From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 00:43:59 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 00:49:15 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
In-Reply-To: <894078.20209.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W421100F51C521ABE0C192DDC660@phx.gbl>
<894078.20209.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W37D2D0BB0EAB2D8F6410FBDC660@phx.gbl>
save the aplomb for yo momma.
-- are we then legion?
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:22:39 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Well, depends on which me you ask, Rob ][--}
But one could say, we, for a start, would be some Rob and some Alan -- no ;-?
That said, might not even need you for a we, you see, there is plenty of me-s right under my nose. Or maybe: Above. Or, more likely: Bot--h
Some Son Of A _____ (B, like blank)rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
have you nothing to say about 'we'? it is a big word to bandy about unexamined -- we(e) rob
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:31:59 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Next we could get some into "them" ;-\
Alanrob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
tell me about 'we'? -- Alan 'n' me
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:35:56 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Zero point two-five would not do, Rob? :--9
Alanrob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Penelope,sometimes this place is more thready than others, when some topic entrains attention. other times it's just smart arses riffing and tweets twattin' about. If I follow half of what gets said I start to become concerned.Rob
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:06:05 -0800From: pennyduby@yahoo.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Everything in one place? All new Windows Live! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Everything in one place? All new Windows Live! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/a2333dc7/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 00:45:27 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 00:50:44 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <196946.65421.qm@web38305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <196946.65421.qm@web38305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W266ACD62887314AD39C948DC660@phx.gbl>
you put your finger right on it Penelope. do what you think best and good luck.
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:27:07 -0800From: pennyduby@yahoo.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenOk, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/f1a30450/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 00:54:00 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 00:59:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <234906.58086.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712130658pc869b52ye6ebd7df3217f1e7@mail.gmail.com>
<234906.58086.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W218791A1575E85AE79977FDC660@phx.gbl>
dead as good?
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:52:50 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Aren't trees mostly dead, I mean, dead matter ;-)
Talking about which: They say if you are childless you are as good as dead. Well, you know, scientist can be funny (too) ]-]]
AlanIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like. Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience. WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally, >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- -- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/8b2df40b/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:05:26 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:10:46 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W37D2D0BB0EAB2D8F6410FBDC660@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <785275.88102.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
A wee we-traumatized? How munch hands does the food go through before it goes in Rob's mouth, and on-wards :=======)
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } save the aplomb for yo momma.
-- are we then legion?
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:22:39 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Well, depends on which me you ask, Rob ][--}
But one could say, we, for a start, would be some Rob and some Alan -- no ;-?
That said, might not even need you for a we, you see, there is plenty of me-s right under my nose. Or maybe: Above. Or, more likely: Bot--h
Some Son Of A _____ (B, like blank)
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} have you nothing to say about 'we'? it is a big word to bandy about unexamined
-- we(e) rob
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:31:59 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Next we could get some into "them" ;-\
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} tell me about 'we'?
-- Alan 'n' me
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:35:56 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Zero point two-five would not do, Rob? :--9
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} Hi Penelope,
sometimes this place is more thready than others, when some topic entrains attention. other times it's just smart arses riffing and tweets twattin' about. If I follow half of what gets said I start to become concerned.
Rob
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:06:05 -0800
From: pennyduby@yahoo.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question?
Might i ask for some clarification of the site? Realizing that an online conversation is difficult, i wondered if there's a format i'm missing? The comments are very interesting, but given the difficulty to find and follow a thread, i'm wondering whether it's a choice to not use a hosting service or website based format or too expensive. I'm coming here from a political discussion area rumbleville.com that mentioned Bohm's dialogue, but can't manage the format to tease out the information. Thank you for your help. Penelope Duby
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Everything in one place
All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Everything in one place
All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move
Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/27874e6f/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:07:58 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:13:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W266ACD62887314AD39C948DC660@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <651135.39484.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
I hate to push any ones button, but, sure I hope she can do better ("things") with that. Her finger &*8
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } you put your finger right on it Penelope. do what you think best and good luck.
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:27:07 -0800
From: pennyduby@yahoo.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/863cb36c/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:08:40 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:13:58 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <360002.5761.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <C386B320.F8C8%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
<360002.5761.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W34FF50C219CC932066E82FDC670@phx.gbl>
no guru no method no genes. Diarrhoea isn't genetic but it's hard to get out of your genes.
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:37:01 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Teach me ;-)
If you ;-}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8owv5YjHfJA&feature=related
AlanLynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I have some ?teacher? genes. Some ?rescuer? too. I?ve just been reading about the human longing for wholeness, connection ? sometimes at all costs. I?m always having to let go of that attachment to outcomes.LynneOn 12/13/07 8:40 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
No kind of content can prevent looking at function. It's all good grist. Especially content that sparks objection. -- funny On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:23:36 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Hi Penelope,It really does take some perseverance. You just came in with two others who sparked a rather terse style, but it?s not always like that. Bohm said that while a dialogue group should not have a goal (stifles creativity), it does need a purpose, which he suggested was ?impersonal fellowship? which serves as the glue to hold people. That takes time (probably especially online). I?ve been here about a year and a half, & while I don?t always have time to jump in, I do appreciate what can happen here.LynneOn 12/13/07 6:27 AM, "Penelope Duby" <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/73180fa3/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Fri Dec 14 01:08:51 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:14:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
Message-ID: <5B07F283-95D7-407C-B0CC-2F38CF710481@dc.rr.com>
Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a
nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central
core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its
more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more
trees.
For what its worth:
The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics
right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and
metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to
describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there
are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed
meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in
process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite
complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when
treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole
process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts"
makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as
parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or
organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to,
therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement.
This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in
terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that
he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do
not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together
by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information
for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole -
or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a
difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the
result of all of this.
Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process
Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is
simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken
wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have
had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more
attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing
movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding -
from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of
unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.
Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the
quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be
unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or
enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and
enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is
no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets
called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing-
thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not
language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in
process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking
process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that
tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but
mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has
dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects
interacting in a cartesian space.
The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case
within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we
spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that
too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours
ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that
distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay
I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and
rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more
coherent.
So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's
use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the
verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is
all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact
that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin
of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.
Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.
don
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:10:49 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:16:07 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W218791A1575E85AE79977FDC660@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <561144.3325.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
In that case, in a case LIKE that, this is what I do:
" Checker "
[-)
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } dead as good?
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:52:50 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Aren't trees mostly dead, I mean, dead matter ;-)
Talking about which: They say if you are childless you are as good as dead. Well, you know, scientist can be funny (too) ]-]]
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like.
Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/00add29d/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Dec 14 01:11:44 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:17:03 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
References: <848680.35461.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <016701c83de5$e9eba9c0$ff76480c@HOME>
definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/b1d1bb81/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:12:43 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:18:00 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language, Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <20071213.131127.2428.411.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071213.131127.2428.411.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W32675CCE8DF05CFE38D8ECDC670@phx.gbl>
'synopsize'. I have never met this word before. it is lovely. synopsize.
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:42 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language, Map, and Email IdentitiesFrom: ae.dropper@juno.com
I: My understanding of it didn't change. I simply realized that what I had known all along, and what nobody had taught me to do, was what the scientists were putting in their own language. Ever hear of the piece "Rage Over a Lost Penny"? Mozart of Beethoven. I forget which.
Is it possible to synopsize Jeffery's words on observer/observed? (funny)I: In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains rigid! Maybe that's what TAS as culprit is all about. -- And can you say more about this?
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:55:16 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: My understanding of it didn't change. I simply realized that what I had known all along, and what nobody had taught me to do, was what the scientists were putting in their own language. Ever hear of the piece "Rage Over a Lost Penny"? Mozart of Beethoven. I forget which. In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains rigid! Maybe that's what TAS as culprit is all about.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:41 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed? (funny)
I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain plasticity?
More interesting than the stuff about clarity.
Something that is understood after its having been so
elusive for so long catches my interest in terms of how it might
be newly worded
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:54:50 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain plasticity?
On Dec 11, 2007 9:59 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
It's over. True tired is true rest. They are inseparable.
Whatever needed affirming is no longer there. It was never there.
Not substantially. It was static. Static affirming static.
Clarity is just that. Clarity.
It's only edge is its flowing
crystalline expression of itself
about itself. It's expression
is how it knows its beauty.
It's expression is its beauty.
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to do something about it, I share the following with you. I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD and Sharon Begley. I normally don't like psychiatrists et al, but I read their ideas so I won't be ignorant on the topics. This one has a couple of things I think are valuable. About him personally, he says that at 15, he was convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only mystery worth pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And amazingly, some of his writing reads like the 'excitation - inhibition' work we do in Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear chapter on The Quantum Brain, and has managed to explain 'observer & observed' so it makes sense to me. Actually, it's something I've always been aware of, and used. But the fancy words in books made it seem like something esoteric and unfamiliar. Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used variations of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to incorporate and add something to the TAS process.Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our 'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they arise and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's presence, then saying your own specific version of "that is a false message due to a jammed transmission in the brain". The author makes me laugh. He says "The brain's gonna do what the brain's gonna do, but you don't have to let it push you around." I agree. In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with "Every day in every way, I'm getting better and better." Affirmations are the core of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the lines "Now I walk in Beauty" have been passed down as 'poetry'. Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.(The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four corners.)
On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about clarity - "getting to" clarity.
The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self) which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a static sensation and a non satisfaction.
Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that I say" that interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely [seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too. One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure" turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom the response is being written.
Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily a response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is its own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if I understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is leading up to. (wm)
Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative for all of it though.
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a response. This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. The point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually your intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment" or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be 'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a "something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan " again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the "sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises. Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of "suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal. The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of "suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun. And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue-- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/68f33cd8/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:16:21 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:21:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDon't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. ALIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending thismessage to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (orcan be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *rightkind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to getback into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlivedlines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you donot get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOTpeople ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's noobligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on atop-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no oneresponded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populatedhand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day Ire-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- Irene info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/3194e8f7/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:16:22 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:21:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W34FF50C219CC932066E82FDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <388348.2287.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
In case some gene-expression has notIced: The beauty of Diarrhoea is that it tends to do, to come with out force or hard or such ness ;,,,,,,,,,=
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } no guru no method no genes. Diarrhoea isn't genetic but it's hard to get out of your genes.
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:37:01 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Teach me ;-)
If you ;-}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8owv5YjHfJA&feature=related
Alan
Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I have some ?teacher? genes. Some ?rescuer? too. I?ve just been reading about the human longing for wholeness, connection ? sometimes at all costs. I?m always having to let go of that attachment to outcomes.
Lynne
On 12/13/07 8:40 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
No kind of content can prevent looking at function.
It's all good grist. Especially content that sparks objection.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:23:36 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Hi Penelope,
It really does take some perseverance. You just came in with two others who sparked a rather terse style, but it?s not always like that. Bohm said that while a dialogue group should not have a goal (stifles creativity), it does need a purpose, which he suggested was ?impersonal fellowship? which serves as the glue to hold people. That takes time (probably especially online). I?ve been here about a year and a half, & while I don?t always have time to jump in, I do appreciate what can happen here.
Lynne
On 12/13/07 6:27 AM, "Penelope Duby" <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/c6dbc0cd/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:17:11 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:22:28 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <1571F54A-25C0-48C5-95A8-9AD6E27CB2F5@dc.rr.com>
References: <360002.5761.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<1571F54A-25C0-48C5-95A8-9AD6E27CB2F5@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W335F3751836AE365100E68DC670@phx.gbl>
who the fuck are they. no wait... s'okay.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:32:25 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgHow do we get Nina Hagen to join this list? And Don Rickles for that matter.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Teach me ;-)
If you ;-}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8owv5YjHfJA&feature=related
AlanLynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I have some ?teacher? genes. Some ?rescuer? too. I?ve just been reading about the human longing for wholeness, connection ? sometimes at all costs. I?m always having to let go of that attachment to outcomes.LynneOn 12/13/07 8:40 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
No kind of content can prevent looking at function. It's all good grist. Especially content that sparks objection. -- funny On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:23:36 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Hi Penelope,It really does take some perseverance. You just came in with two others who sparked a rather terse style, but it?s not always like that. Bohm said that while a dialogue group should not have a goal (stifles creativity), it does need a purpose, which he suggested was ?impersonal fellowship? which serves as the glue to hold people. That takes time (probably especially online). I?ve been here about a year and a half, & while I don?t always have time to jump in, I do appreciate what can happen here.LynneOn 12/13/07 6:27 AM, "Penelope Duby" <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/d6a3da22/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:18:58 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:24:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <4EC3A151-55DB-4837-8C5C-451CC94FC621@dc.rr.com>
References: <394576.58188.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<4EC3A151-55DB-4837-8C5C-451CC94FC621@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W22720B8F7F285792A323C3DC670@phx.gbl>
i don't think she was real anyway
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:50:52 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgGone, gone, gone.
Penelope Duby is gone.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
How could I dare not to (dare) >->>
Alan
(Do I need to fill out an official form, too? Fillin? ;*1)ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Penelope Duby, of the three new, um, individual subscribers,
you show the most promise. Or equal promise anyway.
Dare to ask me why I say that.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:27:07 -0800 (PST) Penelope Duby <pennyduby@yahoo.com> writes:
Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/6c7b64dc/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:20:06 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:25:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
In-Reply-To: <456278.72714.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <20071213.131127.2428.413.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<456278.72714.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W12026AE8EA6986A1F24F8ADC670@phx.gbl>
save yo stoma fo yo momma
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:51:36 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] AlmostTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Wait, again! Are you saying that somebody who loves to eat horses is NOT a horse-lover (too) .-?
Alan
Ps: I have the gut feeling Mom would get along with you. Less sure about loving, tho '=,,
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I: Good Grief, how gruesome, Pat.
Especially for horse lovers. (White Castle hamburgers
had a high percentage of horse meat in them).
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:57:37 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: Good Grief, how gruesome, Pat.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:46 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Two years from now there will be a terrible sponge shortage.
And people who have had surgery will be "mined" for sponges.
Those who have had many surgeries will be either wealthy
or in great danger, depending on their luck. Sponge "donation"
centers will open up in the back room of every dunkin donuts
and White Castle shop. Yes, White Castle is coming back.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:19:12 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Hey funny. I not kidding. You must be God. That was news from a few days back. I sure will go nowhere. This is fun funny. Tell us more about the future. Funny you rule.
Alanae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I know. I gave you that information myself 3 or 4 years ago.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:33:31 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Ae.Dropper. Every year, in the United States about 1,500 people have surgical objects accidentally left inside them after surgery, according to medical studies. About two-thirds of the surgical objects left behind are sponges. AL
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Then there was that lunch with Germaine Greer.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:19:10 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
It actually refers to something I wrote mentioning Dennis Hopper, an old friend.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
The what, "hopper"? And where does that one come in here now? More scrolling to do for me? O-boy --gender!--, this list is a wild ride.
Alanae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's [the question] is in "the hopper." It seems a stretch but that's
not new. Connections LOVE to make themselves.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Almost time for eggs and ham. That's for certain. But does that count, too, Funny?
Alanae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"We can seldom go erect. Almost every man we meet requires some civility, requires to be humored; -- he has some fame, some talent, some whim of religion or philanthropy in his head that is not to be questioned, and so spoils all conversation with him." -- Emerson"Almost"
It's always the "almost" that promises faithfully the
alternative that delivers the tiniest exception that changes
e v e r y t h i n g.
-- funnyinfo:
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/117ba118/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Dec 14 01:20:30 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:25:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
References: <5B07F283-95D7-407C-B0CC-2F38CF710481@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <01ce01c83de7$23270a80$ff76480c@HOME>
Very well said Don!!!
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:08 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a
nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central
core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its
more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more
trees.
For what its worth:
The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics
right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and
metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to
describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there
are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed
meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in
process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite
complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when
treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole
process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts"
makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as
parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or
organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to,
therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement.
This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in
terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that
he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do
not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together
by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information
for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole -
or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a
difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the
result of all of this.
Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process
Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is
simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken
wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have
had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more
attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing
movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding -
from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of
unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.
Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the
quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be
unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or
enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and
enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is
no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets
called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing-
thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not
language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in
process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking
process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that
tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but
mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has
dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects
interacting in a cartesian space.
The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case
within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we
spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that
too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours
ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that
distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay
I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and
rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more
coherent.
So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's
use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the
verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is
all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact
that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin
of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.
Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/5693dad8/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 01:20:59 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:26:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <016701c83de5$e9eba9c0$ff76480c@HOME>
References: <848680.35461.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<016701c83de5$e9eba9c0$ff76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131620x63cdd8c9m4242185ef5318397@mail.gmail.com>
I: But only one of himers. Remember, Zoe and Kris were also Peter.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:11 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
>
>
>
> *Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>* wrote:
>
> So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
>
> Susan
>
>
> Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since
> I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/8e1ba5d5/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:21:38 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:26:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <013f01c83dc2$3378be80$ff76480c@HOME>
References: <629896.75416.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<013f01c83dc2$3378be80$ff76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W391BA5A214F2E1C2C7292ADC670@phx.gbl>
yes it certainly would seem that way to you Susan (honey) wouldn't it?
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:05 -0700
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Do we have a problem with(in) stuckness ||=?
Alan
Okay, Mom again. Why do mothers need so much? Attention? Later, gotta run :-))
AlanIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Go, Don! It's good to hear your voice again. Nice and clear, whether or not it seems stuck.
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/bba7627a/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:22:51 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:28:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <016701c83de5$e9eba9c0$ff76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <667000.32376.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Aaaand ;-?
Susan, when you leave the house, is what you utter this:
"definitely looks very weathery" ;--??
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote: So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
Alan
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/c2ac2cd2/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:24:44 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:30:02 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W391BA5A214F2E1C2C7292ADC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <79519.44811.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
When --why??-- do dialogists start calling each other. That. "Honies" ;-?
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } yes it certainly would seem that way to you Susan (honey) wouldn't it?
---------------------------------
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:05 -0700
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Do we have a problem with(in) stuckness ||=?
Alan
Okay, Mom again. Why do mothers need so much? Attention? Later, gotta run :-))
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Go, Don! It's good to hear your voice again. Nice and clear, whether or not it seems stuck.
---------------------------------
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/53aa20f8/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:25:16 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:30:33 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712131326g20630599x4cabbd0e12cbaf44@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20071213.103226.2428.392.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<c47283890712131326g20630599x4cabbd0e12cbaf44@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
some are comedectomies
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funniesI: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like. Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience. WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally, >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- -- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/6d8f53ce/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:26:56 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:32:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712131620x63cdd8c9m4242185ef5318397@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <313998.54931.qm@web45809.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
"Were"? Dis'eased ;-?
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: But only one of himers. Remember, Zoe and Kris were also Peter.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:11 PM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote: So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
Alan
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/14157c72/attachment-0001.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:30:42 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:36:00 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <394059.35059.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
comedectomies
Mom, among a few others, has locked up too the dictionary book. Other wise I would be in there, in a heart beat, to unlook it up ;->
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } some are comedectomies
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like.
Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
--
Irene
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/90f09170/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:31:21 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:36:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
In-Reply-To: <5B07F283-95D7-407C-B0CC-2F38CF710481@dc.rr.com>
References: <5B07F283-95D7-407C-B0CC-2F38CF710481@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W422913550B3823057E3B90DC670@phx.gbl>
go Don. thanks for that.> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:08:51 -0800> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell> > Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a > nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central > core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its > more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more > trees.> > For what its worth:> > The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics > right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and > metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to > describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there > are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed > meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in > process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite > complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when > treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole > process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts" > makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as > parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or > organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to, > therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement. > This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in > terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that > he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do > not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together > by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information > for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole - > or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a > difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the > result of all of this.> > Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process > Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is > simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken > wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have > had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more > attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing > movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding - > from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of > unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.> > Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the > quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be > unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or > enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and > enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is > no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets > called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing- > thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not > language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in > process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking > process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that > tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but > mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has > dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects > interacting in a cartesian space.> > The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case > within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we > spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that > too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours > ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that > distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay > I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and > rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more > coherent.> > So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's > use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the > verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is > all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact > that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin > of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.> > Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.> > > don> > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/9aba54a7/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 01:32:23 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:37:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
References: <20071213.103226.2428.392.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<c47283890712131326g20630599x4cabbd0e12cbaf44@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131632i752c31b9kadd48c93c95280aa@mail.gmail.com>
I: Yes, but I want to know why the runny ones run.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:25 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> some are comedectomies
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
>
> I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
> them. (I)
>
> Maybe *that's* why I've been so alone all these years.
> All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
> Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
> They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for
> BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together
> in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm
> not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you
> like.
> Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
>
> And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
> them.
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for
> instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat
> etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking
> trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic
> manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively"
> help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In
> fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
> living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
>
> From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
>
>
> to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
> Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
> quote):
> >...<
> Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
> ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
> WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
>
> Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
>
> I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
> (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
> If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
> choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
> To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
> have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
> son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
> Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
> negligent.
> And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
> acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
> *
> " >JPL:
> >"Shout, shout, let it all out
> >these are the things I can do without,
> >come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
> " >>Wm:
> >>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
> William
> *
> Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
> "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: Re: purpose of list
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello All,
>
> I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
> message to check for echo.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: inside out
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would share another thought that I found interesting.
>
> The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
> that
> it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
> can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
> contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
> seen
> from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
>
> My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
> form or on the un-form that borders it.
>
> The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
> represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
> viewing angle has been intriguing.
>
> Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
>
> From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
> Subject: Re:intentional dying
>
> Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
> kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
> dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
> 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
> right:
>
> > ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
> >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
> >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
> about
> >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
> >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
> would
> >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
> Normally,
> >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
> with
> >our work. =
>
> I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
>
> sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
> get
> back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
> with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
> forget
> -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
> rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
> *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
> because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
> lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
>
> I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
> Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
>
> not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
> I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
> is
> we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
> people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
> terms
> -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
> away
> the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
> no
> obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
> takes.
> So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
> through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
> the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
> top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out
> a
> lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
> enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
>
> responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
> have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
> --
> and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
> hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
> unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
>
> Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
> short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
> *me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
> common
> humanity.
> I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
>
> note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
> (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
> someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
>
> re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
> speaking
> to one of its authors!
>
>
> >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
> the
> >one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
> >
> >The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
> >directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
> >universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
>
> Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
> lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
> of
> birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
> so
> no full living either. No?
>
> I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
> >
> >is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
> >
> >julia
>
>
>
> --
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/322ae589/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:33:49 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:39:05 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <388348.2287.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W34FF50C219CC932066E82FDC670@phx.gbl>
<388348.2287.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W4255CA0488063E1B570364DC670@phx.gbl>
hard diarrhoea? You are lucky peter, sorry alan.
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:16:22 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
In case some gene-expression has notIced: The beauty of Diarrhoea is that it tends to do, to come with out force or hard or such ness ;,,,,,,,,,=
Alanrob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
no guru no method no genes. Diarrhoea isn't genetic but it's hard to get out of your genes.
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:37:01 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Teach me ;-)
If you ;-}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8owv5YjHfJA&feature=related
AlanLynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I have some ?teacher? genes. Some ?rescuer? too. I?ve just been reading about the human longing for wholeness, connection ? sometimes at all costs. I?m always having to let go of that attachment to outcomes.LynneOn 12/13/07 8:40 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
No kind of content can prevent looking at function. It's all good grist. Especially content that sparks objection. -- funny On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:23:36 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Hi Penelope,It really does take some perseverance. You just came in with two others who sparked a rather terse style, but it?s not always like that. Bohm said that while a dialogue group should not have a goal (stifles creativity), it does need a purpose, which he suggested was ?impersonal fellowship? which serves as the glue to hold people. That takes time (probably especially online). I?ve been here about a year and a half, & while I don?t always have time to jump in, I do appreciate what can happen here.LynneOn 12/13/07 6:27 AM, "Penelope Duby" <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/67bfa87f/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 01:34:52 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:40:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <394059.35059.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
<394059.35059.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131634y78a2d1fbif784ac04670e7e2c@mail.gmail.com>
I: Stop blamiing Mom. Go look it up on an online dictionary. Merriam
Webster for starters.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:30 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> *comedectomies*
>
> Mom, among a few others, has locked up too the dictionary book. Other wise
> I would be in there, in a heart beat, to unlook it up ;->
>
> Alan
>
> *rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>* wrote:
>
> some are comedectomies
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500
> From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
>
> I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
> them. (I)
>
> Maybe *that's* why I've been so alone all these years.
> All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
> Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
> They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for
> BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together
> in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm
> not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you
> like.
> Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
>
> And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
> them.
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for
> instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat
> etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking
> trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic
> manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively"
> help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In
> fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
> living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
>
> From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
>
>
> to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
> Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
> quote):
> >...<
> Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
> ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
> WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
>
> Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
>
> I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
> (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
> If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
> choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
> To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
> have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
> son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
> Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
> negligent.
> And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
> acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
> *
> " >JPL:
> >"Shout, shout, let it all out
> >these are the things I can do without,
> >come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
> " >>Wm:
> >>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
> William
> *
> Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
> "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: Re: purpose of list
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello All,
>
> I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
> message to check for echo.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: inside out
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would share another thought that I found interesting.
>
> The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
> that
> it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
> can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
> contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
> seen
> from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
>
> My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
> form or on the un-form that borders it.
>
> The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
> represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
> viewing angle has been intriguing.
>
> Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
>
> From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
> Subject: Re:intentional dying
>
> Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
> kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
> dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
> 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
> right:
>
> > ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
> >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
> >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
> about
> >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
> >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
> would
> >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
> Normally,
> >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
> with
> >our work. =
>
> I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
>
> sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
> get
> back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
> with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
> forget
> -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
> rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
> *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
> because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
> lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
>
> I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
> Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
>
> not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
> I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
> is
> we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
> people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
> terms
> -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
> away
> the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
> no
> obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
> takes.
> So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
> through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
> the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
> top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out
> a
> lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
> enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
>
> responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
> have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
> --
> and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
> hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
> unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
>
> Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
> short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
> *me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
> common
> humanity.
> I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
>
> note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
> (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
> someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
>
> re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
> speaking
> to one of its authors!
>
>
> >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
> the
> >one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
> >
> >The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
> >directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
> >universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
>
> Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
> lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
> of
> birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
> so
> no full living either. No?
>
> I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
> >
> >is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
> >
> >julia
>
>
>
> --
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/b8694b8b/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:35:45 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:41:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <79519.44811.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W391BA5A214F2E1C2C7292ADC670@phx.gbl>
<79519.44811.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W186CD56594D2FB7DCD4CFDC670@phx.gbl>
there is a 'u' in dialoguist peter honey.
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:24:44 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
When --why??-- do dialogists start calling each other. That. "Honies" ;-?
Alanrob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
yes it certainly would seem that way to you Susan (honey) wouldn't it?
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:05 -0700
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Do we have a problem with(in) stuckness ||=?
Alan
Okay, Mom again. Why do mothers need so much? Attention? Later, gotta run :-))
AlanIrene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Go, Don! It's good to hear your voice again. Nice and clear, whether or not it seems stuck.
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/f4cbaa02/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 01:35:59 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:41:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W422913550B3823057E3B90DC670@phx.gbl>
References: <5B07F283-95D7-407C-B0CC-2F38CF710481@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W422913550B3823057E3B90DC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131635j628b7663r4e846283547c4395@mail.gmail.com>
I: Me, too.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:31 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> go Don. thanks for that.
>
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:08:51 -0800
> > Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
> >
> > Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a
> > nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central
> > core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its
> > more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more
> > trees.
> >
> > For what its worth:
> >
> > The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics
> > right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and
> > metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to
> > describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there
> > are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed
> > meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in
> > process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite
> > complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when
> > treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole
> > process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts"
> > makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as
> > parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or
> > organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to,
> > therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement.
> > This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in
> > terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that
> > he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do
> > not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together
> > by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information
> > for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole -
> > or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a
> > difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the
> > result of all of this.
> >
> > Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process
> > Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is
> > simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken
> > wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have
> > had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more
> > attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing
> > movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding -
> > from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of
> > unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.
> >
> > Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the
> > quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be
> > unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or
> > enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and
> > enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is
> > no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets
> > called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing-
> > thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not
> > language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in
> > process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking
> > process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that
> > tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but
> > mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has
> > dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects
> > interacting in a cartesian space.
> >
> > The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case
> > within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we
> > spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that
> > too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours
> > ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that
> > distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay
> > I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and
> > rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more
> > coherent.
> >
> > So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's
> > use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the
> > verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is
> > all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact
> > that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin
> > of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.
> >
> > Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.
> >
> >
> > don
> >
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> ------------------------------
> Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!<https://www.searchcharades.com>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/618390c8/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:37:07 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:42:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <394059.35059.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
<394059.35059.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W2C1A166A3C047968A4E6FDC670@phx.gbl>
unlookupyomomma. and remember me to her
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:30:42 -0800From: a.debakey@yahoo.comSubject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
comedectomies
Mom, among a few others, has locked up too the dictionary book. Other wise I would be in there, in a heart beat, to unlook it up ;->
Alanrob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
some are comedectomies
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funniesI: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like. Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience. WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally, >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt thatwith practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- -- Irene
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades! info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/1f6d9d52/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Dec 14 01:38:46 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:44:06 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
References: <629896.75416.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><013f01c83dc2$3378be80$ff76480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W391BA5A214F2E1C2C7292ADC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <021d01c83de9$b0a951e0$ff76480c@HOME>
yes, it certainly would Rob (sweetie pie sugar plumb).
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
yes it certainly would seem that way to you Susan (honey) wouldn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:05 -0700
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/2edf3318/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:39:38 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:44:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712131632i752c31b9kadd48c93c95280aa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20071213.103226.2428.392.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<c47283890712131326g20630599x4cabbd0e12cbaf44@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
<c47283890712131632i752c31b9kadd48c93c95280aa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W77BA9639AB29DF905C0B6DC670@phx.gbl>
well... I don't know... but there is rhyme but there is also reason
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:32:23 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2I: Yes, but I want to know why the runny ones run.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:25 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
some are comedectomies
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funniesI: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like. Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience. WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. Andhave mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length isnegligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out>these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of listDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seenfrom within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fullyrepresented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this viewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentionaldying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet, >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally, >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with >our work. =I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch'). I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes. So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- -- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/114f260f/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Fri Dec 14 01:39:40 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:44:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
References: <667000.32376.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <022c01c83de9$d08cc5a0$ff76480c@HOME>
Hahahahaha!! Thanks for confirming my suspicions Peter.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Aaaand ;-?
Susan, when you leave the house, is what you utter this:
"definitely looks very weathery" ;--??
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/964ed6cb/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:40:56 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:46:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712131634y78a2d1fbif784ac04670e7e2c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BAY123-W4141A8B8EDCA483B5D2152DC670@phx.gbl>
<394059.35059.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<c47283890712131634y78a2d1fbif784ac04670e7e2c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W320D1C76377F1400C8C5A1DC670@phx.gbl>
i'll be surprised and disappointed if you find it. I just made it up. I think.
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:34:52 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2I: Stop blamiing Mom. Go look it up on an online dictionary. Merriam Webster for starters.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:30 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
comedectomies
Mom, among a few others, has locked up too the dictionary book. Other wise I would be in there, in a heart beat, to unlook it up ;->
Alanrob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
some are comedectomies
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500From: irenedarcy@gmail.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funniesI: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com > writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like. Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDTto: Bohm, Subject Space and TimeDear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(yourquote):>...<Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, orours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience. WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain. If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists tochoose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it. To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude. Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is negligent.And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, anacclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange': *" >JPL:>"Shout, shout, let it all out >these are the things I can do without,>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon" >>Wm:>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating. William*Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post: "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: Re: purpose of list Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDTTo: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukHello All,I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this message to check for echo. Regards ChrisFrom: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>Subject: inside outDate: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.ukReply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk Hello Everyone,I would share another thought that I found interesting. The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense thatit's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous, contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets. My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the form or on the un-form that borders it. The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with thisviewing angle has been intriguing. Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)Subject: Re:intentional dying Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet, >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally, >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with>our work. = I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately veryrewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me, because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch'). I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." ButI've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everythingthe right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up theenormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in oneshort email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our commonhumanity.I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error' note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning" (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" becausesomeone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking to one of its authors! >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity." >>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc." Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlivedlines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment ofbirth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so no full living either. No? I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:>>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?>>julia-- -- Irene
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/83f3b2ac/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Fri Dec 14 01:42:12 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:47:29 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <021d01c83de9$b0a951e0$ff76480c@HOME>
References: <629896.75416.qm@web45801.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><013f01c83dc2$3378be80$ff76480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W391BA5A214F2E1C2C7292ADC670@phx.gbl>
<021d01c83de9$b0a951e0$ff76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W68FEA29ED4375040AAF5FDC670@phx.gbl>
uhuhuhuhuhuhwuuuuh....!!
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:38:46 -0700
yes, it certainly would Rob (sweetie pie sugar plumb).
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
yes it certainly would seem that way to you Susan (honey) wouldn't it?
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point takenDate: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:05 -0700
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/cb620862/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:35:33 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:47:31 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
In-Reply-To: <01ce01c83de7$23270a80$ff76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <340359.18151.qm@web45807.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Very well said that very well said :-,>
(Goodish "timing", too, incidentally. But not even close to funny. No, no, no, funny it the sharpest cooky+-cutter around here. And, for a break, I am NOT kiddin).
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Very well said Don!!!
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:08 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a
nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central
core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its
more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more
trees.
For what its worth:
The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics
right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and
metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to
describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there
are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed
meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in
process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite
complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when
treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole
process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts"
makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as
parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or
organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to,
therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement.
This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in
terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that
he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do
not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together
by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information
for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole -
or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a
difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the
result of all of this.
Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process
Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is
simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken
wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have
had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more
attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing
movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding -
from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of
unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.
Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the
quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be
unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or
enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and
enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is
no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets
called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing-
thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not
language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in
process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking
process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that
tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but
mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has
dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects
interacting in a cartesian space.
The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case
within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we
spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that
too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours
ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that
distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay
I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and
rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more
coherent.
So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's
use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the
verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is
all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact
that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin
of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.
Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/153062d5/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:43:33 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:48:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712131634y78a2d1fbif784ac04670e7e2c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <342546.53294.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Oh, I, no rush. I will just wait. For Mom to come in. And spill the beans. I will do dishes. And she will read out of this dead tree. She usually does that when I have blanked my plate over supper. She says such: Alan, boy, when you finish your beans to night, I will go and get the big book after from the cellar ;->]
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Stop blamiing Mom. Go look it up on an online dictionary. Merriam Webster for starters.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:30 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
comedectomies
Mom, among a few others, has locked up too the dictionary book. Other wise I would be in there, in a heart beat, to unlook it up ;->
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
some are comedectomies
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com > writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like.
Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/9d5a3814/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:46:04 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:51:21 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W12026AE8EA6986A1F24F8ADC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <589199.51554.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Mistr Bob, you good at saving ;-)
Teach I |=?
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } save yo stoma fo yo momma
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:51:36 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Wait, again! Are you saying that somebody who loves to eat horses is NOT a horse-lover (too) .-?
Alan
Ps: I have the gut feeling Mom would get along with you. Less sure about loving, tho '=,,
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I: Good Grief, how gruesome, Pat.
Especially for horse lovers. (White Castle hamburgers
had a high percentage of horse meat in them).
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:57:37 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: Good Grief, how gruesome, Pat.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:46 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Two years from now there will be a terrible sponge shortage.
And people who have had surgery will be "mined" for sponges.
Those who have had many surgeries will be either wealthy
or in great danger, depending on their luck. Sponge "donation"
centers will open up in the back room of every dunkin donuts
and White Castle shop. Yes, White Castle is coming back.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:19:12 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Hey funny. I not kidding. You must be God. That was news from a few days back. I sure will go nowhere. This is fun funny. Tell us more about the future. Funny you rule.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I know. I gave you that information myself 3 or 4 years ago.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:33:31 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Ae.Dropper. Every year, in the United States about 1,500 people have surgical objects accidentally left inside them after surgery, according to medical studies. About two-thirds of the surgical objects left behind are sponges. AL
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Then there was that lunch with Germaine Greer.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:19:10 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
It actually refers to something I wrote mentioning Dennis Hopper, an old friend.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
The what, "hopper"? And where does that one come in here now? More scrolling to do for me? O-boy --gender!--, this list is a wild ride.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's [the question] is in "the hopper." It seems a stretch but that's
not new. Connections LOVE to make themselves.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Almost time for eggs and ham. That's for certain. But does that count, too, Funny?
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"We can seldom go erect. Almost every man we meet requires some civility, requires to be humored; -- he has some fame, some talent, some whim of religion or philanthropy in his head that is not to be questioned, and so spoils all conversation with him." -- Emerson
"Almost"
It's always the "almost" that promises faithfully the
alternative that delivers the tiniest exception that changes
e v e r y t h i n g.
-- funny
info:
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/b9807fd2/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:47:42 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:52:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W22720B8F7F285792A323C3DC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <457804.15574.qm@web45803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
You me an, less "real" than
WE ;-)?
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } i don't think she was real anyway
---------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:50:52 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Gone, gone, gone. Penelope Duby is gone. don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
How could I dare not to (dare) >->>
Alan
(Do I need to fill out an official form, too? Fillin? ;*1)
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Penelope Duby, of the three new, um, individual subscribers,
you show the most promise. Or equal promise anyway.
Dare to ask me why I say that.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:27:07 -0800 (PST) Penelope Duby <pennyduby@yahoo.com> writes:
Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever everything that is familiar.?
Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move
Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/5a5f2dd5/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:51:14 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:56:32 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W335F3751836AE365100E68DC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <611718.6503.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
That is another thing I dig about dialogue. This on going rendezvousing with this deep-unknown-just-around-the-corner. This ever lasting frontiering ;-,,,
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } who the fuck are they. no wait... s'okay.
---------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:32:25 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
How do we get Nina Hagen to join this list? And Don Rickles for that matter.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
Teach me ;-)
If you ;-}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8owv5YjHfJA&feature=related
Alan
Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I have some ?teacher? genes. Some ?rescuer? too. I?ve just been reading about the human longing for wholeness, connection ? sometimes at all costs. I?m always having to let go of that attachment to outcomes.
Lynne
On 12/13/07 8:40 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
No kind of content can prevent looking at function.
It's all good grist. Especially content that sparks objection.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:23:36 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Hi Penelope,
It really does take some perseverance. You just came in with two others who sparked a rather terse style, but it?s not always like that. Bohm said that while a dialogue group should not have a goal (stifles creativity), it does need a purpose, which he suggested was ?impersonal fellowship? which serves as the glue to hold people. That takes time (probably especially online). I?ve been here about a year and a half, & while I don?t always have time to jump in, I do appreciate what can happen here.
Lynne
On 12/13/07 6:27 AM, "Penelope Duby" <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Everything in one place
All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/a3450b81/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:53:20 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:58:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W32675CCE8DF05CFE38D8ECDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <288514.63543.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Rob, why not do dishes with (your) Mom . More. Often. Too ;->
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } 'synopsize'. I have never met this word before. it is lovely. synopsize.
---------------------------------
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language, Map, and Email Identities
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
I: My understanding of it didn't change. I simply realized that what I had known all along, and what nobody had taught me to do, was what the scientists were putting in their own language. Ever hear of the piece "Rage Over a Lost Penny"? Mozart of Beethoven. I forget which.
Is it possible to synopsize Jeffery's words on observer/observed? (funny)
I: In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains rigid! Maybe that's what TAS as culprit is all about.
-- And can you say more about this?
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:55:16 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: My understanding of it didn't change. I simply realized that what I had known all along, and what nobody had taught me to do, was what the scientists were putting in their own language. Ever hear of the piece "Rage Over a Lost Penny"? Mozart of Beethoven. I forget which.
In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains rigid! Maybe that's what TAS as culprit is all about.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:41 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed? (funny)
I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain plasticity?
More interesting than the stuff about clarity.
Something that is understood after its having been so
elusive for so long catches my interest in terms of how it might
be newly worded
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:54:50 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain plasticity?
On Dec 11, 2007 9:59 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
It's over. True tired is true rest. They are inseparable.
Whatever needed affirming is no longer there. It was never there.
Not substantially. It was static. Static affirming static.
Clarity is just that. Clarity.
It's only edge is its flowing
crystalline expression of itself
about itself. It's expression
is how it knows its beauty.
It's expression is its beauty.
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to do something about it, I share the following with you.
I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD and Sharon Begley. I normally don't like psychiatrists et al, but I read their ideas so I won't be ignorant on the topics. This one has a couple of things I think are valuable. About him personally, he says that at 15, he was convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only mystery worth pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And amazingly, some of his writing reads like the 'excitation - inhibition' work we do in Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear chapter on The Quantum Brain, and has managed to explain 'observer & observed' so it makes sense to me. Actually, it's something I've always been aware of, and used. But the fancy words in books made it seem like something esoteric and unfamiliar.
Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used variations of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to incorporate and add something to the TAS process.
Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our 'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they arise and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's presence, then saying your own specific version of "that is a false message due to a jammed transmission in the brain". The author makes me laugh. He says "The brain's gonna do what the brain's gonna do, but you don't have to let it push you around." I agree.
In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with "Every day in every way, I'm getting better and better." Affirmations are the core of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the lines "Now I walk in Beauty" have been passed down as 'poetry'.
Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.
(The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four corners.)
On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about clarity - "getting to" clarity.
The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self) which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a static sensation and a non satisfaction.
Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that I say" that interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely [seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too. One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure" turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom the response is being written.
Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily a response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is its own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if I understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is leading up to. (wm)
Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative for all of it though.
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a response. This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a
form of communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. The point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually your intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment" or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be 'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a "something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan " again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the "sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises. Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of "suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal. The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of "suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun. And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/71647cf1/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:56:51 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:02:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <580909.46516.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
WE could call it some thing else, it that would be of any help to YOU. No need to TRIP over a little silly underSTANDING. [[[__)
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
---------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/3ecd8104/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Fri Dec 14 01:56:49 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:02:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
References: <5B07F283-95D7-407C-B0CC-2F38CF710481@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <004701c83dec$3b7aaa10$b5c16018@DL01>
Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. -- df
Maybe that's far enough for now. Thanks. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a
nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central
core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its
more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more
trees.
For what its worth:
The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics
right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and
metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to
describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there
are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed
meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in
process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite
complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when
treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole
process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts"
makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as
parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or
organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to,
therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement.
This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in
terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that
he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do
not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together
by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information
for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole -
or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a
difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the
result of all of this.
Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process
Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is
simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken
wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have
had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more
attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing
movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding -
from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of
unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.
Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the
quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be
unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or
enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and
enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is
no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets
called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing-
thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not
language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in
process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking
process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that
tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but
mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has
dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects
interacting in a cartesian space.
The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case
within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we
spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that
too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours
ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that
distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay
I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and
rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more
coherent.
So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's
use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the
verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is
all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact
that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin
of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.
Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/08cf9676/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:58:07 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:03:24 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W422913550B3823057E3B90DC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <211554.8913.qm@web45802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Where ("GO don") ;-??
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } go Don. thanks for that.
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:08:51 -0800
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
>
> Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a
> nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central
> core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its
> more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more
> trees.
>
> For what its worth:
>
> The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics
> right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and
> metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to
> describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there
> are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed
> meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in
> process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite
> complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when
> treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole
> process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts"
> makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as
> parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or
> organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to,
> therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement.
> This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in
> terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that
> he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do
> not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together
> by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information
> for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole -
> or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a
> difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the
> result of all of this.
>
> Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process
> Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is
> simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken
> wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have
> had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more
> attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing
> movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding -
> from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of
> unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.
>
> Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the
> quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be
> unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or
> enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and
> enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is
> no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets
> called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing-
> thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not
> language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in
> process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking
> process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that
> tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but
> mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has
> dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects
> interacting in a cartesian space.
>
> The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case
> within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we
> spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that
> too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours
> ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that
> distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay
> I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and
> rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more
> coherent.
>
> So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's
> use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the
> verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is
> all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact
> that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin
> of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.
>
> Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.
>
>
> don
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/901b7b20/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 01:59:51 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:05:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
In-Reply-To: <004701c83dec$3b7aaa10$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <47577.40621.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
for now
When
Where
How
Why
Do
WE
"exceeed"
"for now"
;-??
Alan
Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. -- df
Maybe that's far enough for now. Thanks. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] bohm in a nutshell
Someone asked the other day if someone could sum up Bohm's ideas in a
nutshell? It got me thinking about whether there is a key or central
core to all of his work. And this is what I have come up with. Its
more than a nutshell, but it shouldn't require killing too many more
trees.
For what its worth:
The central idea implicit in all of Bohm's work from Quantum physics
right through to his psychology, sociology, dialogue, and
metaphysics, has to do primarily with process. He saw, and tried to
describe whatever interested him, in terms of process. For Bohm there
are no "things"; that is, there are no fixed objects, not even fixed
meanings. But it is not so much that all is flux but that all is in
process. And even chaos is seen as an order of perhaps infinite
complexity. So ideas such as "that which is" or "ultimate truth" when
treated as final or fixed make no sense. "The whole" means the whole
process. And his suggestion that "the whole organizes the parts"
makes great sense when one see all the sub or dependent processes as
parts of this whole process which, by definition, are controlled or
organized by it. Whatever else that we care to consider has to,
therefore, be treated as an abstraction. from this holomovement.
This, of course, suggests that any abstraction must be understood in
terms of its immediate context within the whole process. Terms that
he used such as reason, lawful or coherent, mean simply that they do
not break the laws of the "the holomovement" which is held together
by "information". This, by the way, does not just mean, information
for us, but information exchanged between the parts and the whole -
or what Gregory Bateson called "a difference that makes a
difference." And such ideas as reason and coherence enter in as the
result of all of this.
Bohm's process is rather different from Whitehead's Process
Philosophy which is similar but also very different. Bohm's is
simpler, based primarily in the view that he described as unbroken
wholeness in flowing movement. I think the difficulty that many have
had with Bohm's philosophical vision is that they have paid more
attention to the unbroken wholeness aspect than to the flowing
movement aspect. But it is the movement or constantly unfolding -
from our explicate point of view - process that gives evidence of
unbroken wholeness as the underlying medium. It is the holomovement.
Around here there has been a lot of talk about self and self as the
quintessence that is ultimately unknowable. But why should it be
unknowable? Because it is a process that is constantly unfolding or
enfolding from and into a deeper level which is also unfolding and
enfolding and so on, possibly ad infinitum; we don't know. There is
no ego, but rather an "egoic process". Thought, or TAS as it gets
called, is an imaginary entity, a thing, or the result of "thing-
thinking". Our language tends to reenforce this, but it is not
language that does it, since the language too, like all else, is in
process. TAS, as a fixed mechanical part of our mentation or thinking
process does not exist as such but only as a part of a process that
tends to capture our attention. And there are reasons for this, but
mainly it is because for a few hundred years the model that has
dominated western culture is one that presumes separate objects
interacting in a cartesian space.
The idea that I am distinct from someone else, is only the case
within a particular context. Of course it is the context where we
spend most our waking lives, so it has its own significance. But that
too is also in process. I am not identical with who I was a few hours
ago and If I am distinct from the reader of these words, that
distinction has already begun to change. As I write this little essay
I can feel or sense changes which make me keep going back and
rewriting sentences or parts of sentences in order to make them more
coherent.
So I don't want to go much further here except to make note of Bohm's
use of the word "thought" in its sense of the past participle of the
verb "to think" to denote "the active response of memory".That is
all that TAS is and what makes it worth attending to is the fact
that it is active, that it actually effects the world beyond the skin
of the rememberer. And this is all too often forgotten.
Anyway, this is as far as I can go for now. But tomorrow is another day.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/6741792c/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Fri Dec 14 02:03:59 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:09:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/b7a18bf8/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 02:04:21 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:09:37 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W68FEA29ED4375040AAF5FDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <496966.69958.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Hope you dialogics are not diabetics, too ;----)
Ok, funny, true: But then, why NOT -;?
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } uhuhuhuhuhuhwuuuuh....!!
---------------------------------
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_BODY.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} yes, it certainly would Rob (sweetie pie sugar plumb).
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
yes it certainly would seem that way to you Susan (honey) wouldn't it?
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/68aecfa9/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 02:09:15 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:14:32 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <022c01c83de9$d08cc5a0$ff76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <502486.64830.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
suspicions
Got that gut feeling that might be another rich one for Mom to look up ... okay, on the list it goes ... any thing else ;-?
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hahahahaha!! Thanks for confirming my suspicions Peter.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Aaaand ;-?
Susan, when you leave the house, is what you utter this:
"definitely looks very weathery" ;--??
Alan
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote: So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
Alan
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/8d61ec90/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 02:11:00 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:16:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
<006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com>
standing under an articulated position.
I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position like some
kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not trying to be funny,
dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image literally flashed through my
mind. A roof has the purpose of protecting one from rain or excessive sun.
How would the idea of protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you
'get' it, you don't keep making the same mistake?
On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
> it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
> asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it *under* standing?
> no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
>
> Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
>
> Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity,
> Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being
> Truth in all of them. -- dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
> asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it *under* standing?
> no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just
> so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
> "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one
> way to understand understanding.
> don
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
>
> Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for
> instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat
> etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking
> trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic
> manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively"
> help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In
> fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
> living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
>
> From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
>
>
> to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
> Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
> quote):
> >...<
> Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
> ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
> WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
>
> Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
>
> I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
> (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
> If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
> choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
> To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
> have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
> son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
> Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
> negligent.
> And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
> acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
> *
> " >JPL:
> >"Shout, shout, let it all out
> >these are the things I can do without,
> >come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
> " >>Wm:
> >>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
> William
> *
> Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
> "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: Re: purpose of list
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello All,
>
> I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
> message to check for echo.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: inside out
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would share another thought that I found interesting.
>
> The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
> that
> it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
> can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
> contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
> seen
> from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
>
> My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
> form or on the un-form that borders it.
>
> The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
> represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
> viewing angle has been intriguing.
>
> Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
>
> From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
> Subject: Re:intentional dying
>
> Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
> kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
> dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
> 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
> right:
>
> > ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
> >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
> >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
> about
> >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
> >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
> would
> >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
> Normally,
> >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
> with
> >our work. =
>
> I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
>
> sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
> get
> back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
> with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
> forget
> -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
> rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
> *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
> because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
> lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
>
> I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
> Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
> not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
> I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
> is
> we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
> people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
> terms
> -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
> away
> the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
> no
> obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
> takes.
> So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
> through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
> the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
> top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out
> a
> lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
> enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
> responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
> have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
> --
> and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
> hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
> unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
>
> Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
> short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
> *me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
> common
> humanity.
> I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
> note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
> (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
> someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
> re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
> speaking
> to one of its authors!
>
>
> >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
> the
> >one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
> >
> >The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
> >directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
> >universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
>
> Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
> lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
> of
> birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
> so
> no full living either. No?
>
> I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
> >
> >is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
> >
> >julia
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/63093240/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 02:17:39 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:22:56 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W186CD56594D2FB7DCD4CFDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <531417.31251.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Hmmm, in YOURS, maybe. But in MINE, not. You see (not ;-?) WE is different, Mooney Rob ;-))
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } there is a 'u' in dialoguist peter honey.
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:24:44 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
When --why??-- do dialogists start calling each other. That. "Honies" ;-?
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} yes it certainly would seem that way to you Susan (honey) wouldn't it?
---------------------------------
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:05 -0700
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Do we have a problem with(in) stuckness ||=?
Alan
Okay, Mom again. Why do mothers need so much? Attention? Later, gotta run :-))
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Go, Don! It's good to hear your voice again. Nice and clear, whether or not it seems stuck.
---------------------------------
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
---------------------------------
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/2b1f66a3/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 02:13:03 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:25:00 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W2C1A166A3C047968A4E6FDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <138521.64641.qm@web45805.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Sure. But remember me, please, what you would like her to remember you for ;-]
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } unlookupyomomma. and remember me to her
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:30:42 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
comedectomies
Mom, among a few others, has locked up too the dictionary book. Other wise I would be in there, in a heart beat, to unlook it up ;->
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} some are comedectomies
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like.
Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
--
Irene
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/8e6693bc/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 02:20:10 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:25:31 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W4255CA0488063E1B570364DC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <284181.71498.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Well, I would not wnat to GO there, thatfar, PUSHING luck, like that (hard) (("lllluckyyy))
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } hard diarrhoea? You are lucky peter, sorry alan.
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:16:22 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
In case some gene-expression has notIced: The beauty of Diarrhoea is that it tends to do, to come with out force or hard or such ness ;,,,,,,,,,=
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} no guru no method no genes. Diarrhoea isn't genetic but it's hard to get out of your genes.
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:37:01 -0800
From: a.debakey@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Teach me ;-)
If you ;-}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8owv5YjHfJA&feature=related
Alan
Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I have some ?teacher? genes. Some ?rescuer? too. I?ve just been reading about the human longing for wholeness, connection ? sometimes at all costs. I?m always having to let go of that attachment to outcomes.
Lynne
On 12/13/07 8:40 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
No kind of content can prevent looking at function.
It's all good grist. Especially content that sparks objection.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:23:36 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Hi Penelope,
It really does take some perseverance. You just came in with two others who sparked a rather terse style, but it?s not always like that. Bohm said that while a dialogue group should not have a goal (stifles creativity), it does need a purpose, which he suggested was ?impersonal fellowship? which serves as the glue to hold people. That takes time (probably especially online). I?ve been here about a year and a half, & while I don?t always have time to jump in, I do appreciate what can happen here.
Lynne
On 12/13/07 6:27 AM, "Penelope Duby" <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll unsubscribe.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
---------------------------------
She said what? About who? Shameful celebrity quotes on Search Star!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/c89c83b8/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 02:22:11 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:27:29 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712131632i752c31b9kadd48c93c95280aa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <768222.50963.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Could be, just a could, because they: Can ;-)
B-M-I
;=)))))))
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Yes, but I want to know why the runny ones run.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:25 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
some are comedectomies
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you like.
Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/f3600cf1/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Fri Dec 14 02:24:29 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:29:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl><006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
My understanding is that 2+2=4. That is, I stand under the position taught regarding numbers, math, etc, common to us all.
Bohm says words are images.
Maybe in that sense, understanding an articulated, identified position might be seen as protecting one from making the same mistakes over and over. If for example, if you had erred and told your teacher on a test that 2+2=6 and the teacher had articulated the right answers, you might then say I understand -- meaning I stand under what was taught.
Those teaching try to get students to understand -- stand under the position taught. I do. Don't you? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
standing under an articulated position.
I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position like some kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not trying to be funny, dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image literally flashed through my mind. A roof has the purpose of protecting one from rain or excessive sun. How would the idea of protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you 'get' it, you don't keep making the same mistake?
On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/b66146a9/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 02:26:32 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:31:50 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <768222.50963.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <c47283890712131632i752c31b9kadd48c93c95280aa@mail.gmail.com>
<768222.50963.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131726x2118e9e0n9950e583e3c9ee0c@mail.gmail.com>
I: Alan, I don't understand "B-M-I" nor all those marks below i.e.:=
))))))))))
Nor why anyone runs away unless it's fear.
On Dec 13, 2007 8:22 PM, Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Could be, just a could, because they: Can ;-)
>
> B-M-I
>
> ;=)))))))
>
> Alan
>
>
> *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> I: Yes, but I want to know why the runny ones run.
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 7:25 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
>
> > some are comedectomies
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500
> > From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> >
> > They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
> >
> > I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
> > them. (I)
> >
> > Maybe *that's* why I've been so alone all these years.
> > All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
> > Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
> > They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
> >
> > -- funny
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > writes:
> >
> > I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for
> > BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time together
> > in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as possible. And I'm
> > not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can manipulate words any way you
> > like.
> > Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
> >
> > And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
> > them.
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for
> > instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat
> > etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking
> > trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic
> > manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively"
> > help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In
> > fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
> > living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
> >
> > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
> >
> > From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
> > Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
> >
> >
> > to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
> > Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
> > quote):
> > >...<
> > Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
> > ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
> > WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
> >
> > Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
> >
> > I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
> > (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
> > If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
> > choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave
> > it.
> > To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
> > have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
> > son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is
> > rude.
> > Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
> > negligent.
> > And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
> > acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
> > *
> > " >JPL:
> > >"Shout, shout, let it all out
> > >these are the things I can do without,
> > >come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
> > " >>Wm:
> > >>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
> > William
> > *
> > Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
> > "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
> >
> > From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
> > Subject: Re: purpose of list
> > Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
> >
> > To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> > Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending
> > this
> > message to check for echo.
> >
> > Regards
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
> > Subject: inside out
> > Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
> >
> > To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> > Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> >
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > I would share another thought that I found interesting.
> >
> > The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
> > that
> > it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
> >
> > can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is
> > continuous,
> > contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
> > seen
> > from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
> >
> > My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
> > form or on the un-form that borders it.
> >
> > The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
> > represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
> > viewing angle has been intriguing.
> >
> > Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
> > Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
> >
> > From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
> > Subject: Re:intentional dying
> >
> > Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
> >
> > kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
> > "intentional
> > dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
> > 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
> > right:
> >
> > > ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
> > >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
> >
> > >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
> > about
> > >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
> > >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
> > would
> > >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
> > Normally,
> > >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
> > with
> > >our work. =
> >
> > I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that
> > it's
> > sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
> > get
> > back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt
> > that
> > with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
> > forget
> > -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
> > rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess,
> > is
> > *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
> > because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
> > lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
> >
> > I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
> > Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you
> > do
> > not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime."
> > But
> > I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth
> > surely is
> > we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are
> > NOT
> > people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
> > terms
> > -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
> > away
> > the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
> > no
> > obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
> > takes.
> > So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may
> > go
> > through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
> > everything
> > the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
> > top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and
> > out a
> > lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
> > enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no
> > one
> > responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems
> > to
> > have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is
> > falling --
> > and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
> > hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
> > unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
> >
> > Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
> > short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
> > *me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
> > common
> > humanity.
> > I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
> > error'
> > note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
> >
> > (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
> > someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day
> > I
> > re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
> > speaking
> > to one of its authors!
> >
> >
> > >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
> > the
> > >one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
> > >
> > >The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
> > >directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
> > >universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
> >
> > Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
> > 'unlived
> > lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
> > of
> > birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
> > so
> > no full living either. No?
> >
> > I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
> > >
> > >is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
> > >
> > >julia
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Irene
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/bc73ccaf/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 02:32:12 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:37:32 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
<006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com>
<012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com>
I: Yes, quite often. And you've articulated very well where I was coming
from. It's SO refreshing to hear a reasonable voice!
You know, we do ratio in music, too. A quarter note is twice the length of
an eighth note. Use the eighth as the steady unit of measure, and one uses
augmentation to double it. Reversed, it's called diminution. It's one of
many strategies used to develop a motif.
Musicians certainly stand under that kind of knowledge i.e. protection.
On Dec 13, 2007 8:24 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
> My understanding is that 2+2=4. That is, I *stand under the position*taught regarding numbers, math, etc, common to us all.
>
> Bohm says words are images.
>
> Maybe in that sense, understanding an articulated, *identified position*might be seen as protecting one from making the same mistakes over and
> over. If for example, if you had erred and told your teacher on a test that
> 2+2=6 and the teacher had articulated the right answers, you might then say
> *I understand -- *meaning I stand under what was taught.
>
> Those teaching try to get students to understand -- *stand under the
> position taught*. I do. Don't you? -- dl
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> standing under an articulated position.
>
> I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position like some
> kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not trying to be funny,
> dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image literally flashed through my
> mind. A roof has the purpose of protecting one from rain or excessive sun.
> How would the idea of protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you
> 'get' it, you don't keep making the same mistake?
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>
> > it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
> > asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it *under* standing?
> > no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
> >
> > Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
> >
> > Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity,
> > Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being
> > Truth in all of them. -- dl
> >
> >
> > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
> > *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> >
> > it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i
> > asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it *under* standing?
> > no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >
> > Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful?
> > Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
> > "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one
> > way to understand understanding.
> > don
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
> >
> > Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for
> > instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat
> > etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking
> > trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic
> > manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively"
> > help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In
> > fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
> > living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
> >
> > *Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
> >
> > From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
> > Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
> >
> >
> > to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
> > Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
> > quote):
> > >...<
> > Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
> > ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
> > WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
> >
> > Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
> >
> > I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
> > (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
> > If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
> > choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave
> > it.
> > To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
> > have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
> > son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is
> > rude.
> > Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
> > negligent.
> > And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
> > acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
> > *
> > " >JPL:
> > >"Shout, shout, let it all out
> > >these are the things I can do without,
> > >come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
> > " >>Wm:
> > >>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
> > William
> > *
> > Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
> > "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
> >
> > From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
> > Subject: Re: purpose of list
> > Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
> >
> > To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> > Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending
> > this
> > message to check for echo.
> >
> > Regards
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
> > Subject: inside out
> > Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
> >
> > To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> > Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> >
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > I would share another thought that I found interesting.
> >
> > The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
> > that
> > it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
> > can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is
> > continuous,
> > contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
> > seen
> > from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
> >
> > My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
> > form or on the un-form that borders it.
> >
> > The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
> > represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
> > viewing angle has been intriguing.
> >
> > Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
> > Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
> >
> > From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
> > Subject: Re:intentional dying
> >
> > Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
> > kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
> > "intentional
> > dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
> > 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
> > right:
> >
> > > ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
> > >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
> >
> > >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
> > about
> > >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
> > >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
> > would
> > >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
> > Normally,
> > >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
> > with
> > >our work. =
> >
> > I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that
> > it's
> > sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
> > get
> > back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt
> > that
> > with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
> > forget
> > -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
> > rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess,
> > is
> > *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
> > because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
> > lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
> >
> > I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
> > Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you
> > do
> > not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime."
> > But
> > I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth
> > surely is
> > we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are
> > NOT
> > people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
> > terms
> > -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
> > away
> > the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
> > no
> > obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
> > takes.
> > So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may
> > go
> > through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
> > everything
> > the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
> > top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and
> > out a
> > lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
> > enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no
> > one
> > responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems
> > to
> > have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is
> > falling --
> > and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
> > hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
> > unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
> >
> > Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
> > short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
> > *me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
> > common
> > humanity.
> > I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
> > error'
> > note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
> >
> > (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
> > someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day
> > I
> > re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
> > speaking
> > to one of its authors!
> >
> >
> > >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
> > the
> > >one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
> > >
> > >The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
> > >directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
> > >universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
> >
> > Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
> > 'unlived
> > lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
> > of
> > birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
> > so
> > no full living either. No?
> >
> > I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
> > >
> > >is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
> > >
> > >julia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/059c803e/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Fri Dec 14 02:33:43 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:39:01 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:Language,
Map, and Email Identities
References: <20071213.131127.2428.411.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<BAY123-W32675CCE8DF05CFE38D8ECDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <018701c83df1$5ccfbcf0$b5c16018@DL01>
it is lovely. synopsize.
Yes. I like it too.
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:Language, Map, and Email Identities
'synopsize'. I have never met this word before. it is lovely. synopsize.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language, Map, and Email Identities
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
I: My understanding of it didn't change. I simply realized that what I had known all along, and what nobody had taught me to do, was what the scientists were putting in their own language. Ever hear of the piece "Rage Over a Lost Penny"? Mozart of Beethoven. I forget which.
Is it possible to synopsize Jeffery's words on observer/observed? (funny)
I: In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains rigid! Maybe that's what TAS as culprit is all about.
-- And can you say more about this?
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:55:16 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I: My understanding of it didn't change. I simply realized that what I had known all along, and what nobody had taught me to do, was what the scientists were putting in their own language. Ever hear of the piece "Rage Over a Lost Penny"? Mozart of Beethoven. I forget which.
In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains rigid! Maybe that's what TAS as culprit is all about.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:41 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed? (funny)
I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain plasticity?
More interesting than the stuff about clarity.
Something that is understood after its having been so
elusive for so long catches my interest in terms of how it might
be newly worded
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:54:50 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain plasticity?
On Dec 11, 2007 9:59 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
It's over. True tired is true rest. They are inseparable.
Whatever needed affirming is no longer there. It was never there.
Not substantially. It was static. Static affirming static.
Clarity is just that. Clarity.
It's only edge is its flowing
crystalline expression of itself
about itself. It's expression
is how it knows its beauty.
It's expression is its beauty.
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to do something about it, I share the following with you.
I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD and Sharon Begley. I normally don't like psychiatrists et al, but I read their ideas so I won't be ignorant on the topics. This one has a couple of things I think are valuable. About him personally, he says that at 15, he was convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only mystery worth pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And amazingly, some of his writing reads like the 'excitation - inhibition' work we do in Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear chapter on The Quantum Brain, and has managed to explain 'observer & observed' so it makes sense to me. Actually, it's something I've always been aware of, and used. But the fancy words in books made it seem like something esoteric and unfamiliar.
Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used variations of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to incorporate and add something to the TAS process.
Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our 'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they arise and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's presence, then saying your own specific version of "that is a false message due to a jammed transmission in the brain". The author makes me laugh. He says "The brain's gonna do what the brain's gonna do, but you don't have to let it push you around." I agree.
In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with "Every day in every way, I'm getting better and better." Affirmations are the core of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the lines "Now I walk in Beauty" have been passed down as 'poetry'.
Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.
(The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four corners.)
On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written: "How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about clarity - "getting to" clarity.
The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self) which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a static sensation and a non satisfaction.
Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that I say" that interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely [seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too. One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure" turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom the response is being written.
Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily a response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is its own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if I understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is leading up to. (wm)
Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative for all of it though.
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered" suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When you are always suspending, people are not getting their expected responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to say something or do something is to get a response. This is also the case when someone utters an insult, or attempt to hurt you: they usually do this because they are disappointed or angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have touched you. Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted hurt doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this, which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a form of communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't respond, don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are effectively refusing to communicate on this level. You may be willing to communicate on a different level but that channel is not open both ways. The point is, you are denying communication on the channel on which it is invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually your intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course, where this is leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment" or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be 'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a "something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan " again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the "sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises. Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of "suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal. The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of "suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun. And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry "funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/9c577cd7/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Fri Dec 14 02:46:35 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Dec 14 02:51:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl><006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com><012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <019b01c83df3$297d8ba0$b5c16018@DL01>
Yes. I understand Bohm's position on identity articulated in tas.
For example, he says that the system says "we are in there" -- meaning, the system says we are images or imagined thingKs, but "the system is faulty". That is, my understanding is that tas says I am that entity in imagination, but, I too, believe tas is faulty. I do not believe that I am the image used in imagination.
Nevertheless, language uses the idea of an identified subject and/or object as a noun. --dl
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Yes, quite often. And you've articulated very well where I was coming from. It's SO refreshing to hear a reasonable voice!
You know, we do ratio in music, too. A quarter note is twice the length of an eighth note. Use the eighth as the steady unit of measure, and one uses augmentation to double it. Reversed, it's called diminution. It's one of many strategies used to develop a motif.
Musicians certainly stand under that kind of knowledge i.e. protection.
On Dec 13, 2007 8:24 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net > wrote:
My understanding is that 2+2=4. That is, I stand under the position taught regarding numbers, math, etc, common to us all.
Bohm says words are images.
Maybe in that sense, understanding an articulated, identified position might be seen as protecting one from making the same mistakes over and over. If for example, if you had erred and told your teacher on a test that 2+2=6 and the teacher had articulated the right answers, you might then say I understand -- meaning I stand under what was taught.
Those teaching try to get students to understand -- stand under the position taught. I do. Don't you? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
standing under an articulated position.
I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position like some kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not trying to be funny, dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image literally flashed through my mind. A roof has the purpose of protecting one from rain or excessive sun. How would the idea of protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you 'get' it, you don't keep making the same mistake?
On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Irene
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/3e312cfd/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:29:50 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:33 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.30.ae.dropper@juno.com>
A bit of luck.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:05 -0700 "Susan Clemons"
<Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> writes:
So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan E. DeBakey
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Do we have a problem with(in) stuckness ||=?
Alan
Okay, Mom again. Why do mothers need so much? Attention? Later, gotta run
:-))
Alan
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I: Go, Don! It's good to hear your voice again. Nice and clear,
whether or not it seems stuck.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/d74d5660/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:29:18 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] What is "true inquiry?"
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.28.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Oh. You need a nose. Here's one.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:56:45 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Have a tree on me, funny!
Snowman
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"True inquiry" can be known in its non-result in relation to thought.
False inquiry into
thought will bring another thought - that is believed. "True inquiry
"ends" in action, now
unimpeded by a belief in a thought. True inquiry "ends" in a wholly
different kind of perceiving.
The process of inquiry is the process of checking the truth of a thought
[the truth of thought],
whatever the thought. This process will involve refinement of the thought
into its clearest form.
And when thought has 'found' its clearest form (its 'final' progenitor),
the thought
[belief; assumption] - the untruth of the thought will make its
appearance. And the
belief in its truth will make its disappearance.
"Truth" in this context means "what is."
So the inquiry might go "Is this thought really what is?"
-- funny
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/3e42592c/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:29:37 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:40 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.29.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I was all kinds of funny but not particularly laugh
funny till I started calling myself funny.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:00:01 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Funny, please, fill me in. How come some funnies are not, well, laugh:
funny ;-?
Like I. No(t)funny, I.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I: In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural
process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious
effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains....
Ps: Need a Plumber?
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/84a2807c/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:28:23 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.26.ae.dropper@juno.com>
These gratitude genes have responded to those rescuer genes more than
once.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:00:00 -0700 Lynne Tolk
<lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
I have some ?teacher? genes. Some ?rescuer? too. I?ve just been reading
about the human longing for wholeness, connection ? sometimes at all
costs. I?m always having to let go of that attachment to outcomes.
Lynne
On 12/13/07 8:40 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
No kind of content can prevent looking at function.
It's all good grist. Especially content that sparks objection.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:23:36 -0700 Lynne Tolk
<lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Hi Penelope,
It really does take some perseverance. You just came in with two others
who sparked a rather terse style, but it?s not always like that. Bohm
said that while a dialogue group should not have a goal (stifles
creativity), it does need a purpose, which he suggested was ?impersonal
fellowship? which serves as the glue to hold people. That takes time
(probably especially online). I?ve been here about a year and a half, &
while I don?t always have time to jump in, I do appreciate what can
happen here.
Lynne
On 12/13/07 6:27 AM, "Penelope Duby" <pennyduby@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in
communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll
unsubscribe.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/f2b4b821/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:30:00 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:45 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION - 3rd excerpt
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.31.ae.dropper@juno.com>
SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION - 3rd excerpt
DB: In order to demonstrate this, you may take the case of getting angry.
This is a feeling that is not as difficult to look at as say fear or
pleasure -- deceptive feelings of pleasure -- which you know too can be
produced by thought, a seductive thought. You see, a person may first get
an outburst of anger and then cool down -- it simmers down, but it's
still there. You may put it in abeyance because something more important
comes up, but it's still there ready to come up. My suggestion is to call
it up on purpose by trying to find the words that express the reason for
being angry. Thus, you may say, "I'm angry, and I have good reason
because he did this and that and that." You will find that you are
getting still angrier. Usually you'll say, "I shouldn't get angry, so I'd
better stop this." But now we're going to use this on purpose, not for
the sake of getting angry, because we're
6
going to suspend the angry feelings, neither by stopping them, nor
letting them come out. Is that clear what I mean?
LN: Yes, but there are some difficulties with suspending.
DB: Well you see, it's not being done right in the heat of your original
outburst of anger, but still, you're not calling it up to get rid of the
angry feelings. Your first impulse might be to try and go out and insult
the person and do something, and in earlier times you might even have hit
the person. And now you say don't do any of those things, but let the
feelings come up and watch what's going on. We're regarding it as a sort
of test display of the process, you understand? So then you'll see these
angry feelings which will produce tension in the solar plexus and the
belly and the chest, and affect your breathing, and heartbeat, and all
sorts of things. You'll be able to see a sort of movement of responses
all over the body, such as a tension of the jaw, in the neck.
LN: Now let me raise one of the difficulties that commonly occurs here.
Even if one waits a bit beyond the heat of the moment, there still comes
up a very strong resistance to acknowledging that one is actually in this
state.
DB: Yes, that's part of our sociocultural conditioning, which says that
you shouldn't be angry, and not only that, you yourself have seen by
clear thought that it's leading you astray. You see, both reason, and
society and everything is telling you, you shouldn't be angry. Now
there's a serious mistake in there. Of course, it's right that you
shouldn't be angry, if only because it is very destructive to your deeper
interests. But the attempt to say you just shouldn't be angry is simply
not affecting the anger, it's just trying to impose another pattern on
top of the anger. This will come out as we go along, but the first point
is to realize that such resistance is false and that this falseness will
come out as we go through this process and pay attention to it.
7
LN: The falseness of the sociocultural as well as the personal
judgment.
DB: Yes. This is very tricky, because in some ways the
judgment appears to be right. But there's a fundamental, deeper falseness
in it. So we also have to give attention to our tendency to say, "I
shouldn't be angry, I must stop being angry", and we will see that this
too, has to be suspended. In this process one will begin to get certain
feelings, at first perhaps very faintly because of all the resistance,
and later more strongly -- you'll see the play of these feelings over the
body, because the action is being suspended. If you actually did
something, you would no longer notice the feelings ... if you went out
and hit somebody or punched him in the nose, or insulted him, or
otherwise tried to get redress for your anger. You might momentarily feel
a lot better, because the tension would go (until the other person
retaliated in a similar way). But now, when action is suspended, you can
see that the words are calling up the feelings, and you'll be able to get
a sense that there's some sort of mechanical connection between the words
and the feelings.
For example, you may find that the words may be, "He shouldn't have done
this; he shouldn't treat me that way; he hasn't due regard for me, he's
always doing that; he's never taking my rights into account. It's not the
first time." So you may notice the feelings coming up rather
mechanically, and that those feelings are producing mechanical pressure,
making it very hard to look at those thoughts and see whether they're
right or not.
LN: Let's go very slowly here. You say they produce
mechanical responses and mechanical feelings. Now it seems to be a very
thin line, because when you do what you suggest, if it's really
activating these responses you're talking about, they don't feel
mechanical.
8
DB: No, but you can see a certain mechanical quality in the sense that
the word is followed by the feeling. And you'll see there is a little
something also in that pressure of the feeling to avoid examining the
meaning of the words, to avoid seeing whether you really have a good
reason to be angry.
LN: A resistance to seeing the connection.
DB: Yes, that's right. You see, if it were really a
straightforward process, there would be no resistance to examining it.
Now you can begin to suspect that it looks a little mechanical. Here you
can use a certain amount of knowledge which has come from biofeedback.
You have a device that, I forget what they call it, in the so-called lie
detector, you attach an electrode to your finger, and you see, this
measures the activity of the autonomic nervous system.
LN: The polygraph.
DB: The polygraph, yes. When the autonomic nervous system
is aroused, you'll get the solar plexus and heartbeat and the adrenaline
and all those things acting. When somebody says something disturbing, or
you think something disturbing, that arouses you in this way, then
roughly three seconds later, the needle jerks. If it's not very
disturbing, you may be hardly aware that anything has happened, yet the
needle jerks. So it does look very mechanical when you look at it that
way.
It takes three seconds. We could say that your thought is in the pipeline
for three seconds, but you don't pay attention to this. Then suddenly the
emotional response appears. It suddenly appears in this way as if it were
spontaneous. However, there's been another thought in the background all
the time saying that everything which appears suddenly like that is deep
gut feeling, so that it's really very important. That produces more
thought which goes into the pipeline, and three seconds later there comes
9
another jerk, and the whole process thus builds up. The thought that this
is a deep gut feeling is now taken as further proof that you have good
reason to be angry. See, the original proof was that he's always doing
this, right? Now you have an additional proof -- the deep gut feeling --
saying I have a deep feeling which is instinctive. I've been badly
treated.
In the case of fear, that's even more clear. You can similarly produce a
response of fear by thinking of danger, and a short time later, you have
this sinking sensation in the solar plexus. You now say I have an
instinctive feeling of danger. The animal would get just that feeling as
the first sense of danger, right? Or you yourself might be in a very
dangerous situation and get it. So that could be a real warning of
danger. But the assumption is that it's always a warning of danger. This
ignores the fact that it could be an entirely false warning arranged by
thought mechanically.
TO BE CONTINUED
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:26:02 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:46 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Almost
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.21.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Oh my God I was saying that. Still can't open my mouth without being
WRONG.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:51:36 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Wait, again! Are you saying that somebody who loves to eat horses is NOT
a horse-lover (too) .-?
Alan
Ps: I have the gut feeling Mom would get along with you. Less sure about
loving, tho '=,,
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I: Good Grief, how gruesome, Pat.
Especially for horse lovers. (White Castle hamburgers
had a high percentage of horse meat in them).
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:57:37 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
I: Good Grief, how gruesome, Pat.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:46 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Two years from now there will be a terrible sponge shortage.
And people who have had surgery will be "mined" for sponges.
Those who have had many surgeries will be either wealthy
or in great danger, depending on their luck. Sponge "donation"
centers will open up in the back room of every dunkin donuts
and White Castle shop. Yes, White Castle is coming back.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:19:12 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Hey funny. I not kidding. You must be God. That was news from a few days
back. I sure will go nowhere. This is fun funny. Tell us more about the
future. Funny you rule.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I know. I gave you that information myself 3 or 4 years ago.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:33:31 -0800 (PST) Alfred Landman
<landmana@yahoo.com> writes:
Hi Ae.Dropper. Every year, in the United States about 1,500 people have
surgical objects accidentally left inside them after surgery, according
to medical studies. About two-thirds of the surgical objects left behind
are sponges. AL
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Then there was that lunch with Germaine Greer.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:19:10 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
It actually refers to something I wrote mentioning Dennis Hopper, an old
friend.
don
On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
The what, "hopper"? And where does that one come in here now? More
scrolling to do for me? O-boy --gender!--, this list is a wild ride.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's [the question] is in "the hopper." It seems a stretch but that's
not new. Connections LOVE to make themselves.
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Almost time for eggs and ham. That's for certain. But does that count,
too, Funny?
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
"We can seldom go erect. Almost every man we meet requires some civility,
requires to be humored; -- he has some fame, some talent, some whim of
religion or philanthropy in his head that is not to be questioned, and so
spoils all conversation with him." -- Emerson
"Almost"
It's always the "almost" that promises faithfully the
alternative that delivers the tiniest exception that changes
e v e r y t h i n g.
-- funny
info:
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/d086f646/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:26:42 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:48 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.22.ae.dropper@juno.com>
DIALOGUE DANCE
A dialogue circle of trees, dancing trees
we do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woods
with the light filtering through our autumn leaves
and we are dancing - our roots are our feet
and our millions of toes, dancing.
A wind comes and some of our leaves fall
from some of our fingers,
our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,
one explication for every implication
our roots hidden, unknown
but known constantly as that
which ever refuses naming
while the naming plays with itself
somewhere out of reach
of the dance itself.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful?
Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
"understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than
one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance,
thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc
(which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees
into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation
of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one
get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact,
it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that.
AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
"intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that
it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt
that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess,
is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you
do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and
out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no
one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
--
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day
I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/1c185aab/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:27:13 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.23.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
Because "trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time
with them."
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for
BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time
together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as
possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can
manipulate words any way you like.
Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance,
thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc
(which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees
into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation
of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one
get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact,
it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that.
AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
"intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that
it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt
that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess,
is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you
do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and
out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no
one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
--
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day
I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/c5274aa1/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:27:29 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:51 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was: Language,
Map, and Email Identities
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.24.ae.dropper@juno.com>
[Qualifies as] Easy reading. Are you a member?
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:37:20 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Talking about (not)funny: Want to hear --read-- something, funny:
You are visitor no. 2137225 = Alan ;-),
What is Mensa?
Mensa was founded in England in 1946 by Roland Berrill, a barrister, and
Dr. Lance Ware, a scientist and lawyer. They had the idea of forming a
society for bright people, the only qualification for membership of which
was a high IQ. The original aims were, as they are today, to create a
society that is non-political and free from all racial or religious
distinctions. The society welcomes people from every walk of life whose
IQ is in the top 2% of the population, with the objective of enjoying
each other's company and participating in a wide range of social and
cultural activities.
What are Mensa's goals?
Mensa has three stated purposes: to identify and foster human
intelligence for the benefit of humanity, to encourage research in the
nature, characteristics and uses of intelligence, and to promote
stimulating intellectual and social opportunities for its members.
How many members does Mensa have?
Today there are some 100,000 Mensans in 100 countries throughout the
world. There are active Mensa organizations in over 40 countries on every
continent except Antarctica. Membership numbers are also available for
specific National Groups.
What kind of people are Members of Mensa?
There is simply no one prevailing characteristic of Mensa members other
than high IQ. There are Mensans for whom Mensa provides a sense of
family, and others for whom it is a casual social activity. There have
been many marriages made in Mensa, but for many people, it is simply a
stimulating opportunity for the mind. Most Mensans have a good sense of
humor, and they like to talk. And, usually, they have a lot to say.
Mensans range in age from 4 to 94, but most are between 20 and 60. In
education they range from preschoolers to high school dropouts to people
with multiple doctorates. There are Mensans on welfare and Mensans who
are millionaires. As far as occupations, the range is staggering. Mensa
has professors and truck drivers, scientists and firefighters, computer
programmers and farmers, artists, military people, musicians, laborers,
police officers, glassblowers--the diverse list goes on and on. There are
famous Mensans and prize-winning Mensans, but there are many whose names
you wouldn't know.
What does "Mensa" mean?
The word "Mensa" means "table" in Latin. The name stands for a
round-table society, where race, color, creed, national origin, age,
politics, educational or social background are irrelevant.
What opinions does Mensa have?
Mensa takes no stand on politics, religion or social issues. Mensa has
members from so many different countries and cultures with differing
points of view, that for Mensa to espouse a particular point of view
would go against its role as a forum for all points of view. Of course,
individual Mensa members often have strong opinions--and several of them.
It is said that in a room with 12 Mensans you will find at least 13
differing opinions on any given subject.
How do I qualify for Mensa?
Membership in Mensa is open to persons who have attained a score within
the upper two percent of the general population on an approved
intelligence test that has been properly administered and supervised.
There is no other qualification or disqualification for membership
eligibility.
The term "IQ score" is widely used but poorly defined. There are a large
number of tests with different scales. The result on one test of 132 can
be the same as a score 148 on another test. Some intelligence tests don't
use IQ scores at all. Mensa has set a percentile as cutoff to avoid this
confusion. Candidates for membership in Mensa must achieve a score at or
above the 98th percentile on a standard test of intelligence (a score
that is greater than or equal to that achieved by 98 percent of the
general population taking the test).
Generally, there are two ways to prove that you qualify for Mensa: either
take the Mensa test, or submit a qualifying test score from another test.
There are a large number of intelligence tests that are "approved". More
information on whether a test you have taken is approved, as well as
information on the procedure for taking the Mensa test, can be obtained
from the nearest Mensa office. There are no on-line tests that can be
used for admission to Mensa. Feel free to contact Mensa for specific
details about eligibility.
Mensa has no other eligibility requirements other than IQ testing.
However, many tests are not valid for people under the age of 16. You
should contact the nearest Mensa office for more information.
How do I get proof of my previous test scores?
Contact the testing service that administered the test to you requesting
that they send you a report showing your score. Include as much
information as you can about yourself and regarding when and where you
were tested. If you can't give an exact answer, an approximation is
better than nothing. Many testing services charge a fee for sending
reports; you should give the service a call before writing them.
If your school did testing, write to the school you attended, and ask for
a CERTIFIED copy of your score. It must include your birth date, the name
of the test, and a clearly defined number, i.e., IQ, or percentile rank
nationally. Mensa does not accept achievement tests. The school seal must
be stamped on the report.
For psychologist/agency testing, have the report sent on professional
letterhead, with the psychologist's or agency's license or registration
number. Mensa accepts tests given only by those people qualified to do
testing privately in the area in which the examiner resides. Date of
test, name of test, and full score must be given, and the report must be
signed.
Any signature-guaranteed or notarized copy of any of the reports will be
accepted, other non-verifiable copies may be rejected.
Is there a Mensa test?
If you've never taken an IQ test, or don't want to bother with getting
official copies of your test scores, then Mensa can test you. You will be
put in contact with the local testing coordinator who will tell you about
specific testing dates and places.
In some countries, a pre-test is available which you can take in the
privacy of your home. To find out whether such a test is available in
your country, please see National Groups. When you've finished the
pre-test, send it back to the address instructed. It will be scored, and
you will be notified of the results. If your score is high enough, you'll
be invited to take a qualifying supervised test. The pre-test is just for
practice; you can't use it to qualify for Mensa even if you score at or
above the 98th percentile. Taking a pre-test is not required for
admission, however, many people take it simply for the challenge.
Feel free to contact Mensa for more information or to arrange testing.
More specific information is also available about testing costs for any
of the National Groups.
If you want to take a practice, on-line test, the Mensa Workout is an
intelligence quiz in which you have half an hour to answer 30 questions.
When you submit your answers, your test is instantly scored, and you can
see how your score measures up. The answers to the questions are provided
along with discussion of the answers. The Workout is not an IQ test, and
can't be used for qualification to join Mensa.
You are visitor no. 2137225
"Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
Funny, please, fill me in. How come some funnies are not, well, laugh:
funny ;-?
Like I. No(t)funny, I.
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I: In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural
process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious
effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains....
Ps: Need a Plumber?
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/e22d4bfd/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:29:04 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Quote for the day
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.27.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Shoot my feet.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:46:14 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
M O R E -GREAT answer ;=!!
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Funny, interesting, that one made it first. First on your list. List.
(alan)
Sequence is a fascinating study. Sometimes clarity is immediate. No
suspense
necessary.
Hmm. Nice incidental. The only two options are suspense [suspension of
defense] and clarity. (funny)
I was wondering, while out, shoveling, if you had procreated in life,
would you love the results, could you, as much as this. |-] (alan)
GREAT question.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:47:42 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Funny, interesting, that one made it first. First on your list. List. I
was wondering, while out, shoveling, if you had procreated in life, would
you love the results, could you, as much as this. |-]
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Oh the breadth of some "somehows."
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:38:04 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Funny, you are a Mommy? Somehow you don't come across like that. 0-o
Alan
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Funny, pregnant question. Got any fitting answers, too }+o
Alan
Very nice. And good "timing" work. And reminiscent of earlier
"pregnancies."
There's always "something more and something different" - in everything.
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:57:31 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
It's all improv comedy. Just read carefully. You still won't catch them
all but let "this one" pass or you will miss the "next five." Explaining
works
sometimes but not very often and not really, and only when timing remains
the priority.
Timing is everything. And keep enough of the context to conveniently
reread. LOTS can get missed in the first reading and even in the first
few readings. And like they say about Driving in Massachusetts -
Understanding is not a right; it is a privilege. But why am I telling you
all of this.
Funny, pregnant question. Got any fitting answers, too }+o
Alan
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/d0e00e63/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Dec 14 03:27:45 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 03:33:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:Language,
Map, and Email Identities
Message-ID: <20071213.213129.1072.25.ae.dropper@juno.com>
My first one word poem.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:33:43 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
it is lovely. synopsize.
Yes. I like it too.
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending -
was:Language, Map, and Email Identities
'synopsize'. I have never met this word before. it is lovely. synopsize.
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:56:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language, Map, and Email Identities
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
I: My understanding of it didn't change. I simply realized that what I
had known all along, and what nobody had taught me to do, was what the
scientists were putting in their own language. Ever hear of the piece
"Rage Over a Lost Penny"? Mozart of Beethoven. I forget which.
Is it possible to synopsize Jeffery's words on observer/observed?
(funny)
I: In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural
process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious
effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains rigid!
Maybe that's what TAS as culprit is all about.
-- And can you say more about this?
-- funny
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:55:16 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
I: My understanding of it didn't change. I simply realized that what I
had known all along, and what nobody had taught me to do, was what the
scientists were putting in their own language. Ever hear of the piece
"Rage Over a Lost Penny"? Mozart of Beethoven. I forget which.
In other words, for me, proprioception and a lot of stuff is a natural
process that 'thinkers' have clogged up unnecessarily with conscious
effort. And who knows, maybe that thought has made their brains rigid!
Maybe that's what TAS as culprit is all about.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:41 PM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed? (funny)
I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain
plasticity?
More interesting than the stuff about clarity.
Something that is understood after its having been so
elusive for so long catches my interest in terms of how it might
be newly worded
-- funny
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:54:50 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
I: Why is that more interesting than scientific discovery of brain
plasticity?
On Dec 11, 2007 9:59 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
It's over. True tired is true rest. They are inseparable.
Whatever needed affirming is no longer there. It was never there.
Not substantially. It was static. Static affirming static.
Clarity is just that. Clarity.
It's only edge is its flowing
crystalline expression of itself
about itself. It's expression
is how it knows its beauty.
It's expression is its beauty.
Speaking of which (and much more interesting)
can you write of the new understanding of observer/observed?
-- funny
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to me.
I: Hello, Friend. Assuming that you are tired enough to want to do
something about it, I share the following with you.
I am reading a book on brain plasticity - The Mind and the Brain:
Neuroplasticity and the Power of mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, MD
and Sharon Begley. I normally don't like psychiatrists et al, but I read
their ideas so I won't be ignorant on the topics. This one has a couple
of things I think are valuable. About him personally, he says that at
15, he was convinced that the inner working of the mind was the only
mystery worth pursuing. He also is critical of much psychiatry. And
amazingly, some of his writing reads like the 'excitation - inhibition'
work we do in Eurhythmics. He also has a very clear chapter on The
Quantum Brain, and has managed to explain 'observer & observed' so it
makes sense to me. Actually, it's something I've always been aware of,
and used. But the fancy words in books made it seem like something
esoteric and unfamiliar.
Anyway, here is what I wanted to share with you. I have used variations
of it myself, and it worked. It seems to me to incorporate and add
something to the TAS process.
Refocusing - the essence of applying mindful awareness (our
'proprioception') is to recognize unwanted thoughts as soon as they arise
and refocus attention. Start by acknowledging the thought's presence,
then saying your own specific version of "that is a false message due to
a jammed transmission in the brain". The author makes me laugh. He says
"The brain's gonna do what the brain's gonna do, but you don't have to
let it push you around." I agree.
In addition, affirmations also worked for me. I started with "Every day
in every way, I'm getting better and better." Affirmations are the core
of the Beautyway Ceremony from which the lines "Now I walk in Beauty"
have been passed down as 'poetry'.
Hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon - hozhoon.
(The Navajo blessing from Beautyway said once for each of the four
corners.)
On Dec 9, 2007 10:30 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
Please continue when you get a moment (willam) (just an invitation - not
a necessity - you've already been most helpful). Also Irene had written:
"How does it work for you? Can we compare?"
There has come more clarity about the "layered suspension" thing. For
those interested in detail, it took about 15 "layers" before the clarity
came this time. (It has usually taken about 4 or 5). And it's all about
clarity - "getting to" clarity.
The "absence of clarity" is "layered" as well. These are layers of
evermore subtle and increasingly veiled defenses (untruths about self)
which correspond with the layers of suspension. The subtlety at each
level though - AT that level - breaks into obviousness. The obviousness
is in the bodily sensations. There is a lack of clarity - like sensations
of static. The initial satisfying feelings in the response evolve into a
static sensation and a non satisfaction.
Incidentally, I have found that the only words that "hurt" me are the
words that I say. The words that others say, are never hurtful. They are
music. But that's another story. So it is these "words that I say" that
interest me. I am really very tired of saying words that are hurtful to
me.
It is very clear now that the words that I say that are even remotely
[seeming] defensive [of a clearly untruthful self/world image] maintain
confusion or lack of clarity in my system.
Thus, the "layered" suspension. Because the defenses are "layered" too.
One comes right after another. They get VERY fancy AND, initially (as I
said) quite satisfying and fleetingly pleasurable. Then the "pleasure"
turns to a kind of sour sensation. The thing just FLOPS, upon suspension.
But the CLARITY, when it comes, comes with ..... well, clarity. There
is no flopping or static. The whole body feels clear. These is no
defensive wall anymore between "me" and the person[s] or group to whom
the response is being written.
Incidentally, there is an awareness that the "response" is primarily a
response from me to me - sort of "written on the wind." And that it is
its own reward and complete satisfaction. It is perhaps like a quanta (if
I understand such - complete in itself, a little piece of wholeness).
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:51:46 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize, of course,
where this is leading up to. (wm)
Please continue. I have no idea where this is leading. Appreciative for
all of it though.
-- funny
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:49:45 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
I didn't mean coping with the sense of detachment. I meant how to cope
with the tendency to suspend more and more; what you call "layered"
suspension (resulting in a sense of "detachment" for lack of a better
word). You see, at some point it starts getting a bit anti-social. When
you are always suspending, people are not getting their expected
responses anymore. Usually the reason for someone to say something or do
something is to get a response. This is also the case when someone utters
an insult, or attempt to hurt you: they usually do this because they are
disappointed or angry; and they want a reaction that shows they have
touched you. Now, if you are always in suspense mode then the attempted
hurt doesn't work, because there is no reaction on your side. At first
glance this is perhaps not a bad thing because it usually prevents the
situation from escalating. However, there is another aspect to this,
which is that the attempted hurt could be regarded as a form of
communication; they are trying to say something. If you don't respond,
don't react (as a result of suspension) then you are effectively refusing
to communicate on this level. You may be willing to communicate on a
different level but that channel is not open both ways. The point is, you
are denying communication on the channel on which it is invited.
So, what do you say to this? Because i am assuming it is not actually
your intention to deny communication. You are probably in compassion
mode, which however is not the channel open to whoever wants to touch
you. Have you reached a point where you would consider suspending
suspension, out of compassion, and give the person the feeling of having
touched you? Would you like to comment before i go further? You realize,
of course, where this is leading up to.
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 07.12.2007 21:00:44
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
But more on this (perhaps based on the curious idea of "coping").
There are times when I experience what you might be calling "detachment"
or something I might legitimately call "detachment." And there are many
childhood memories of something I can call "detachment," especially when
I was in school.
This "detachment' breaks off into two categories; one is entirely
comfortable; the other is not.
The one that is not comfortable is a feeling of not belonging or not
feeling like a participant.
How to cope? If it's in a dialogue circle it can be as simple as saying
something. Anything.
But this experience is quite rare these days. And quite noticeable for
its rarity. And there is a
preference these days to not say something to ease the discomfort but to
just observe
what is going on beneath the discomfort.
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:06:26 -0500 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
To identify with a concept of "detachment" it would have to be
'detachment' from a layer that is SO thin that it is viscerally all but
indiscernible. Along with this, such "identity" requires imagining a
"something" that actually does the "detaching." This is possible - this
imagining. But it is clearly an isolated imagining and not a visceral
experience.
I LOVE to "play the game." And with simultaneous "watching."
-- funny
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:05:24 +0100 (Westeurop?ische Normalzeit) "william"
<w@david-bohm.net> writes:
Ok, now i understand what you were saying. Thanks for the hint. Yes, i
think you're right; that's my experience also. But i also noticed that I
need to counteract a tendency of feeling detached from the rest of the
world, like preferring to quietly watch the game from a distance instead
of playing it. Is this tendency also the case with you, and if so how are
you coping with this?
-------Original Message-------
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Date: 06.12.2007 17:34:58
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Unfolding of "layered" suspending - was:
Language,Map, and Email Identities
"The principle here is the same as that advanced by Rudolf Steiner when
he advised teachers to prepare their lessons painstakingly and then be
ready to sacrifice the prepared plan at the dictate of circumstances
which may point to an entirely fresh approach to their material."
from: THE ART OF GOETHEAN CONVERSATION
This speaks to what I was saying - except "sacrifice the prepared plan "
again and again.
The response gets more and more "whole" each time. It draws on more of
what the group
is saying as a whole. And with a little experience one comes to see the
"sacrifices"
[of the satisfactions] as "investments" in evermore surprising surprises.
Or, one
could say that one is "spending" the satisfaction of the response on what
further
"suspending" might yield in terms of an even more surprising response.
Simple suspension alone though has yielded
surprise from the start. It's just an amazing discovery
[the unfolding of this "layered" suspending] for someone really
interested in "suspension."
Not recommending; just reporting.
-- funny
>"Suspension" just grows and grows. Where the surface fruits of
"suspension" are
>appreciated, suspension through the strata begins to show its appeal.
The fruits of
>suspension [of action, which includes speech, in relation to what is
read or heard] are
>that something unknown surfaces as a possible response. Very satisfying
to respond
>with these. But these too, can be suspended. It may take awhile to be
able to do this
>because the little bit of satisfaction needs to be "invested." Very long
story short, with
>each "reinvestment" something even more amazing surfaces.
>Eventually, there comes the curiosity about a kind of 'complete
investment'. This is the
>logical conclusion of Bohm's brilliant but humble and simple proposal of
"suspension'.
>Along the way of this, and relatively soon though, you will find
yourself responding with
>things you have never heard of before. So the process is never not fun.
And there is no
>rush for the "completion."
>-- funny
Is there anyone out there who can make sense out of this? I am sorry
"funny" but to me it sounds as if you are drunk or crazy or demented. Or
could you possibly be enlightened, or are you an unrecognized artist, or
some brilliant genious ahead of his time, or what else could this be? Is
there anyway this could be understood as something other than sheer
nonsense? Or if you are talking from some higher intelligence could you
please come down and try to explain it to this stupid chimpansee?
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/c42c74c5/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Fri Dec 14 03:58:39 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Dec 14 04:03:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W22720B8F7F285792A323C3DC670@phx.gbl>
References: <394576.58188.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<4EC3A151-55DB-4837-8C5C-451CC94FC621@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W22720B8F7F285792A323C3DC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <553EF0E3-5181-41F0-AAE9-BC2B16049A15@dc.rr.com>
Maybe not, but its a sad little poem, anyway
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 4:18 PM, rob mooney wrote:
> i don't think she was real anyway
>
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:50:52 -0800
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> Gone, gone, gone.
> Penelope Duby is gone.
> don
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
> How could I dare not to (dare) >->>
>
> Alan
>
> (Do I need to fill out an official form, too? Fillin? ;*1)
>
> ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Penelope Duby, of the three new, um, individual subscribers,
> you show the most promise. Or equal promise anyway.
> Dare to ask me why I say that.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:27:07 -0800 (PST) Penelope Duby
> <pennyduby@yahoo.com> writes:
> Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in
> communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop".
> I'll unsubscribe.
>
> ?There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams;
> believing them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made
> possible by some sudden turn of the wheel of fortune, when you
> least expected it. For at that moment, all our fears surface, the
> fear of setting off along a road heading who knows where, the fear
> of a life full of new challenges, the fear of losing forever
> everything that is familiar.?
> Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Messenger on the move? Text MSN to 63463 now!
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/39348cd8/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 04:05:48 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 04:11:07 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <553EF0E3-5181-41F0-AAE9-BC2B16049A15@dc.rr.com>
References: <394576.58188.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<4EC3A151-55DB-4837-8C5C-451CC94FC621@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W22720B8F7F285792A323C3DC670@phx.gbl>
<553EF0E3-5181-41F0-AAE9-BC2B16049A15@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131905j30746f08p7713e11ea54f0ee1@mail.gmail.com>
I: Real? What's 'real'? Somebody subscribed and wrote emails to this list
using the name "Penny".
On Dec 13, 2007 9:58 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> Maybe not, but its a sad little poem, anyway
> don
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 4:18 PM, rob mooney wrote:
>
> i don't think she was real anyway
>
> ------------------------------
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:50:52 -0800
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> Gone, gone, gone. Penelope Duby is gone. don
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
>
> How could I dare not to (dare) >->>
>
> Alan
>
> (Do I need to fill out an official form, too? Fillin? ;*1)
>
> *ae.dropper@juno.com* wrote:
>
> Penelope Duby, of the three new, um, individual subscribers,
> you show the most promise. Or equal promise anyway.
> Dare to ask me why I say that.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:27:07 -0800 (PST) Penelope Duby <
> pennyduby@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Ok, I get it. Closed circle, no particular interest in
> communication.............you guys are truly a " strange loop". I'll
> unsubscribe.
>
> "There are two things that prevent us from achieving our dreams; believing
> them to be impossible or seeing those dreams made possible by some sudden
> turn of the wheel of fortune, when you least expected it. For at that
> moment, all our fears surface, the fear of setting off along a road heading
> who knows where, the fear of a life full of new challenges, the fear of
> losing forever everything that is familiar."
> Paulo Coelho: The Devil and Miss Prym
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Messenger on the move? Text MSN to 63463 now!<http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/da15b315/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Fri Dec 14 04:06:49 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Dec 14 04:12:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
<006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <1788EE0C-4765-4428-8E02-74DF64A517FC@dc.rr.com>
Maybe, but only if you've got an umbrella
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Don Lay wrote:
> it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first
> question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it
> under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so
> far. -- Rob
>
> Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
>
> Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity,
> Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there
> being Truth in all of them. -- dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rob mooney
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first
> question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it
> under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so
> far.
>
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more
> useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into
> objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of
> it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
>
> Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for
> instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their
> natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive"
> people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so
> forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this
> can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better
> than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise
> opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism
> that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
>
> Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
>
> From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
>
>
> to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
> Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
> quote):
> >...<
> Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one.
> His, or
> ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
> WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
>
> Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
>
> I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant.
> In my
> (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't
> explain.
> If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
> choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or
> leave it.
> To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it
> short. And
> have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per
> per-
> son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is
> rude.
> Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
> negligent.
> And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug
> Bilodeau, an
> acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
> *
> " >JPL:
> >"Shout, shout, let it all out
> >these are the things I can do without,
> >come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
> " >>Wm:
> >>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
> William
> *
> Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
> "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: Re: purpose of list
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello All,
>
> I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm
> sending this
> message to check for echo.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: inside out
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would share another thought that I found interesting.
>
> The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the
> sense that
> it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which
> is (or
> can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is
> continuous,
> contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though
> when seen
> from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
>
> My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on
> the
> form or on the un-form that borders it.
>
> The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
> represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
> viewing angle has been intriguing.
>
> Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
>
> From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
> Subject: Re:intentional dying
>
> Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the
> *right
> kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
> "intentional
> dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
> 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems
> absolutely right:
>
> > ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
> >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The
> neural
> >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body,
> during about
> >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
> >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the
> organism would
> >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
> Normally,
> >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to
> get on with
> >our work. =
>
> I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself
> that it's
> sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply
> try to get
> back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no
> doubt that
> with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later
> you forget
> -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately
> very
> rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I
> guess, is
> *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps
> me,
> because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
> lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
>
> I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
> Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world
> you do
> not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work
> overtime." But
> I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth
> surely is
> we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits
> are NOT
> people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian
> analysis terms
> -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can
> soothe away
> the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue.
> There's no
> obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the
> mood takes.
> So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world
> may go
> through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
> everything
> the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis
> on a
> top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in
> and out a
> lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up
> the
> enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that
> no one
> responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe
> seems to
> have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is
> falling --
> and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
> hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
> unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
>
> Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle
> in one
> short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that --
> with
> *me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten --
> our common
> humanity.
> I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
> error'
> note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding
> Meaning"
> (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers"
> because
> someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the
> other day I
> re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
> speaking
> to one of its authors!
>
>
> >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm
> drifting: on the
> >one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
> >
> >The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
> >directly; "What could be a better experience than being the
> unfolding
> >universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
>
> Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
> 'unlived
> lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the
> moment of
> birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper
> dying; and so
> no full living either. No?
>
> I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
> >
> >is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego
> self?
> >
> >julia
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/3f38c876/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Fri Dec 14 04:16:02 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Fri Dec 14 04:21:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION - 3rd excerpt
References: <20071213.213129.1072.31.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <020601c83dff$a9377d40$b5c16018@DL01>
Thanks Pat. I'm collecting all this for the web site. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION - 3rd excerpt
SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION - 3rd excerpt
DB: In order to demonstrate this, you may take the case of getting angry.
This is a feeling that is not as difficult to look at as say fear or
pleasure -- deceptive feelings of pleasure -- which you know too can be
produced by thought, a seductive thought. You see, a person may first get
an outburst of anger and then cool down -- it simmers down, but it's
still there. You may put it in abeyance because something more important
comes up, but it's still there ready to come up. My suggestion is to call
it up on purpose by trying to find the words that express the reason for
being angry. Thus, you may say, "I'm angry, and I have good reason
because he did this and that and that." You will find that you are
getting still angrier. Usually you'll say, "I shouldn't get angry, so I'd
better stop this." But now we're going to use this on purpose, not for
the sake of getting angry, because we're
6
going to suspend the angry feelings, neither by stopping them, nor
letting them come out. Is that clear what I mean?
LN: Yes, but there are some difficulties with suspending.
DB: Well you see, it's not being done right in the heat of your original
outburst of anger, but still, you're not calling it up to get rid of the
angry feelings. Your first impulse might be to try and go out and insult
the person and do something, and in earlier times you might even have hit
the person. And now you say don't do any of those things, but let the
feelings come up and watch what's going on. We're regarding it as a sort
of test display of the process, you understand? So then you'll see these
angry feelings which will produce tension in the solar plexus and the
belly and the chest, and affect your breathing, and heartbeat, and all
sorts of things. You'll be able to see a sort of movement of responses
all over the body, such as a tension of the jaw, in the neck.
LN: Now let me raise one of the difficulties that commonly occurs here.
Even if one waits a bit beyond the heat of the moment, there still comes
up a very strong resistance to acknowledging that one is actually in this
state.
DB: Yes, that's part of our sociocultural conditioning, which says that
you shouldn't be angry, and not only that, you yourself have seen by
clear thought that it's leading you astray. You see, both reason, and
society and everything is telling you, you shouldn't be angry. Now
there's a serious mistake in there. Of course, it's right that you
shouldn't be angry, if only because it is very destructive to your deeper
interests. But the attempt to say you just shouldn't be angry is simply
not affecting the anger, it's just trying to impose another pattern on
top of the anger. This will come out as we go along, but the first point
is to realize that such resistance is false and that this falseness will
come out as we go through this process and pay attention to it.
7
LN: The falseness of the sociocultural as well as the personal
judgment.
DB: Yes. This is very tricky, because in some ways the
judgment appears to be right. But there's a fundamental, deeper falseness
in it. So we also have to give attention to our tendency to say, "I
shouldn't be angry, I must stop being angry", and we will see that this
too, has to be suspended. In this process one will begin to get certain
feelings, at first perhaps very faintly because of all the resistance,
and later more strongly -- you'll see the play of these feelings over the
body, because the action is being suspended. If you actually did
something, you would no longer notice the feelings ... if you went out
and hit somebody or punched him in the nose, or insulted him, or
otherwise tried to get redress for your anger. You might momentarily feel
a lot better, because the tension would go (until the other person
retaliated in a similar way). But now, when action is suspended, you can
see that the words are calling up the feelings, and you'll be able to get
a sense that there's some sort of mechanical connection between the words
and the feelings.
For example, you may find that the words may be, "He shouldn't have done
this; he shouldn't treat me that way; he hasn't due regard for me, he's
always doing that; he's never taking my rights into account. It's not the
first time." So you may notice the feelings coming up rather
mechanically, and that those feelings are producing mechanical pressure,
making it very hard to look at those thoughts and see whether they're
right or not.
LN: Let's go very slowly here. You say they produce
mechanical responses and mechanical feelings. Now it seems to be a very
thin line, because when you do what you suggest, if it's really
activating these responses you're talking about, they don't feel
mechanical.
8
DB: No, but you can see a certain mechanical quality in the sense that
the word is followed by the feeling. And you'll see there is a little
something also in that pressure of the feeling to avoid examining the
meaning of the words, to avoid seeing whether you really have a good
reason to be angry.
LN: A resistance to seeing the connection.
DB: Yes, that's right. You see, if it were really a
straightforward process, there would be no resistance to examining it.
Now you can begin to suspect that it looks a little mechanical. Here you
can use a certain amount of knowledge which has come from biofeedback.
You have a device that, I forget what they call it, in the so-called lie
detector, you attach an electrode to your finger, and you see, this
measures the activity of the autonomic nervous system.
LN: The polygraph.
DB: The polygraph, yes. When the autonomic nervous system
is aroused, you'll get the solar plexus and heartbeat and the adrenaline
and all those things acting. When somebody says something disturbing, or
you think something disturbing, that arouses you in this way, then
roughly three seconds later, the needle jerks. If it's not very
disturbing, you may be hardly aware that anything has happened, yet the
needle jerks. So it does look very mechanical when you look at it that
way.
It takes three seconds. We could say that your thought is in the pipeline
for three seconds, but you don't pay attention to this. Then suddenly the
emotional response appears. It suddenly appears in this way as if it were
spontaneous. However, there's been another thought in the background all
the time saying that everything which appears suddenly like that is deep
gut feeling, so that it's really very important. That produces more
thought which goes into the pipeline, and three seconds later there comes
9
another jerk, and the whole process thus builds up. The thought that this
is a deep gut feeling is now taken as further proof that you have good
reason to be angry. See, the original proof was that he's always doing
this, right? Now you have an additional proof -- the deep gut feeling --
saying I have a deep feeling which is instinctive. I've been badly
treated.
In the case of fear, that's even more clear. You can similarly produce a
response of fear by thinking of danger, and a short time later, you have
this sinking sensation in the solar plexus. You now say I have an
instinctive feeling of danger. The animal would get just that feeling as
the first sense of danger, right? Or you yourself might be in a very
dangerous situation and get it. So that could be a real warning of
danger. But the assumption is that it's always a warning of danger. This
ignores the fact that it could be an entirely false warning arranged by
thought mechanically.
TO BE CONTINUED
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/04120ccb/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Fri Dec 14 04:27:57 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Dec 14 04:33:16 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <022c01c83de9$d08cc5a0$ff76480c@HOME>
References: <667000.32376.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<022c01c83de9$d08cc5a0$ff76480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <3C0826B1-C9FE-497C-9D9D-881B157010C7@dc.rr.com>
If you Google somebody and get nothing, is he simply not there, or here?
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> Hahahahaha!! Thanks for confirming my suspicions Peter.
>
> Susan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alan E. DeBakey
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
>
> Aaaand ;-?
>
> Susan, when you leave the house, is what you utter this:
>
> "definitely looks very weathery" ;--??
>
> Alan
>
> Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
>
> Susan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alan E. DeBakey
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
>
>
>
> Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
>
> Susan
>
>
> Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But
> since I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
>
> Alan
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/a8292b30/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 04:41:55 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 04:47:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
In-Reply-To: <3C0826B1-C9FE-497C-9D9D-881B157010C7@dc.rr.com>
References: <667000.32376.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<022c01c83de9$d08cc5a0$ff76480c@HOME>
<3C0826B1-C9FE-497C-9D9D-881B157010C7@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712131941s3254345eh759e836210dbd8c@mail.gmail.com>
If you mean Peter, he's in the Brooklyn phone book. There are lots of Peter
Krausses, but only one whose address is next to the shipyard. Anyway, you
can't mean Peter because several PKs come up when you Google him. Just like
with William. Several with his name, but the only one that matches comes
when you + Bohm Dialogue. If you really want to find somebody, do a People
Search. For free, you'll get a lot of people with the same name, but you'll
also get the names of the towns where each of them lives, used to live,
their ages, and possible relatives. And different People Search places
sometimes has more information than others. Sometimes genealogy sites have
information. That's how I got into it.
On Dec 13, 2007 10:27 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> If you Google somebody and get nothing, is he simply not there, or here?
> don
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
> Hahahahaha!! Thanks for confirming my suspicions Peter.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
>
> Aaaand ;-?
>
> Susan, when you leave the house, is what you utter this:
>
> "definitely looks very weathery" ;--??
>
> Alan
>
> *Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>* wrote:
>
> definitely sounding more and more like Peter.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Alan E. DeBakey <a.debakey@yahoo.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:55 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Point taken
>
>
>
> *Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>* wrote:
>
> So did I rejoin the list just in time to have Peter show up again?
>
> Susan
>
>
> Will ask. Mom. When she come back in. Which she does. Usually. But since
> I am God-not -- cannot forsure ;-)
>
> Alan
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
> ------------------------------
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/095ea20e/attachment.html
From nlivolsi at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 04:43:41 2007
From: nlivolsi at yahoo.com (Nicholas LiVolsi)
Date: Fri Dec 14 04:49:05 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <261863.60366.qm@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Here's your answer:
Tara Singh, "Dialogues, A Course In Miracles."
Since I have been a practicianer of CIN for ten years I would come in contact with him.
The whole dilemma, quagmire, contradictiion lies in the system of "thought" itself. The "mind" that God created did not "think," it merely was.
Thought is in itself, "conflict." The contradiction. Without contradiction, thought could not exist and without thought, conflict is no more.
So, don't give it a "thought."
nicholas - try on some CIN
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
---------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/b76199c5/attachment-0001.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 07:21:10 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Fri Dec 14 07:26:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname
Message-ID: <c47283890712132221r3a99fcd1r3d08f5e4f11181e4@mail.gmail.com>
Sorry, nothing tonight. Lots and lots of repetitions, with occasional good
stuff. Too tired to copy and paste. Tomorrow.
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/79a15de2/attachment.html
From nlivolsi at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 08:18:27 2007
From: nlivolsi at yahoo.com (Nicholas LiVolsi)
Date: Fri Dec 14 08:23:48 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <958204.6307.qm@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Understanding What???
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
---------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071213/d3c8a23c/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 09:47:09 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Fri Dec 14 09:52:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <261863.60366.qm@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <637994.85359.qm@web57407.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Nicholas LiVolsi. A Japanese-inspired sensory park to be built in Singapore will be filled with sweet-smelling flowers designed to appeal to the elderly and Braille signs describing the plants for the blind. The 1.1- hectare pilot park near housing for many of Singapore's elderly is to include water features, sculptures to touch and pavement to create special sounds. Garden herbs and fruit trees will also help create an environment aimed at rejuvenating the senses of people of all ages and abilities, planners laid out. 'People get more passive as they grow older, and to have things around you to stimulate your senses, is very soothing and has healing qualities'. Like the World, the city-state has one of the fastest ageing populations. Construction has already started. And is ahead of schedule. The park, open 24 hours, will also have an adjoining area for playgrounds, a jogging rack and exercise facilities. As the facility caters to people of all abilities, 'no one is
left out, be it a grandparent or a grandchild or a disabled person,' said the senior vice-president of the Handicapped Welfare Association. AL
Nicholas LiVolsi <nlivolsi@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here's your answer:
Tara Singh, "Dialogues, A Course In Miracles."
Since I have been a practicianer of CIN for ten years I would come in contact with him.
The whole dilemma, quagmire, contradictiion lies in the system of "thought" itself. The "mind" that God created did not "think," it merely was.
Thought is in itself, "conflict." The contradiction. Without contradiction, thought could not exist and without thought, conflict is no more.
So, don't give it a "thought."
nicholas - try on some CIN
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
---------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: