen some particularly nasty personal attacks
> >against people that go beyond what would be allowed on any other
> >sites/lists (except star wars fan sites where abuse of participants
> >is an art form and has to be seen to be believed).
> >
> >I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of
> >guidelines would be appropriate here, there's only been a few people
> >over the years who they'd apply to, but maybe there is a place for
> >them. In practice the moderators here do very little (usually
> >nothing) to anyones posts, I don't think I've been edited or censored
> >in any way
>
> >since I first came here,most people seem quite able to censor
> >themselves, but when they are unwilling to(for whatever justification
> >they can please themselves with) the smooth running of the place
> >requires a moderator to suspend them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> >[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan
> >Jett
> >Sent: 13 November 2006 12:43
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >
> >
> >I just replied to this, but Hotmail is acting up again. If you get a
> >duplicate, that's why. So - to repeat:
> >
> >Sorry, Stephen, but your statement is absolutely inaccurate. I am
> >compiling a list of URLs to post that present a wide variety of
> >approaches to this issue. I suggest we start with
> >www.sierraclub.org/lists/dispute.asp and
> >http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall95-papers/rigby-a
> >no
> >n
> >ymity.html
> >- a paper written by a student at MIT on the issue of anonymity. I
will
> >follow up with a list of others. As I read them, I am keeping in
> >mind the unique nature of Bohm Dialog, for it will be a worthwhile
> >challenge
> >to reconcile our principles to internet protocol and procedures.
Happy
> >reading and thinkg! k
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> > >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:04 +0000 (GMT)
> > >
> > >Any where else online and the group would get no consultation
> > >whatsoever as to the exclusion of a list-member. We all know how to
> > >behave, if
> >someone
> > >gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault. I don't
> > >see
> >what
> > >all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed necessary then
> > >there
> >is a
> > >trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not be
> > >allowed
> >back.
> > >
> > >As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed their hands
> > >up
>
> > >first the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be Having The
> > >Last
> >Laugh -
> > >On Vatican looks cold.
> > >
> > >ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> > > But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send
me
> >your
> > > phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
> > >
> > >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> > > find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> > > number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> > > actually misread the purpose?
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >****************************************************
> >Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
> >****************************************************
> >This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for
> >the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> >confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution,
> >disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
> >this
>information by
> >persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
>If
> >you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
>immediately
> >and delete the material from your computer.
> >
> >E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses
> >and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept
> >liability
>for
> >any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
> >consequences.
> >****************************************************
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:15:42 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 18:20:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B3B36FE8@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2257FFF893E1422D47275AA5F40@phx.gbl>
"Born of the Water" is beautiful. Since I'm Welsh, Scotch, English, Irish,
Powhatan (there's actually a Pocahontas Jett!), and Cherokee, I could take
that as my Indian name.
There is never a conclusion to developing ideas, and I find that certain
principles - over time and experience - either deepen or disappear.
What's a "bugbear"? I hope you and the rest of us read the material, too,
because we are, as Don said, moving Bohm into a frontier "where no wo/man
(and not "full of woe", either) have ever gone before! Anonymity is a
crucial issue. PTW, it opens with an explanation of how one person can send
emails from anothers' address.
BTW, I named my eldest son Stephen. k
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:00:25 -0000
>
>Hi,
>
>In the welsh sense of the word in means "born of the water", or Sprite,
>but it became a common Gaelic name too.
>
>One of my bugbears is waiting until you read essays/books before
>announcing you r opinion/view. I prefer to say what I think, and then
>read, and see what changes. Any opinion I have is subject to change,
>I've watched so many of them alter over the years the force of
>attachment is not so strong as it used to be, and I'm happier for it.
>
>On the subject of Zoe I think personal responsibility is something that
>almost never gets a mention these days. We are responsible for what we
>say and do. We are intelligent enough to get the lay of the land before
>we respond in certain fashions. We should also expect consequences when
>we start calling people ignorant, we expect consequences at work for
>comments like that, is there any reason why online conversation has to
>be any different in how you treat others? I don't think so.
>
>There's a reason why this place is different from the other groups
>online, part of it is the experience of some of the participants, part
>of it is the freedom, and part of it is personal responsibility and
>behaviour.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 13 November 2006 15:46
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>Hi Steve -
>My grandfather Roberts (surname) was Welsh. The Morgan actually comes
>from
>my maternal grandmother who was Irish; maybe a version of Morrigan -
>Morgan
>le Fay, etc. It is a surname in my case. And, thanks for the apology -
>no
>real offense. We went through gender assumptions when you were offline.
>
>AS for experience, I like to match up a lot of experiences. It never
>ends.
>
>The MIT article isn't a summary. It's a detailed paper that goes into
>the
>pros and cons of anonymity on the internet. It's really quite thought
>provoking. Brings up things I had thought about, but were on the back
>burner.
>
>My comments on possibilities will come after I read, thought and
>digested.
>It's like doing an essay or a paper. And I hope others will read the
>MIT
>article, and share thinkgs.
>
>Personally, I don't think BD should have one person "taking the flak".
>Dialog is about a larger understanding built on multiple experiences,
>thinkgs, shared. If Homeland Security comes for Don and William, they
>need
>to take me, too!
>
>As for going somewhere else - not easy. I Googled that, too. As I
>posted,
>I found Peter's (not active, he's out of the country for an extended
>period)
>- plus you have to get through his jargon to understand it, there's one
>in
>Mexico - we have a member who belongs to both, and a really awful
>travesty
>of one calling itself Bohm, and it's good for nothing except by contrast
>
>with ours, showing the difference between a real Bohm group and a real
>mess.
> As Zoe wrote in her appeal - we are a group of great promise where
>valuable things are happening. best, k
>
>
> >From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:14:18 -0000
> >
> >Morgan is a welsh name (I'm half-welsh) and where I'm from its usually
> >males that have it (in my experience), like Morgan Freeman, apologies
> >for any offence.
> >
> >Any anger you perceive maybe a projection of your own btw, and I might
> >add that I find my experience to be as valid or more valid than
> >anything I might find on google, but thanks for the tips. One thing
> >about being involved in the various sites is you know firsthand what
> >people have said/done and what offends different subscribers. You can't
>
> >get that from some summary from MIT.
> >
> >You don't mention who is the arbiter of internet protocol, neither do
> >you comment on what you think about the possibility of anonymous
> >dialogue when there is suspicion as to the motives of certain
> >subscribers.
> >
> >I think the anonymity question here relates to "if it walks like a
> >duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, its probably a duck",
> >i.e. Peter, and it is my opinion that the moderator is perfectly
> >entitled to do as he/she sees fit in the running of the site. They set
> >it up, they get all the personal flak for it, it should be their rules.
>
> >If I don't like them I can exercise my right to unsubscribe and find
> >somewhere else to go.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> >[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
> >Sent: 13 November 2006 14:18
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >
> >
> >I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of
> >guidelines
> >
> >would be appropriate here.
> >
> >K: I think so. Again, no matter what your experience, I suggest you
> >amplify it by looking at the experiences available by Googling. I hear
> >anger in your tone. Is there something here that needs exploring? k
> >PS - I'm not "Mr.". I'm Ms. with two grown sons. Why did you assume
> >I'm male?
> >
> >
> > >From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> > >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> > >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:09:44 -0000
> > >
> > > Ive been on several lists for various things, some exceedingly
> > >trivial (movie sites etc). I've never seen moderators have to explain
>
> > >decisions to kick anyone,I've seen people quibble over it, but I've
> > >never sen a moderator explain the reasons, and that includes sites
> > >where you have to pay to be a member, just like in real life where
> > >you can be asked to leave premises with little or no reason other
> > >than the owner of the premises doesn't want you there. I've seen
> > >sites where a new person has come in and been disruptive,
> > >deliberately trying to push
> >
> > >peoples buttons only to get their PC hacked by other site members and
>
> > >all sorts of damage done to their PC.It certainly stops them coming
> > >back with a new IP address and causing more hassle. But that's how
> > >some
> >
> > >people manage these issues.
> > >
> > > You do have options, if you don't like the way a moderator runs a
> > >site, you can leave and start your own with your own values re:
> > >kicking
> >
> > >people. It happens all the time. Usually the new sites end up with
> > >the exact same problem and end up kicking people for the same
> > >reasons.
> > >
> > >Lets imagine if a moderator has to submit reasons to kick someone and
>
> > >there is some sort of vote. When you have an anonymous list such as
> > >ours it's all to easy to subscribe with multiple names to throw any
> > >voting system off. So I don't see why a moderator has to explain
> > >themselves. It's their list to do what they want with.
> > >
> > >I've never got the impression that opinion is stifled here, I've seen
>
> > >it get quite heated, but generally everybody gets to say what they
> > >want. But I've also seen some particularly nasty personal attacks
> > >against people that go beyond what would be allowed on any other
> > >sites/lists (except star wars fan sites where abuse of participants
> > >is an art form and has to be seen to be believed).
> > >
> > >I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of
> > >guidelines would be appropriate here, there's only been a few people
> > >over the years who they'd apply to, but maybe there is a place for
> > >them. In practice the moderators here do very little (usually
> > >nothing) to anyones posts, I don't think I've been edited or censored
>
> > >in any way
> >
> > >since I first came here,most people seem quite able to censor
> > >themselves, but when they are unwilling to(for whatever justification
>
> > >they can please themselves with) the smooth running of the place
> > >requires a moderator to suspend them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> > >[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan
> > >Jett
> > >Sent: 13 November 2006 12:43
> > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> > >
> > >
> > >I just replied to this, but Hotmail is acting up again. If you get a
>
> > >duplicate, that's why. So - to repeat:
> > >
> > >Sorry, Stephen, but your statement is absolutely inaccurate. I am
> > >compiling a list of URLs to post that present a wide variety of
> > >approaches to this issue. I suggest we start with
> > >www.sierraclub.org/lists/dispute.asp and
> > >http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall95-papers/rigby-a
> > >no
> > >n
> > >ymity.html
> > >- a paper written by a student at MIT on the issue of anonymity. I
>will
> > >follow up with a list of others. As I read them, I am keeping in
> > >mind the unique nature of Bohm Dialog, for it will be a worthwhile
> > >challenge
> > >to reconcile our principles to internet protocol and procedures.
>Happy
> > >reading and thinkg! k
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
> > > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> > > >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:04 +0000 (GMT)
> > > >
> > > >Any where else online and the group would get no consultation
> > > >whatsoever as to the exclusion of a list-member. We all know how to
>
> > > >behave, if
> > >someone
> > > >gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault. I don't
> > > >see
> > >what
> > > >all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed necessary then
> > > >there
> > >is a
> > > >trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not be
> > > >allowed
> > >back.
> > > >
> > > >As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed their hands
> > > >up
> >
> > > >first the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be Having The
>
> > > >Last
> > >Laugh -
> > > >On Vatican looks cold.
> > > >
> > > >ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> > > > But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send
>me
> > >your
> > > > phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
> > > >
> > > >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> > > > find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> > > > number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> > > > actually misread the purpose?
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >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
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >****************************************************
> > >Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
> > >****************************************************
> > >This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for
> > >the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> > >confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution,
>
> > >disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
>
> > >this
> >information by
> > >persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
> >If
> > >you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
> >immediately
> > >and delete the material from your computer.
> > >
> > >E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses
> > >and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept
> > >liability
> >for
> > >any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
> > >consequences.
> > >****************************************************
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Mon Nov 13 17:20:47 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 18:25:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] access to archives 2
Message-ID: <BAY22-F25655EDF2C983933F2997AA5F40@phx.gbl>
Hi - I explored further on access to archives, and found this:
Bohm_Dialogue Subscribers
(The subscribers list is only available to the list administrator.)
Enter your admin address and password to visit the subscribers list:
Admin address: Password:
To unsubscribe from Bohm_Dialogue, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options enter your subscription email address:
In order to change your membership option, you must first log in by giving
your email address and membership password in the section below. If you
don't remember your membership password, you can have it emailed to you by
clicking on the button below. If you just want to unsubscribe from this
list, click on the Unsubscribe button and a confirmation message will be
sent to you.
Important: From this point on, you must have cookies enabled in your
browser, otherwise none of your changes will take effect.
Here's the site address: /www.david-bohm.org/mailman/options/bohm_dialogue
I not only need someone to mail me my password, I got the message
Email address:
Password:
Error: Illegal Email Address: Morgan Jett griffyn23@hotmail.com
I guess my change of servers hasn't been updated yet.
What do I do now? Thanks, k
_________________________________________________________________
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 Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Mon Nov 13 17:21:24 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Tue Nov 14 18:26:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5AB@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Well done Morgan, stephen is the best name in the world ever and comes
from the Greek Stephanos (Crown/King).
I have a stack of Physics books about a foot high to read, a Torah I am
finding vastly different from the old testament, and on top of that a
pile of uninteresting garbage I'm supposed to read for work, but I'll
try and scan through it when no-ones near my desk in the office.
A bugbear is like a pet peeve.
I doubt that's made it any clearer!!!
steve
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: 13 November 2006 16:16
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
"Born of the Water" is beautiful. Since I'm Welsh, Scotch, English,
Irish,
Powhatan (there's actually a Pocahontas Jett!), and Cherokee, I could
take
that as my Indian name.
There is never a conclusion to developing ideas, and I find that certain
principles - over time and experience - either deepen or disappear.
What's a "bugbear"? I hope you and the rest of us read the material,
too,
because we are, as Don said, moving Bohm into a frontier "where no
wo/man
(and not "full of woe", either) have ever gone before! Anonymity is a
crucial issue. PTW, it opens with an explanation of how one person can
send
emails from anothers' address.
BTW, I named my eldest son Stephen. k
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:00:25 -0000
>
>Hi,
>
>In the welsh sense of the word in means "born of the water", or Sprite,
>but it became a common Gaelic name too.
>
>One of my bugbears is waiting until you read essays/books before
>announcing you r opinion/view. I prefer to say what I think, and then
>read, and see what changes. Any opinion I have is subject to change,
>I've watched so many of them alter over the years the force of
>attachment is not so strong as it used to be, and I'm happier for it.
>
>On the subject of Zoe I think personal responsibility is something that
>almost never gets a mention these days. We are responsible for what we
>say and do. We are intelligent enough to get the lay of the land before
>we respond in certain fashions. We should also expect consequences when
>we start calling people ignorant, we expect consequences at work for
>comments like that, is there any reason why online conversation has to
>be any different in how you treat others? I don't think so.
>
>There's a reason why this place is different from the other groups
>online, part of it is the experience of some of the participants, part
>of it is the freedom, and part of it is personal responsibility and
>behaviour.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 13 November 2006 15:46
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>Hi Steve -
>My grandfather Roberts (surname) was Welsh. The Morgan actually comes
>from my maternal grandmother who was Irish; maybe a version of Morrigan
>- Morgan
>le Fay, etc. It is a surname in my case. And, thanks for the apology
-
>no
>real offense. We went through gender assumptions when you were
offline.
>
>AS for experience, I like to match up a lot of experiences. It never
>ends.
>
>The MIT article isn't a summary. It's a detailed paper that goes into
>the pros and cons of anonymity on the internet. It's really quite
>thought provoking. Brings up things I had thought about, but were on
>the back burner.
>
>My comments on possibilities will come after I read, thought and
>digested. It's like doing an essay or a paper. And I hope others will
>read the MIT
>article, and share thinkgs.
>
>Personally, I don't think BD should have one person "taking the flak".
>Dialog is about a larger understanding built on multiple experiences,
>thinkgs, shared. If Homeland Security comes for Don and William, they
>need to take me, too!
>
>As for going somewhere else - not easy. I Googled that, too. As I
>posted, I found Peter's (not active, he's out of the country for an
>extended
>period)
>- plus you have to get through his jargon to understand it, there's one
>in Mexico - we have a member who belongs to both, and a really awful
>travesty
>of one calling itself Bohm, and it's good for nothing except by
contrast
>
>with ours, showing the difference between a real Bohm group and a real
>mess.
> As Zoe wrote in her appeal - we are a group of great promise where
>valuable things are happening. best, k
>
>
> >From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:14:18 -0000
> >
> >Morgan is a welsh name (I'm half-welsh) and where I'm from its
> >usually males that have it (in my experience), like Morgan Freeman,
> >apologies for any offence.
> >
> >Any anger you perceive maybe a projection of your own btw, and I
> >might add that I find my experience to be as valid or more valid than
> >anything I might find on google, but thanks for the tips. One thing
> >about being involved in the various sites is you know firsthand what
> >people have said/done and what offends different subscribers. You
> >can't
>
> >get that from some summary from MIT.
> >
> >You don't mention who is the arbiter of internet protocol, neither do
> >you comment on what you think about the possibility of anonymous
> >dialogue when there is suspicion as to the motives of certain
> >subscribers.
> >
> >I think the anonymity question here relates to "if it walks like a
> >duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, its probably a
> >duck", i.e. Peter, and it is my opinion that the moderator is
> >perfectly entitled to do as he/she sees fit in the running of the
> >site. They set it up, they get all the personal flak for it, it
> >should be their rules.
>
> >If I don't like them I can exercise my right to unsubscribe and find
> >somewhere else to go.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> >[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan
> >Jett
> >Sent: 13 November 2006 14:18
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> >
> >
> >I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of
> >guidelines
> >
> >would be appropriate here.
> >
> >K: I think so. Again, no matter what your experience, I suggest you
> >amplify it by looking at the experiences available by Googling. I
hear
> >anger in your tone. Is there something here that needs exploring?
k
> >PS - I'm not "Mr.". I'm Ms. with two grown sons. Why did you assume
> >I'm male?
> >
> >
> > >From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> > >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> > >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:09:44 -0000
> > >
> > > Ive been on several lists for various things, some exceedingly
> > >trivial (movie sites etc). I've never seen moderators have to
> > >explain
>
> > >decisions to kick anyone,I've seen people quibble over it, but I've
> > >never sen a moderator explain the reasons, and that includes sites
> > >where you have to pay to be a member, just like in real life where
> > >you can be asked to leave premises with little or no reason other
> > >than the owner of the premises doesn't want you there. I've seen
> > >sites where a new person has come in and been disruptive,
> > >deliberately trying to push
> >
> > >peoples buttons only to get their PC hacked by other site members
> > >and
>
> > >all sorts of damage done to their PC.It certainly stops them coming
> > >back with a new IP address and causing more hassle. But that's how
> > >some
> >
> > >people manage these issues.
> > >
> > > You do have options, if you don't like the way a moderator runs a
> > >site, you can leave and start your own with your own values re:
> > >kicking
> >
> > >people. It happens all the time. Usually the new sites end up with
> > >the exact same problem and end up kicking people for the same
> > >reasons.
> > >
> > >Lets imagine if a moderator has to submit reasons to kick someone
> > >and
>
> > >there is some sort of vote. When you have an anonymous list such as
> > >ours it's all to easy to subscribe with multiple names to throw any
> > >voting system off. So I don't see why a moderator has to explain
> > >themselves. It's their list to do what they want with.
> > >
> > >I've never got the impression that opinion is stifled here, I've
> > >seen
>
> > >it get quite heated, but generally everybody gets to say what they
> > >want. But I've also seen some particularly nasty personal attacks
> > >against people that go beyond what would be allowed on any other
> > >sites/lists (except star wars fan sites where abuse of participants
> > >is an art form and has to be seen to be believed).
> > >
> > >I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of
> > >guidelines would be appropriate here, there's only been a few
> > >people over the years who they'd apply to, but maybe there is a
> > >place for them. In practice the moderators here do very little
> > >(usually
> > >nothing) to anyones posts, I don't think I've been edited or
censored
>
> > >in any way
> >
> > >since I first came here,most people seem quite able to censor
> > >themselves, but when they are unwilling to(for whatever
> > >justification
>
> > >they can please themselves with) the smooth running of the place
> > >requires a moderator to suspend them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> > >[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan
> > >Jett
> > >Sent: 13 November 2006 12:43
> > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> > >
> > >
> > >I just replied to this, but Hotmail is acting up again. If you get
> > >a
>
> > >duplicate, that's why. So - to repeat:
> > >
> > >Sorry, Stephen, but your statement is absolutely inaccurate. I am
> > >compiling a list of URLs to post that present a wide variety of
> > >approaches to this issue. I suggest we start with
> > >www.sierraclub.org/lists/dispute.asp and
> > >http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall95-papers/rigby
> > >-a
> > >no
> > >n
> > >ymity.html
> > >- a paper written by a student at MIT on the issue of anonymity. I
>will
> > >follow up with a list of others. As I read them, I am keeping in
> > >mind the unique nature of Bohm Dialog, for it will be a worthwhile
> > >challenge to reconcile our principles to internet protocol and
> > >procedures.
>Happy
> > >reading and thinkg! k
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
> > > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
> > > >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:04 +0000 (GMT)
> > > >
> > > >Any where else online and the group would get no consultation
> > > >whatsoever as to the exclusion of a list-member. We all know how
> > > >to
>
> > > >behave, if
> > >someone
> > > >gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault. I
> > > >don't see
> > >what
> > > >all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed necessary then
> > > >there
> > >is a
> > > >trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not be
> > > >allowed
> > >back.
> > > >
> > > >As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed their
> > > >hands up
> >
> > > >first the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be Having
> > > >The
>
> > > >Last
> > >Laugh -
> > > >On Vatican looks cold.
> > > >
> > > >ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> > > > But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor: Send
>me
> > >your
> > > > phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe Chu
> > > >
> > > >William's point in wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
> > > > find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
> > > > number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
> > > > actually misread the purpose?
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >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
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >****************************************************
> > >Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
> > >****************************************************
> > >This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for
> > >the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> > >confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading,
> > >redistribution,
>
> > >disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
> > >upon,
>
> > >this
> >information by
> > >persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> > >prohibited.
> >If
> > >you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
> >immediately
> > >and delete the material from your computer.
> > >
> > >E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses
> > >and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept
> > >liability
> >for
> > >any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
> > >consequences.
> > >****************************************************
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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&sou
>r
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:23:26 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 18:28:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] access to archives 2
Message-ID: <BAY22-F11D31CE2D58983A28FBDEFA5F40@phx.gbl>
Hi - I explored further on access to archives, and found this:
Bohm_Dialogue Subscribers
(The subscribers list is only available to the list administrator.)
Enter your admin address and password to visit the subscribers list:
Admin address: Password:
To unsubscribe from Bohm_Dialogue, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options enter your subscription email address:
In order to change your membership option, you must first log in by giving
your email address and membership password in the section below. If you
don't remember your membership password, you can have it emailed to you by
clicking on the button below. If you just want to unsubscribe from this
list, click on the Unsubscribe button and a confirmation message will be
sent to you.
Important: From this point on, you must have cookies enabled in your
browser, otherwise none of your changes will take effect.
Here's the site address: /www.david-bohm.org/mailman/options/bohm_dialogue
I not only need someone to mail me my password, I got the message
Email address:
Password:
Error: Illegal Email Address: Morgan Jett griffyn23@hotmail.com
I guess my change of servers hasn't been updated yet.
What do I do now? Thanks, k
_________________________________________________________________
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 Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Mon Nov 13 17:50:57 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Tue Nov 14 18:55:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] access to archives 2
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5AC@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Are cookies enabled?
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: 13 November 2006 16:23
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] access to archives 2
Hi - I explored further on access to archives, and found this:
Bohm_Dialogue Subscribers
(The subscribers list is only available to the list administrator.)
Enter your admin address and password to visit the subscribers list:
Admin address: Password:
To unsubscribe from Bohm_Dialogue, get a password reminder, or change
your
subscription options enter your subscription email address:
In order to change your membership option, you must first log in by
giving
your email address and membership password in the section below. If you
don't remember your membership password, you can have it emailed to you
by
clicking on the button below. If you just want to unsubscribe from this
list, click on the Unsubscribe button and a confirmation message will be
sent to you.
Important: From this point on, you must have cookies enabled in your
browser, otherwise none of your changes will take effect.
Here's the site address:
/www.david-bohm.org/mailman/options/bohm_dialogue
I not only need someone to mail me my password, I got the message Email
address:
Password:
Error: Illegal Email Address: Morgan Jett griffyn23@hotmail.com
I guess my change of servers hasn't been updated yet.
What do I do now? Thanks, k
_________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
****************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
****************************************************
This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their consequences.
****************************************************
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 18:46:35 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Tue Nov 14 19:51:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <20061112.221221.2144.26.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061112.221221.2144.26.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <005E36AE-73ED-450E-B88E-ED24E5DDADF1@dc.rr.com>
To continue your metaphor, the snake devours it's own tail - ourobouros.
And where does that leave us?
I can only think of a very rude analogy.
don\
On Nov 12, 2006, at 6:30 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Ths "snake" unties itself, word by word. It's very beautiful
> to watch and be a part of.
>
> pat
>
>
> But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a
> really
> good
> example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see this as a
> narrow
> focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in this one
> small
> way,
> then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger scopes.
>
> Susan
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Nov 13 18:49:32 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 19:54:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] access to archives 2
In-Reply-To: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5AC@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F174E9DF02153177C2E45EBA5F40@phx.gbl>
yes.
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] access to archives 2
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:50:57 -0000
>
>Are cookies enabled?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 13 November 2006 16:23
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] access to archives 2
>
>
>Hi - I explored further on access to archives, and found this:
>
>Bohm_Dialogue Subscribers
>(The subscribers list is only available to the list administrator.)
>Enter your admin address and password to visit the subscribers list:
>
>Admin address: Password:
>
>To unsubscribe from Bohm_Dialogue, get a password reminder, or change
>your
>subscription options enter your subscription email address:
>
>In order to change your membership option, you must first log in by
>giving
>your email address and membership password in the section below. If you
>don't remember your membership password, you can have it emailed to you
>by
>clicking on the button below. If you just want to unsubscribe from this
>list, click on the Unsubscribe button and a confirmation message will be
>
>sent to you.
>Important: From this point on, you must have cookies enabled in your
>browser, otherwise none of your changes will take effect.
>
>
>Here's the site address:
>/www.david-bohm.org/mailman/options/bohm_dialogue
>
>I not only need someone to mail me my password, I got the message Email
>address:
>Password:
>Error: Illegal Email Address: Morgan Jett griffyn23@hotmail.com
>
>I guess my change of servers hasn't been updated yet.
>
>What do I do now? Thanks, k
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>****************************************************
>Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
>****************************************************
>This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the
>person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
>and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or
>other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
>persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
>you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately
>and delete the material from your computer.
>
>E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and
>unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for
>any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
>consequences.
>****************************************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Mon Nov 13 18:50:37 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 19:55:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <005E36AE-73ED-450E-B88E-ED24E5DDADF1@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F14C009787095B830D3DB46A5F40@phx.gbl>
Don - what do I do to gain access to the archives, please? 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] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:46:35 -0800
>
>To continue your metaphor, the snake devours it's own tail - ourobouros.
>And where does that leave us?
>
>I can only think of a very rude analogy.
>
>don\
>On Nov 12, 2006, at 6:30 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>>Ths "snake" unties itself, word by word. It's very beautiful
>>to watch and be a part of.
>>
>>pat
>>
>>
>>But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)? Isn't this a really
>>good
>>example of what happens in the world at large? I don't see this as a
>>narrow
>>focus at all. If we can find ways to solve this here in this one small
>>way,
>>then there are ways to broaden it and use it in larger scopes.
>>
>>Susan
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 18:56:03 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Tue Nov 14 20:00:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5AB@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F17DA9D821313E91C686862A5F40@phx.gbl>
Yes, it has made it clearer!
And great on the reading part, Stephanos.
Nice talking to you. k
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:21:24 -0000
>
>Well done Morgan, stephen is the best name in the world ever and comes
>from the Greek Stephanos (Crown/King).
>
>I have a stack of Physics books about a foot high to read, a Torah I am
>finding vastly different from the old testament, and on top of that a
>pile of uninteresting garbage I'm supposed to read for work, but I'll
>try and scan through it when no-ones near my desk in the office.
>
>A bugbear is like a pet peeve.
>
>I doubt that's made it any clearer!!!
>
>steve
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 13 November 2006 16:16
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>
>"Born of the Water" is beautiful. Since I'm Welsh, Scotch, English,
>Irish,
>Powhatan (there's actually a Pocahontas Jett!), and Cherokee, I could
>take
>that as my Indian name.
>
>There is never a conclusion to developing ideas, and I find that certain
>
>principles - over time and experience - either deepen or disappear.
>
>What's a "bugbear"? I hope you and the rest of us read the material,
>too,
>because we are, as Don said