From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 00:55:15 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:00:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
References: <20061113.133820.1408.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00dd01c7077f$2b325b70$1879480c@HOME>

Well, I've stopped worrying about it Franis.  I've learned that sometimes 
people appreciate my posts and sometimes they don't.  And I've never been 
able to predict when or who that will happen with.  If I sound 
teacherly...so be it.  If people don't like teacherly...so be it.  It's much 
more important to me to write what I need to write in the moment than it is 
to worry about who is or is not going to like/appreciate my post.

Susan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly


> I'm wondering why the culture thinks of me or Susan as teacherly; or why
> I have learned to somehow use the language in that way to give people the
> idea I'm teacherly. I mean, I do have some Alexander Technique students
> sometimes - but that's more a process of coaching self-observation rather
> than a process of me telling the other person information as most
> teachers do.
>
> It is in the assumptions where all the meat of meaning is for me. So
> going over what the assumptions are can make me sound as if I'm insulting
> someone's ability to see the obvious...but I'm sort of making a list to
> see if we can spot an assumption that we could change. Other people don't
> get my intent, so I've learned to spell it out before I do it. Then the
> others can play too. Othewise if people do not know what is going on,
> they tend to assign some negative motive to what I'm doing - which is how
> I regard the "teacherly-ness." It's not that it's negative, but it's a
> role to describe some sort of authority thing that is going on.
>
> I know I have a tendency to say things to see how they sound after they
> come out of my mouth. I try out making a statement about something to see
> how the rest of me reacts. This is part of what makes me sometimes sound
> so full of it that my eyes are brown, because I'll make a statement as if
> I know what I'm talking about when I know absolutely nothing.
>
> I seem to want to offer the benefit of my observations - but really, it's
> mostly that I want to tell what I have observed so far because I want to
> "trade notes" on certain topics. I have these many topics of ongoing
> investigation that are extremely open-ended; so when someone mentions
> something about them, my ears prick up. I guess trotting out what I know
> about something so far isn't the way to evoke the responses I want; but
> by doing that I have so often catapulted the conversation onto a much
> deeper level. So I keep doing it - at the risk of sounding as if I'm an
> authority - and I try to do damage control when I see mismatches.
>
> I hate being tagged as an authority when all I'm doing is putting
> whatever I have observed so far into words. On the other hand, I hate not
> being in a position where what I have to offer is not valued. I spend
> much of my time establishing rapport - and to be in rapport means you
> don't get the respect in this culture, which is a shame.
>
> I really love and respect those people who could be described as
> unappreciated pearls, because they reject all presentation skills and
> just go for content. But in this day and age, if you want to be in the
> position of offering what you know, you almost have to work on how you're
> presenting it, otherwise it goes completely unnoticed.
>
> Franis
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:31:52 +0000 Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> writes:
>> Hi Francis,
>>
>> I appreciate what you say here ... I guess my intention is to focus
>> more on
>> unearthing the assumptions I am making and when I am wanting to
>> focus on
>> something with another person I work hard at taking responsibility
>> for my
>> own feelings and thoughts and check out the intentions and parts
>> others may
>> be playing. I try to walk my talk although I guess I often fail but
>> I never
>> want to ask somebody to go somewhere where I haven't already been
>> myself.
>>
>> I guess a 'teacherly' style doesn't do it for me ... But I liked
>> your
>> honesty and what felt like to me openness.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> on 10/11/06 21:06, Franis Engel at franis_franis@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, Susan and myself both have the "teacherly" tone of writing.
>> > It's something that has crept into my writing, and I don't
>> necessarily
>> > intend what I'm writing to come across that way. It seems this
>> tone is
>> > what happens when you begin to articulate assumptions - or at
>> least,
>> > that's when it has happened. Often some people feel insulted that
>> you're
>> > going back to square one with them, as if they do not know what is
>> > obvious.
>> > Franis
>> >
>> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:40:27 +0000 Gill Wyatt
>> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> > writes:
>> >> Hi Susan,
>> >>
>> >> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are trying
>> to
>> >> teach
>> >> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this from
>> >> both of
>> >> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making an
>> >> assumption
>> >> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was gorgeous,
>> and
>> >> maybe
>> >> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody
>> agrees
>> >> with me
>> >> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was
>> >> meaning it in
>> >> my message.
>> >>
>> >> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David Bohm
>> is
>> >> saying in
>> >> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would never
>> mean
>> >> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the meeting
>> of
>> >> two
>> >> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are doing
>> this
>> >> in this
>> >> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are making
>> >> about me.
>> >> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I guess I
>> am
>> >> telling
>> >> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions were.
>> It
>> >> feels as
>> >> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to this
>> >> list that
>> >> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have
>> written
>> >> a
>> >> Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops
>> >> introducing the
>> >> concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many years in how
>> >> some
>> >> groups get to dialogue and how the shift in consciousness at a
>> group
>> >> level
>> >> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have
>> been
>> >> the
>> >> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know
>> about
>> >> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that kept
>> on
>> >> occurring
>> >> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
>> >>
>> >> Gill
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name).  Yes, it can be
>> very
>> >>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on an
>> >> intimate
>> >>> level.  However, since being in Dialogue I have come to cherish
>> a
>> >> different
>> >>> kind of connection that seems to be just as intimate if not more
>> >> so.  I'm
>> >>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I look
>> for
>> >> now.  I
>> >>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation
>> that
>> >> comes from
>> >>> exploring our differences.  So I'll defer to DB's words to
>> >> describe it:
>> >>>
>> >>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one
>> >> person says
>> >>> something, the other person does not in general respond with
>> >> exactly the
>> >>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the
>> >> meanings are only
>> >>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies,
>> >> the first
>> >>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and what
>> the
>> >> other
>> >>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may then
>> be
>> >> able to
>> >>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and
>> to
>> >> those of
>> >>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the
>> >> continual
>> >>> emergence of a new content that is common to both participants.
>> >> Thus, in a
>> >>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain
>> >> ideas or items
>> >>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may be
>> >> said that
>> >>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating
>> >> something new
>> >>> together."
>> >>>
>> >>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together"
>> that
>> >> I look
>> >>> for now through the exploration of our differences.  I no longer
>> >> look for
>> >>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to see
>> >> what we can
>> >>> create out of the hubris of our differences.  And when we manage
>> >> to do that
>> >>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the common
>> >> ground we
>> >>> share.  I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he
>> talks
>> >> about a
>> >>> "difference that makes a difference".
>> >>>
>> >>> Susan
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> >>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> >>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:27 AM
>> >>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi Susan,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ok I understand.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think sometimes I look, perhaps unrealistically for more of
>> an
>> >> explicit
>> >>>> connection between what I have said and the person who responds
>> >> to me. It
>> >>>> just feels so gorgeous when it happens.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> By the way my name is Gill, short for Gillian ... Not the male
>> >> American
>> >>>> Gil.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And yes I do agree that good discussions get triggered by
>> >> difficulties
>> >>>> here
>> >>>> and in the wider world. Well sometimes in the wider world, if
>> >> that is not
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> being pessimistic.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Gill
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> on 9/11/06 21:27, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Gil.  Actually you were very clear about what you wanted.
>> >> And my
>> >>>>> response was about what I was feeling and thinking.  I put the
>> >> link in to
>> >>>>> the past discussion we had on the purpose of dialogue to
>> respond
>> >> to you
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> the rest of the post was about me.  I personally don't think
>> the
>> >>>>> discussion
>> >>>>> about PKZ is necessarily about PKZ.  I think it's about us.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> How do we deal with trolls, spamming, and the like in our
>> daily
>> >> lives?
>> >>>>> Do
>> >>>>> we ever respond to a legitimate interaction from someone as
>> >> though they
>> >>>>> are
>> >>>>> a troll or spamming or in some other way simply because that
>> is
>> >> what's
>> >>>>> going
>> >>>>> on?  I would say right now trolling and spamming and flaming
>> are
>> >> a pretty
>> >>>>> ordinary occurrence.  The current political climate here in
>> >> Arizona was
>> >>>>> pretty much of a flame war.  Television, the mail, and most of
>> >> the
>> >>>>> telephone
>> >>>>> calls I get are trolling and spamming.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Doesn't our culture basically embrace this type of behavior as
>> >> perfectly
>> >>>>> acceptable?  Isn't this a part of the incoherence in our daily
>> >> lives?
>> >>>>> And
>> >>>>> how has this affected the way we communicate with each other
>> and
>> >> our
>> >>>>> ability
>> >>>>> to be open and honest with each other?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So you see, I wasn't really ignoring what you were addressing.
>> >> For me,
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> best way to talk about it is within the story that is
>> happening.
>> >>  Getting
>> >>>>> clear about the microcosm can help to see the macrocosm to my
>> >> way of
>> >>>>> thinking.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> And I'll tell you something that I noticed when I was going
>> >> through the
>> >>>>> archives today.  The PKZ phenomenom seemed to stimulate a lot
>> of
>> >> thought
>> >>>>> at
>> >>>>> the time and there were some really rousing and interesting
>> >> conversation
>> >>>>> that seemed to come out of it.  The same thing happened here
>> in
>> >> Arizona
>> >>>>> with
>> >>>>> the political flame wars.  Although I really got tired of
>> >> hearing the
>> >>>>> politicians beating each other up, people seemed to wake up
>> and
>> >> get a
>> >>>>> little
>> >>>>> more interested in the issues and to be stimulated to vote.
>> It
>> >> was
>> >>>>> certainly much better than the mediocre lackluster campaigns
>> of
>> >> the past.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Do we bring this kind of phenomena on when things are getting
>> a
>> >> little
>> >>>>> too
>> >>>>> stagnant perhaps?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Susan
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> >>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:22 PM
>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle
>> way
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Susan,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Um ... Its interesting its only when I have a response that I
>> >> realise
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>> perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be to get what I
>> am
>> >> saying
>> >>>>> across.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm very able to pick and choose which messages I read and am
>> >> happy to
>> >>>>> delete. I mentioned in my email deleting 50-75 emails a day
>> from
>> >> this
>> >>>>> list.
>> >>>>> I find some of the one liner don't add anything to what I
>> think
>> >> of
>> >>>>> dialogue
>> >>>>> and sometimes I wonder why they are not sent to the one person
>> >> they are
>> >>>>> addressed to. So I guess I feel differently from you, the
>> number
>> >> of
>> >>>>> emails
>> >>>>> per day does not indicate for me anything about the quality of
>> >> the
>> >>>>> dialogue.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The other point re 'PK and probably more accurate to say maybe
>> >> Z' ... in
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> way what I intended to communicate was to take the focus away
>> >> from PK(Z)
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> have it back on us ... What are we not paying attention to?
>> ...
>> >> What am I
>> >>>>> not paying attention to? Am I really understanding the message
>> >> in the
>> >>>>> messages that I do read ... And do my responses make a
>> >> connection with
>> >>>>> other
>> >>>>> people in a way that transcends the more usual cultural
>> >> assumptions.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That was more of what I was meaning to talk about ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Gill
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> on 9/11/06 00:11, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi Gill.  It's nice to meet you.  I understand the current
>> >> desire among
>> >>>>>> many
>> >>>>>> of you to explore the PKZ phenomena.  When I first joined the
>> >> list the
>> >>>>>> same
>> >>>>>> discussion was going on.  I jumped right in, eager to explore
>> >> it.  And
>> >>>>>> it
>> >>>>>> was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right
>> now.
>> >>>>>> Although
>> >>>>>> at
>> >>>>>> that time Peter was an active member of the group and he was
>> >> included in
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>> discussion.  In the beginning I sounded much like you and
>> some
>> >> of the
>> >>>>>> others
>> >>>>>> right now.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring the
>> >> subject
>> >>>>>> except
>> >>>>>> Peter I began to feel differently.  Peter's response was
>> mostly
>> >> just to
>> >>>>>> ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into
>> >> himself, all
>> >>>>>> he
>> >>>>>> was interested in was goading the rest of us.  Rather than
>> use
>> >>>>>> suspension
>> >>>>>> he
>> >>>>>> would flood us with brief posts about the world being made up
>> >> of carrot
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> stick mentality and we should all recognize that the only
>> >> solution was
>> >>>>>> total
>> >>>>>> chaos.  When he became determined to spam the group with
>> >> anywhere from
>> >>>>>> 75
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>>>>> 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day
>> regardless
>> >> of how
>> >>>>>> any
>> >>>>>> of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we
>> felt)
>> >> the
>> >>>>>> decision
>> >>>>>> (after much agonizing) was made to ban him.  At that point I
>> >> was ready
>> >>>>>> for
>> >>>>>> him to be banned.  He mostly just trolled for recruits for
>> his
>> >> OD site
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> spammed us for not being interested.  He also seems to have a
>> >> fixation
>> >>>>>> with
>> >>>>>> male authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a
>> surrogate
>> >>>>>> authority.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this list
>> >> as well as
>> >>>>>> exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar
>> >> problems that
>> >>>>>> caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy in
>> my
>> >> post to
>> >>>>>> her.
>> >>>>>> In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least a
>> >> loose and
>> >>>>>> flexible structure.  Here's a link to some of the thoughts I
>> >> have had
>> >>>>>> about
>> >>>>>> the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our
>> >> previous
>> >>>>>> discussions:
>> >>>>>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know what
>> >> happened
>> >>>>>> with
>> >>>>>> them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without any
>> >> warning and
>> >>>>>> without any group discussion.  If that's true, then I would
>> say
>> >> that I
>> >>>>>> think
>> >>>>>> anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or who we
>> >> suspect is
>> >>>>>> Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be
>> >> given a
>> >>>>>> chance
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>>>>> speak for themselves.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day or
>> >> how long
>> >>>>>> they
>> >>>>>> are.  I used to worry about that.  But then I decided that
>> the
>> >> purpose
>> >>>>>> of
>> >>>>>> dialogue is to dialogue.  You can't do that without posting.
>> A
>> >> healthy
>> >>>>>> dialogue is going to have lots of posts.  I've learned to
>> deal
>> >> with it
>> >>>>>> by
>> >>>>>> learning to know which people are definitely going to have
>> >> something to
>> >>>>>> say
>> >>>>>> that I'm interested in responding to and not.  On my busy
>> days
>> >> I skip
>> >>>>>> through the posts and read only a few people or if there's a
>> >> good thread
>> >>>>>> going I will read only that thread.  And, yes, sometimes I
>> miss
>> >> a lot
>> >>>>>> doing
>> >>>>>> that but it's better than the alternative of not being a part
>> >> of all of
>> >>>>>> this.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Susan
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> >>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle
>> way
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me
>> ...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness,
>> >> compassion AND
>> >>>>>> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I think
>> >> it is only
>> >>>>>> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a
>> >> response
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration
>> >> here. I too
>> >>>>>> have
>> >>>>>> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75
>> >> messages in one
>> >>>>>> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth (I
>> >> like that
>> >>>>>> term)
>> >>>>>> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near
>> >> where I
>> >>>>>> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this
>> >> possibility here
>> >>>>>> matters to me.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do we
>> >> need to
>> >>>>>> learn
>> >>>>>> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I hesitated
>> >> about
>> >>>>>> saying
>> >>>>>> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what is
>> >> it in us,
>> >>>>>> in
>> >>>>>> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected
>> >> response from
>> >>>>>> PKZ.
>> >>>>>> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I
>> want
>> >> or need
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other
>> >> people. Is
>> >>>>>> it
>> >>>>>> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract that
>> >> response
>> >>>>>> from
>> >>>>>> others?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have
>> >> very much
>> >>>>>> appreciated reading your emails.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody
>> else
>> >>>>>> struggle?
>> >>>>>> As
>> >>>>>> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally
>> have
>> >> sent
>> >>>>>> three
>> >>>>>> or so in one day ...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Gill
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> info:
>> >>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>> >>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> info:
>> >>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>>>
>> >>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>
>> >>>> dialogue facilitator:
>> >>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> info:
>> >>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>>
>> >>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>>
>> >>> dialogue facilitator:
>> >>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>>
>> >>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> info:
>> >> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >>
>> >> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >> dialogue facilitator:
>> >> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> >> admin@david-bohm.net
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > info:
>> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >
>> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > dialogue facilitator:
>> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > Administrator of the mailing list:
>> > admin@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 

From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 01:03:18 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:08:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
References: <007d01c70739$05f01960$2278480c@HOME>
	<4558EFE2.000003.04268@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <00f301c70780$4ab6f0e0$1879480c@HOME>

I'm so glad I asked William.  I think you and I are on the same track with this one.  I guess I've completely misunderstood your posts on this subject up until now.  But I agree whole heartedly with what you're saying here.

Although when people say they have experienced states of wholeness and oneness, being in touch with god, etc. I don't think that's really any different from what you're describing here.  I think people are just misinterpreting because of the reasons you've given here (they're still looking for mommy and daddy to tell them what it is and what to do with it).  They're still too caught up in their own programming to be able to think in new ways about their own experience and assign some value to the self.  

Susan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: william 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness




        From: Susan Clemons
        >I guess I'm wondering what you would describe as the advances 
        >humans have made in consciousness so far then, 

        I think, the most significant advance so far is the development of the sense of self, individualism, or persona. This, to some extend, is a separation from the whole. In mythical or religious terms it amounts to an escape from paradise, freedom from God. Also we have developed language that emphasizes distinctions, enabling us to conceptualize ourselves in terms of you and me, them and us, etc. This is a real breakthrough and a pre-requisite for everything else that follows.



        >And what kind of ideas you have of where we might go as a 
        >race with consciousness? 

        Well, I don't know. We're still kind of pussy-footing around, not really believing we're free. Still feeling uncertain and kind of looking back if mama or papa or God can see us. Personally, I would go in the direction of developing what I like to call "modes of perception", I.e. the ability to switch from one reality to another, like switching TV channels, having different views through the same eyes. This would automatically lead to the ability of holding many truths at the same time. By way of illustration, this would have the same impact as adding a third dimension to a hypothetical two-dimensional world. Such a new dimension in the perception of reality, means that each one can have his or her own preferred truth or reality as if it were cloth we can change at any time.  That would be enough progress for the time being, but it will probably move on into areas that we can't imagine yet...

        William

       
               
       



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/4e08840c/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Tue Nov 14 00:49:56 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:11:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Feeling Up and Reason
References: <OF47A0CF1E.607D3413-ON85257225.006FE3EF-85257225.00713077@dialogos.com>
	<B0BD8A0B-A19C-4B0C-B9A8-C4867CF4031B@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00b101c70780$c47c3070$0401a8c0@your0548c161e1>

I appreciate the way this is said, as well as the sense of what is said!

My very deep sense, deep feeling, is that William is being shamefully 
attacked and mis-characterized by this 'feel-up" nonsense.  In approximately 
five years here, I have seen nothing other than reasonable, rational, 
thoughtful and enjoyable postings from this man.  The same cannot be said 
for Xoe ...  and  neither for its supporters.

Can anyone cite something useful from her/him/it?  dbl





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: feigning injustice


> best post of the day. congratulation.
> don
> On Nov 13, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>
>> Rodger __Rephrasing williams request for Zoes phone number into an 
>> attempt to feel-Zoe-up, exemplifies a level of maturity inherent in 
>> western drama queens. Or maybe it just tells how long ago its been  since 
>> those involved have had some good sex. Because last time I 
>> felt-someone-up, it was nothing like making a phone call. _R
>> .
>> .
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 

From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 01:06:48 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:11:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
References: <BAY22-F61D4C3A9605194C8D8723A5F40@phx.gbl><2704CA14-D1AC-4CE3-ABCA-CD5D4942AB55@david-bohm.net><008101c7075e$426cb810$1879480c@HOME><02FEC678-5D0A-4B71-8D76-7CDC3C920281@david-bohm.net><00a501c70764$567cec20$1879480c@HOME><3CC13B9B-551E-4AAD-9C29-479DB19F168C@david-bohm.net><00b301c70765$ea7c6260$1879480c@HOME>
	<C0049D9A-5169-4016-8E71-8FB120C4DC2A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <010301c70780$c830fb10$1879480c@HOME>

ROFLMAO = Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Ass Off 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: donald factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe




  On Nov 13, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:


     ROFLMAO

  I'm afraid you got me on that one.



  Here is something from my childhood.


  FUMNX?
  SVFMNX.
  OKMNX


  don






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/96d5ac47/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Tue Nov 14 00:37:45 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:34:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
Message-ID: <20061113.192922.2144.45.ae.dropper@juno.com>

PTW, it opens with an explanation of how one person can send 
emails from anothers' address.  (k)

Do you have reason to think that Kirsten used tech skill
to send that e-mail from zoe's address?

pat
From dfactor at dc.rr.com  Tue Nov 14 01:50:16 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:55:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <20061113.192922.2144.45.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061113.192922.2144.45.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <F39B5F00-D3B2-4793-B5F9-EDA75F158CF4@dc.rr.com>


On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:37 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:

> PTW, it opens with an explanation of how one person can send
> emails from anothers' address.  (k)

Where is this explanation? I must have missed your link.

don
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/88045db0/attachment.html
From facilitator at david-bohm.net  Tue Nov 14 01:54:34 2006
From: facilitator at david-bohm.net (facilitator)
Date: Wed Nov 15 02:59:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F198B6232F780D3111D434FA5F40@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F198B6232F780D3111D434FA5F40@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <270E8AEA-5073-4010-AD85-436C180D405B@david-bohm.net>

Kathy, please. Could you try to trim your posts. This one has eight  
previous posts plus 10 admin tags. These use up a lot of band width  
and also disk space for those who like to save posts.

facilitator again.

On Nov 13, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:

> Thanks.  In his Administrator manifestation, right?  HaHa.  k
>
>
>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:27:27 -0800
>>
>> I'm afraid that William is the only one who can deal with that,
>> don
>> On Nov 13, 2006, at 1:16 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>> OK, but just in case both or either of you missed my plea for  
>>> help  on the archives site, what do I do?  When I type in my  
>>> address as  requested, I get the message that it is an illegal  
>>> address,  therefore, I can go no further.  Did somebody forget to  
>>> tell the  computer I changed my address?  Thanks, k
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: facilitator <facilitator@david-bohm.net>
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:54:06 -0800
>>>>
>>>> Listen, you gotta keep your executives straight. William is  
>>>> the   administrator. I am the facilitator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 13, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> William, you should absolutely not be a scapegoat, but that's    
>>>>> unfortunately what happens when one person holds all the  
>>>>> power.   As  to the argument of experience vs theory, we're  
>>>>> into a  dichtonomic  thinking if we don't view them in  
>>>>> relationship to  each other.   Plus, I think I hear an  
>>>>> underlying assumption that  theory has  little or no basis in  
>>>>> experience and practice, which  could lead to  busy people not  
>>>>> taking the time to read it.  Maybe  that's just me.  But that  
>>>>> seems to fall right in line with that  Chomsky quote Zoe  ended  
>>>>> her posting the to group with:
>>>>>
>>>>> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to  
>>>>> strictly   limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow  
>>>>> very lively   debate within that spectrum ? even encourage the  
>>>>> more critical  and  dissident views.
>>>>> That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going  
>>>>> on,   while all the time the
>>>>> presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the  
>>>>> limits   put on the range of the debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW - what do I need to do to get my information corrected so  
>>>>> I  can  access the archives?  I tried.  I can't even email to  
>>>>> ask  for my  password because I get the message that I'm  
>>>>> entering an  illegal  address.  Hence, I address my question to  
>>>>> you.   Thanks, k
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: facilitator <facilitator@david-bohm.net>
>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:52:36 -0800
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I sometimes think that the primary job of the moderator,    
>>>>>> facilitator  or administrator,
>>>>>>  is to be the object of listmember projections, that is, a     
>>>>>> scapegoat. I have spent time
>>>>>>  participating in a forum  that has more than forty  
>>>>>> thousand    members. On such a list
>>>>>> the administrative judgments have to be made swiftly. Posts   
>>>>>> are   sometimes deleted
>>>>>> and members banned. When this happens  the admin may  get a   
>>>>>> few   snarky comments but
>>>>>> that's about it. He and his team are most appreciated.  Of    
>>>>>> course,  this particular outfit
>>>>>> also has a second list where members can  discuss the way  
>>>>>> the   list  works, both technically
>>>>>> and in terms of content and control. But technically it is on   
>>>>>> a   different level from
>>>>>> ours. It is based on blog software. If you are interested, in   
>>>>>> a   different approach
>>>>>> have a look at www.metafilter.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I must say, I agree with Steven that experiencing the   
>>>>>> actual   workings of some of these
>>>>>> lists, forums or whatever they're called, is far more  
>>>>>> valuable   than  just dealing with the academic
>>>>>> overview.in much of the world theory gets more attention  
>>>>>> than    practice. And that's very much why, I
>>>>>> believe, the US has got into such a mess in the middle  
>>>>>> east.    Dialogue, on the other hand,
>>>>>> is a kind of praxis, which is a blend of theory and practice   
>>>>>> that  is  a state of constant change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2006, at 7:14 AM, Steve Devlin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Morgan is a welsh name (I'm half-welsh) and where I'm from  
>>>>>>> its   usually
>>>>>>> males that have it (in my experience), like Morgan Freeman,    
>>>>>>> apologies
>>>>>>> for any offence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any anger you perceive maybe a projection of your own btw,  
>>>>>>> and  I  might
>>>>>>> add that I find my experience to be as valid or more valid   
>>>>>>> than   anything
>>>>>>> I might find on google, but thanks for the tips. One thing   
>>>>>>> about  being
>>>>>>> involved in the various sites is you know firsthand what  
>>>>>>> people  have
>>>>>>> said/done and what offends different subscribers. You can't  
>>>>>>> get  that
>>>>>>> from some summary from MIT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't mention who is the arbiter of internet protocol,    
>>>>>>> neither do
>>>>>>> you comment on what you think about the possibility of anonymous
>>>>>>> dialogue when there is suspicion as to the motives of certain
>>>>>>> subscribers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the anonymity question here relates to "if it walks   
>>>>>>> like  a  duck,
>>>>>>> quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, its probably a   
>>>>>>> duck",  i.e.
>>>>>>> Peter, and it is my opinion that the moderator is  
>>>>>>> perfectly    entitled to
>>>>>>> do as he/she sees fit in the running of the site. They set  
>>>>>>> it  up,  they
>>>>>>> get all the personal flak for it, it should be their rules.  
>>>>>>> If  I  don't
>>>>>>> like them I can exercise my right to unsubscribe and find    
>>>>>>> somewhere  else
>>>>>>> to go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of   
>>>>>>> Morgan  Jett
>>>>>>> Sent: 13 November 2006 14:18
>>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list  
>>>>>>> of    guidelines
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would be appropriate here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> K:  I think so.  Again, no matter what your experience, I   
>>>>>>> suggest  you
>>>>>>> amplify it by looking at the experiences available by   
>>>>>>> Googling.   I  hear
>>>>>>> anger in your tone.  Is there something here that needs    
>>>>>>> exploring?   k
>>>>>>> PS - I'm not "Mr.".  I'm Ms. with two grown sons.  Why did  
>>>>>>> you   assume
>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>> male?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>>>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:09:44 -0000
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Ive been on several lists for various things, some exceedingly
>>>>>>>> trivial (movie sites etc). I've never seen moderators have  
>>>>>>>> to   explain
>>>>>>>> decisions to kick anyone,I've seen people quibble over it,  
>>>>>>>> but  I've
>>>>>>>> never sen a moderator explain the reasons, and that  
>>>>>>>> includes  sites
>>>>>>>> where you have to pay to be a member, just like in real  
>>>>>>>> life   where  you
>>>>>>>> can be asked to leave premises with little or no reason  
>>>>>>>> other   than  the
>>>>>>>> owner of the premises doesn't want you there. I've seen  
>>>>>>>> sites   where a
>>>>>>>> new person has come in and been disruptive, deliberately   
>>>>>>>> trying  to  push
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> peoples buttons only to get their PC hacked by other site    
>>>>>>>> members and
>>>>>>>> all sorts of damage done to their PC.It certainly stops  
>>>>>>>> them  coming
>>>>>>>> back with a new IP address and causing more hassle. But   
>>>>>>>> that's  how  some
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> people manage these issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  You do have options, if you don't like the way a moderator   
>>>>>>>> runs a
>>>>>>>> site, you can leave and start your own with your own values   
>>>>>>>> re:   kicking
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> people. It happens all the time. Usually the new sites end  
>>>>>>>> up   with  the
>>>>>>>> exact same problem and end up kicking people for the same   
>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lets imagine if a moderator has to submit reasons to kick    
>>>>>>>> someone and
>>>>>>>> there is some sort of vote. When you have an anonymous list   
>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>> ours it's all to easy to subscribe with multiple names to   
>>>>>>>> throw any
>>>>>>>> voting system off. So I don't see why a moderator has to  
>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>> themselves. It's their list to do what they want with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've never got the impression that opinion is stifled here,   
>>>>>>>> I've  seen
>>>>>>>> it get quite heated, but generally everybody gets to say  
>>>>>>>> what  they
>>>>>>>> want. But I've also seen some particularly nasty personal  
>>>>>>>> attacks
>>>>>>>> against people that go beyond what would be allowed on any  
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> sites/lists (except star wars fan sites where abuse of     
>>>>>>>> participants is
>>>>>>>> an art form and has to be seen to be believed).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I had a quick look at your Links Mr jett, and maybe a list of
>>>>>>>> guidelines would be appropriate here, there's only been a  
>>>>>>>> few   people
>>>>>>>> over the years who they'd apply to, but maybe there is a  
>>>>>>>> place  for
>>>>>>>> them. In practice the moderators here do very little   
>>>>>>>> (usually   nothing)
>>>>>>>> to anyones posts, I don't think I've been edited or  
>>>>>>>> censored  in   any way
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> since I first came here,most people seem quite able to censor
>>>>>>>> themselves, but when they are unwilling to(for whatever    
>>>>>>>> justification
>>>>>>>> they can please themselves with) the smooth running of the  
>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>> requires a moderator to suspend them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of    
>>>>>>>> Morgan  Jett
>>>>>>>> Sent: 13 November 2006 12:43
>>>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just replied to this, but Hotmail is acting up again.  If   
>>>>>>>> you  get a
>>>>>>>> duplicate, that's why.  So - to repeat:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, Stephen, but your statement is absolutely inaccurate.
>>>>>>>> I am compiling a list of URLs to post that present a wide    
>>>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>>>> approaches to this issue.  I suggest we start with
>>>>>>>> www.sierraclub.org/lists/dispute.asp and
>>>>>>>> http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall95-  
>>>>>>>> papers/  rigby-ano
>>>>>>>> n
>>>>>>>> ymity.html
>>>>>>>> - a paper written by a student at MIT on the issue of   
>>>>>>>> anonymity.  I  will
>>>>>>>> follow up  with a list of others.  As I read them, I am   
>>>>>>>> keeping in
>>>>>>>> mind the unique nature of Bohm Dialog, for it will be a   
>>>>>>>> worthwhile
>>>>>>>> challenge
>>>>>>>> to reconcile our principles to internet protocol and    
>>>>>>>> procedures.  Happy
>>>>>>>> reading and thinkg!  k
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:04 +0000 (GMT)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any where else online and the group would get no consultation
>>>>>>>>> whatsoever as to the exclusion of a list-member. We all  
>>>>>>>>> know   how to
>>>>>>>>> behave, if
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> gets kicked for inappropriate behaviour thats their fault.  
>>>>>>>>> I  don't
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> all the fuss is about. If phone calls are deemed  
>>>>>>>>> necessary   then  there
>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>> trust issue and on those grounds the individual should not   
>>>>>>>>> be   allowed
>>>>>>>> back.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for feeling up Popes, maybe if the Cardinals warmed   
>>>>>>>>> their   hands up
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> first the Pope would look less miserable,the Dogs May Be   
>>>>>>>>> Having  The
>>>>>>>>> Last
>>>>>>>> Laugh -
>>>>>>>>> On Vatican looks cold.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  But, alright, if that is what you desire, Mister Factor:    
>>>>>>>>> Send   me
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>  phone-number, and I shall take it from there. --- Zoe  Chu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> William's point in  wanting the "zoe" phone number was to
>>>>>>>>>  find out if zoe is peter. Sending Don's phone
>>>>>>>>>  number to "zoe" defeats the purpose. Did "zoe"
>>>>>>>>>  actually  misread the  purpose?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  pat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________________________ 
>>>>>>>> __
>>>>>>>> Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better  
>>>>>>>> handle   your  cash
>>>>>>>> with Live Search!
>>>>>>>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?    
>>>>>>>> kit=improve&loc
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> le=en-US&source=hmtagline
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>>>>> Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
>>>>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>>>>> This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended   
>>>>>>>> only  for  the
>>>>>>>> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain     
>>>>>>>> confidential
>>>>>>>> and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution,     
>>>>>>>> disclosure or
>>>>>>>> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
>>>>>>> information by
>>>>>>>> persons or entities other than the intended recipient is    
>>>>>>>> prohibited.
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
>>>>>>> immediately
>>>>>>>> and delete the material from your computer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption,  
>>>>>>>> interception,    viruses and
>>>>>>>> unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not  
>>>>>>>> accept    liability
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or  
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> consequences.
>>>>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________________________________ 
>>>>>>> _
>>>>>>> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and  
>>>>>>> more...then  map  the
>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>> route!  http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows   
>>>>> Live  Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/  
>>>>> direct/01/? href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?  
>>>>> wx_action=create&wx_url=/ friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https://  
>>> voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your  
> cash with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/ 
> default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>

From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com  Tue Nov 14 01:43:20 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Nov 15 03:47:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
In-Reply-To: <009401c7075f$43607170$1879480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C17E6D48.7F9A%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>

Susan,
There may be a typo in the link.  I did find it at this location:
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/tart/socintr.htm
Lynne

On 11/13/06 2:06 PM, "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Well Don, I just clicked on the link and couldn't get in.  I find that happens
> with many of the links you give.  Here's the message I got:
>  
> Not Found
> The requested document was not found on this server.
> 
> 
> Web Server at druglibrary.org
>  
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: donald factor <mailto:dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
>> 
>> I  mentioned in a previous post that it is now online. just go to
>> 
>>   http://www.druglibrary.org/special/tart/soccont.htmI
>> 
>> I have met him and he is very nice guy, refers to himself as Charlie.  He was
>> a professor of psychology  at one of the University of California campuses.
>> But now he is a professor emeritus. Which means he got too old to still have
>> the job he had. 
>> 
>> don
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 13, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree with you whole heartedly Don.  In NLP one of the first things they
>>> teach you is how to recognize some of the many altered states you
>>> participated in every day, how everytime we turn on the tv and get involved,
>>> we are under hypnosis.  The book on Tart sounds interesting.  I may have to
>>> check it out.
>>>  
>>> But since I misinterpreted William the first time, I thought it might be a
>>> good idea to check and see if I have misinterpreted him on this issue also.
>>>  
>>> Susan
>>>  
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: donald factor <mailto:dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:07 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
>>>> 
>>>> The point that I think William is missing is that we all have various
>>>> discrete states of consciousness. One these you could call our ordinary
>>>> state, but there are others. For instance when you are writing a message
>>>> such as this or focusing on some architectural drawings, you are in an
>>>> entirely different state than when you are, say, out dancing with friends.
>>>> In the book I keep recommending Tart researched amongst other things,
>>>> people who were smoking marijuana and found that a group of people who were
>>>> stoned actually were in a different shared state than when they were in
>>>> their ordinary shared state. I know from personal experience that when I
>>>> have walked into a room where there are a bunch of people who have been
>>>> smoking they all seem to be talking nonsense, but when I have been one of
>>>> them it all makes perfect sense and others are doing the nonsensical stuff.
>>>> The point is that there are probably many such states, each of which has
>>>> their own sets of values, meanings and priorities. But we don't really
>>>> notice these shifts. And, as you say, when we do, if it happens
>>>> spontaneously, it can be frightening.
>>>> 
>>>> don
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 13, 2006, at 7:33 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It looks like I've misinterpreted you.  Thanks for clearing that up.
>>>>>  
>>>>> I guess I'm wondering what you would describe as the advances humans have
>>>>> made in consciousness so far then, and what kind of ideas you have of
>>>>> where we might go as a race with consciousness?
>>>>>  
>>>>> To my way of thinking, there have been a few isolated  experiences of
>>>>> people having altered states of consciousness but for the most part, the
>>>>> average person seldom allows themselves to experience anything other than
>>>>> their ordinary state.  If they do have an altered state they immediately
>>>>> think something is "wrong" with them and they repress it out of fear.  And
>>>>> so an advance in consciousness would mean that people would take it as
>>>>> ordinary to have multiple states of consciousness on a regular basis.
>>>>> That people as a whole would begin to explore their own subjective states
>>>>> of consciousness for subtle differences and begin to use those differences
>>>>> more effectively.  Particularly in the area of emotions.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>  
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: william <mailto:w@david-bohm.net>
>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:23 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Suffering
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From: Susan Clemons <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>>>>>> >Yes.  And saying (as William seems to imply) that any change
>>>>>>> >in consciousness or altered state of consciousness can only be
>>>>>>> >a result of (or result in) brain damage seems to be much too
>>>>>>> >limiting of an idea.  It could just as easily be brain enhancing.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Did I say that? Sorry, I only meant to question the value of altered
>>>>>> states of consciousness by means of damaging the brain. It is possible to
>>>>>> get "expanded" consciousness, heightened creativity, sense of wholeness
>>>>>> and loss of separation, seeing intense colours, hearing pure sounds or
>>>>>> the voice of God, or knowing the Truth with a capital T, etc. All these
>>>>>> things are very nice and interesting but, to me, it looks like a form of
>>>>>> regress to an earlier stage of evolution.
>>>>>> I like to think that consciousness has evolved over a long time, and that
>>>>>> this evolution is still in progress. If we can think of consciousness as
>>>>>> an evolving ongoing process then it seems reasonable to assume that
>>>>>> future states of consciousness may be something different from what we
>>>>>> know now (and also different from these "altered states of consciousness"
>>>>>> that we already know). I am curious where this is leading to, so I tend
>>>>>> to more interested in progress rather than regress.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> William
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>> 
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>> 
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>> 
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>> 
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> 
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> 
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 


-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
   208 376-1336
   www.lifedirectionscoach.com
    (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)


"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/c195c133/attachment.html
From tubakari at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 04:49:53 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Wed Nov 15 05:54:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: feigning injustice
Message-ID: <20061114034953.7125.qmail@web52905.mail.yahoo.com>

im glad some of us still have some humor and wit. i agree with don, rodger!
kari



----- Original Message ----
From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:45:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Subject: feigning injustice


best post of the day. congratulation.
don
On Nov 13, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:

> Rodger __Rephrasing williams request for Zoes phone number into an  
> attempt to feel-Zoe-up, exemplifies a level of maturity inherent in  
> western drama queens. Or maybe it just tells how long ago its been  
> since those involved have had some good sex. Because last time I  
> felt-someone-up, it was nothing like making a phone call. _R
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/6ce4721b/attachment.html
From joachimfaust at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 14 05:56:53 2006
From: joachimfaust at earthlink.net (Joachim Faust)
Date: Wed Nov 15 07:01:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position
In-Reply-To: <20061114110004.1C69124950@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
References: <20061114110004.1C69124950@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <0C152F0B-3FEF-42F4-8262-FCD3059E5997@earthlink.net>

Since etymology is popular on this list: "truth" is related to  
"trust" and
also to "tree." (Indoeuropean *deru- tree, oak). If I had to
reconstruct the underlying web of meaning, then it would be something  
like:
truth is what you trust in, and something is true, if you believe in  
it strongly enough.
You believe that  you can rely on your truth, like you can rely on  
the branch of an oak tree to hold you.
Or:  your trust in the truth is as solid and unbreakable as the wood of
an oak tree. Sounds like a Germanic phantasy straight from the  
primordial oak forest :)

The theme "can we live with two different truths" (particularly if  
they are represented by two
competing alpha-males) reminded me of something that came up on this  
list a few months ago.
Someone (I think it was Don F.) proposed to conduct a thought  
experiment, which in essence
was to "put oneself into the two positions that constitute a given  
conflict." If I remember correctly this
was in connection with the Lebanese war in the summer, but it did not  
meet with much interest, perhaps,
because the two positions were too abstract, and there was nobody on  
the list who actually represented
any of them in real life.

However, I do think it could be a good idea, if you did this  
experiment with a conflict such as the one that we have
at hand here ( the Don/William vs. Zoe-conflict). Each of the two  
"partners" in conflict would have
to suspend their truth temporarily, and assume the truth of the  
other. Then, moving back into their previous
positions, they both observe and notice if anything has changed. Most  
importantly, notice if and how
a third position- a metaposition-  slowly but surely emerges.

Didn't you do NLP, Susan?  In essence, this is an NLP-process, which  
I think could be modified to be applied
to dialogue. Just a thought...

Joachim



On 14.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:

> But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)?  Isn't this a  
> really good example of what happens in the world at large?  I don't  
> see this as a narrow focus at all.  If we can find ways to solve  
> this here in this one small way, then there are ways to broaden it  
> and use it in larger scopes.
>
> Susan

Joachim Faust
joachimfaust@earthlink.net


From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com  Tue Nov 14 05:07:15 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Nov 15 07:11:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
In-Reply-To: <00f301c70780$4ab6f0e0$1879480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C17E9D13.7F9C%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>

This is a fascinating subject, and I think I?m basically in agreement.  But
it is helpful to me to make a distinction between states of consciousness
and stages of consciousness.  About 25 years ago I experienced such a state
of wholeness ? distinctive enough that I wasn?t sure what to think of it.  I
interpreted it mythically, as an experience of God, even became a Christian
for a while.  Now I have a different understanding of reality, and my
interpretation of that same event is different.  The state of consciousness
is the same; the perspective, or stage of consciousness from which I can
interpret it has changed.  (Hopefully, that interpretation will continue to
expand and change as I keep learning!)

Lynne
On 11/13/06 6:03 PM, "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> I'm so glad I asked William.  I think you and I are on the same track with
> this one.  I guess I've completely misunderstood your posts on this subject up
> until now.  But I agree whole heartedly with what you're saying here.
>  
> Although when people say they have experienced states of wholeness and
> oneness, being in touch with god, etc. I don't think that's really any
> different from what you're describing here.  I think people are just
> misinterpreting because of the reasons you've given here (they're still
> looking for mommy and daddy to tell them what it is and what to do with it).
> They're still too caught up in their own programming to be able to think in
> new ways about their own experience and assign some value to the self.
>  
> Susan
>  
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: william <mailto:w@david-bohm.net>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> From: Susan Clemons <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>> >I guess I'm wondering what you would describe as the advances
>>> >humans have made in consciousness so far then,
>>  
>> I think, the most significant advance so far is the development of the sense
>> of self, individualism, or persona. This, to some extend, is a separation
>> from the whole. In mythical or religious terms it amounts to an escape from
>> paradise, freedom from God. Also we have developed language that emphasizes
>> distinctions, enabling us to conceptualize ourselves in terms of you and me,
>> them and us, etc. This is a real breakthrough and a pre-requisite for
>> everything else that follows.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>> >And what kind of ideas you have of where we might go as a
>>> >race with consciousness?
>>  
>> Well, I don't know. We're still kind of pussy-footing around, not really
>> believing we're free. Still feeling uncertain and kind of looking back if
>> mama or papa or God can see us. Personally, I would go in the direction of
>> developing what I like to call "modes of perception", I.e. the ability to
>> switch from one reality to another, like switching TV channels, having
>> different views through the same eyes. This would automatically lead to the
>> ability of holding many truths at the same time. By way of illustration, this
>> would have the same impact as adding a third dimension to a hypothetical
>> two-dimensional world. Such a new dimension in the perception of reality,
>> means that each one can have his or her own preferred truth or reality as if
>> it were cloth we can change at any time.  That would be enough progress for
>> the time being, but it will probably move on into areas that we can't imagine
>> yet...
>>  
>> William
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> 
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 


-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
   208 376-1336
   www.lifedirectionscoach.com
    (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)


"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061113/28b2dfea/attachment.html
From facilitator at david-bohm.net  Tue Nov 14 07:03:31 2006
From: facilitator at david-bohm.net (facilitator)
Date: Wed Nov 15 08:08:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] List
Message-ID: <964473B3-933C-433A-ACB9-5C17D53C24D8@david-bohm.net>

If I ignore the fact that there are a few of us who have more than  
one e-mail address and that there are a few people who have "no mail"  
checked which means that they don't want to receive any posts, we  
have hit the hundred mark today. Actually, there are probably about  
94 or 95 of us. But 100 sounds pretty landmarkish.

facilitator
From stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com  Tue Nov 14 07:48:52 2006
From: stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com (STEPHEN DEVLIN)
Date: Wed Nov 15 08:53:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of Consciousness
In-Reply-To: <00f301c70780$4ab6f0e0$1879480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <20061114064852.43776.qmail@web86501.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

I imagine here you're referring to the NLP techniques you've been learning. I have a colleague who's just spent about ?6000 learning to become a teacher of NLP. From what I can tell the assigning value is all to do with how they blatantly rip you off by over charging for materials and courses that comprise a mix of hypnotism and self help feel good nonsense.

Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:     v\:* {  BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml) }   v\:* {  BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml) }   I'm so glad I asked William.   I think you and I are on the same track with this one.  I guess I've  completely misunderstood your posts on this subject up until now.  But I  agree whole heartedly with what you're saying here.
  
 Although when people say they have  experienced states of wholeness and oneness, being in touch with god, etc. I  don't think that's really any different from what you're describing here.   I think people are just misinterpreting because of the reasons you've given here  (they're still looking for mommy and daddy to tell them what it is and what to  do with it).  They're still too caught up in their own programming to be  able to think in new ways about their own experience and assign some value to  the self.  
  
 Susan
  
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    william 
   To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org    
   Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:21    PM
   Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] States of    Consciousness
   

                         
          
                  From: Susan Clemons

         >I guess I'm wondering what you would describe as the advances          
         >humans have made in consciousness so far then, 
          
         I think, the most significant advance so far is          the development of the sense of self, individualism, or persona.          This, to some extend, is a separation from the whole. In          mythical or religious terms it amounts to an escape from paradise,          freedom from God. Also we have developed language that emphasizes          distinctions, enabling us to conceptualize ourselves in terms of you and          me, them and us, etc. This is a real breakthrough and a pre-requisite          for everything else that follows.
          
          
          
         >And what kind of ideas you have of where we might go as a  
         >race with consciousness? 
          
         Well, I don't know. We're still kind of pussy-footing around, not          really believing we're free. Still feeling uncertain and kind of looking          back if mama or papa or God can see us. Personally, I would go in the          direction of developing what I like to call "modes of perception", I.e.          the ability to switch from one reality to another, like switching TV          channels, having different views through the same eyes. This would          automatically lead to the ability of holding many truths at the same          time. By way of illustration, this would have the same impact as adding          a third dimension to a hypothetical two-dimensional world. Such a new          dimension in the perception of reality, means that each one can have his          or her own preferred truth or reality as if it were cloth we can change          at any time.  That would be enough progress for the time          being, but it will probably move on into
 areas that we can't imagine          yet...
          
         William
          
          
                                                        
             
             
      

---------------------------------
    
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post    to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue    facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing    list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________


_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/27f76cc4/attachment-0001.html
From franis_franis at juno.com  Tue Nov 14 08:25:25 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Nov 15 10:18:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
Message-ID: <20061114.000853.1408.3.franis_franis@juno.com>

What if the way you want to come across in the way you mean to
communicate isn't "teacherly"? Wouldn't you like to be flexible enough to
bring about the effect for the reader you might intend? I know that there
are times when I do not want to be regarded as teacherly, for instance -
so I'd like to know how to subtract that effect from my writing style. -
Franis

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:55:15 -0700 "Susan Clemons"
<Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Well, I've stopped worrying about it Franis.  I've learned that 
> sometimes 
> people appreciate my posts and sometimes they don't.  And I've never 
> been 
> able to predict when or who that will happen with.  If I sound 
> teacherly...so be it.  If people don't like teacherly...so be it.  
> It's much 
> more important to me to write what I need to write in the moment 
> than it is 
> to worry about who is or is not going to like/appreciate my post.
> 
> Susan
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:30 PM
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering why the culture thinks of me or Susan as teacherly; 
> or why
> > I have learned to somehow use the language in that way to give 
> people the
> > idea I'm teacherly. I mean, I do have some Alexander Technique 
> students
> > sometimes - but that's more a process of coaching self-observation 
> rather
> > than a process of me telling the other person information as most
> > teachers do.
> >
> > It is in the assumptions where all the meat of meaning is for me. 
> So
> > going over what the assumptions are can make me sound as if I'm 
> insulting
> > someone's ability to see the obvious...but I'm sort of making a 
> list to
> > see if we can spot an assumption that we could change. Other 
> people don't
> > get my intent, so I've learned to spell it out before I do it. 
> Then the
> > others can play too. Othewise if people do not know what is going 
> on,
> > they tend to assign some negative motive to what I'm doing - which 
> is how
> > I regard the "teacherly-ness." It's not that it's negative, but 
> it's a
> > role to describe some sort of authority thing that is going on.
> >
> > I know I have a tendency to say things to see how they sound after 
> they
> > come out of my mouth. I try out making a statement about something 
> to see
> > how the rest of me reacts. This is part of what makes me sometimes 
> sound
> > so full of it that my eyes are brown, because I'll make a 
> statement as if
> > I know what I'm talking about when I know absolutely nothing.
> >
> > I seem to want to offer the benefit of my observations - but 
> really, it's
> > mostly that I want to tell what I have observed so far because I 
> want to
> > "trade notes" on certain topics. I have these many topics of 
> ongoing
> > investigation that are extremely open-ended; so when someone 
> mentions
> > something about them, my ears prick up. I guess trotting out what 
> I know
> > about something so far isn't the way to evoke the responses I 
> want; but
> > by doing that I have so often catapulted the conversation onto a 
> much
> > deeper level. So I keep doing it - at the risk of sounding as if 
> I'm an
> > authority - and I try to do damage control when I see mismatches.
> >
> > I hate being tagged as an authority when all I'm doing is putting
> > whatever I have observed so far into words. On the other hand, I 
> hate not
> > being in a position where what I have to offer is not valued. I 
> spend
> > much of my time establishing rapport - and to be in rapport means 
> you
> > don't get the respect in this culture, which is a shame.
> >
> > I really love and respect those people who could be described as
> > unappreciated pearls, because they reject all presentation skills 
> and
> > just go for content. But in this day and age, if you want to be in 
> the
> > position of offering what you know, you almost have to work on how 
> you're
> > presenting it, otherwise it goes completely unnoticed.
> >
> > Franis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:31:52 +0000 Gill Wyatt 
> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> > writes:
> >> Hi Francis,
> >>
> >> I appreciate what you say here ... I guess my intention is to 
> focus
> >> more on
> >> unearthing the assumptions I am making and when I am wanting to
> >> focus on
> >> something with another person I work hard at taking 
> responsibility
> >> for my
> >> own feelings and thoughts and check out the intentions and parts
> >> others may
> >> be playing. I try to walk my talk although I guess I often fail 
> but
> >> I never
> >> want to ask somebody to go somewhere where I haven't already been
> >> myself.
> >>
> >> I guess a 'teacherly' style doesn't do it for me ... But I liked
> >> your
> >> honesty and what felt like to me openness.
> >>
> >> Gill
> >>
> >>
> >> on 10/11/06 21:06, Franis Engel at franis_franis@juno.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yes, Susan and myself both have the "teacherly" tone of 
> writing.
> >> > It's something that has crept into my writing, and I don't
> >> necessarily
> >> > intend what I'm writing to come across that way. It seems this
> >> tone is
> >> > what happens when you begin to articulate assumptions - or at
> >> least,
> >> > that's when it has happened. Often some people feel insulted 
> that
> >> you're
> >> > going back to square one with them, as if they do not know what 
> is
> >> > obvious.
> >> > Franis
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:40:27 +0000 Gill Wyatt
> >> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> > writes:
> >> >> Hi Susan,
> >> >>
> >> >> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are 
> trying
> >> to
> >> >> teach
> >> >> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this 
> from
> >> >> both of
> >> >> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making 
> an
> >> >> assumption
> >> >> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was 
> gorgeous,
> >> and
> >> >> maybe
> >> >> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody
> >> agrees
> >> >> with me
> >> >> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was
> >> >> meaning it in
> >> >> my message.
> >> >>
> >> >> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David 
> Bohm
> >> is
> >> >> saying in
> >> >> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would 
> never
> >> mean
> >> >> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the 
> meeting
> >> of
> >> >> two
> >> >> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are 
> doing
> >> this
> >> >> in this
> >> >> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are 
> making
> >> >> about me.
> >> >> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I 
> guess I
> >> am
> >> >> telling
> >> >> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions 
> were.
> >> It
> >> >> feels as
> >> >> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to 
> this
> >> >> list that
> >> >> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have
> >> written
> >> >> a
> >> >> Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops
> >> >> introducing the
> >> >> concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many years in 
> how
> >> >> some
> >> >> groups get to dialogue and how the shift in consciousness at a
> >> group
> >> >> level
> >> >> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have
> >> been
> >> >> the
> >> >> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know
> >> about
> >> >> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that 
> kept
> >> on
> >> >> occurring
> >> >> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Gill
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name).  Yes, it can be
> >> very
> >> >>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on 
> an
> >> >> intimate
> >> >>> level.  However, since being in Dialogue I have come to 
> cherish
> >> a
> >> >> different
> >> >>> kind of connection that seems to be just as intimate if not 
> more
> >> >> so.  I'm
> >> >>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I 
> look
> >> for
> >> >> now.  I
> >> >>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation
> >> that
> >> >> comes from
> >> >>> exploring our differences.  So I'll defer to DB's words to
> >> >> describe it:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when 
> one
> >> >> person says
> >> >>> something, the other person does not in general respond with
> >> >> exactly the
> >> >>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the
> >> >> meanings are only
> >> >>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person 
> replies,
> >> >> the first
> >> >>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and 
> what
> >> the
> >> >> other
> >> >>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may 
> then
> >> be
> >> >> able to
> >> >>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views 
> and
> >> to
> >> >> those of
> >> >>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the
> >> >> continual
> >> >>> emergence of a new content that is common to both 
> participants.
> >> >> Thus, in a
> >> >>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain
> >> >> ideas or items
> >> >>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may 
> be
> >> >> said that
> >> >>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating
> >> >> something new
> >> >>> together."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together"
> >> that
> >> >> I look
> >> >>> for now through the exploration of our differences.  I no 
> longer
> >> >> look for
> >> >>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to 
> see
> >> >> what we can
> >> >>> create out of the hubris of our differences.  And when we 
> manage
> >> >> to do that
> >> >>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the 
> common
> >> >> ground we
> >> >>> share.  I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he
> >> talks
> >> >> about a
> >> >>> "difference that makes a difference".
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Susan
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> >>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >> >>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:27 AM
> >> >>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle 
> way
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Hi Susan,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Ok I understand.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I think sometimes I look, perhaps unrealistically for more 
> of
> >> an
> >> >> explicit
> >> >>>> connection between what I have said and the person who 
> responds
> >> >> to me. It
> >> >>>> just feels so gorgeous when it happens.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> By the way my name is Gill, short for Gillian ... Not the 
> male
> >> >> American
> >> >>>> Gil.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> And yes I do agree that good discussions get triggered by
> >> >> difficulties
> >> >>>> here
> >> >>>> and in the wider world. Well sometimes in the wider world, 
> if
> >> >> that is not
> >> >>>> be
> >> >>>> being pessimistic.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Gill
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> on 9/11/06 21:27, Susan Clemons at 
> Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi Gil.  Actually you were very clear about what you 
> wanted.
> >> >> And my
> >> >>>>> response was about what I was feeling and thinking.  I put 
> the
> >> >> link in to
> >> >>>>> the past discussion we had on the purpose of dialogue to
> >> respond
> >> >> to you
> >> >>>>> and
> >> >>>>> the rest of the post was about me.  I personally don't 
> think
> >> the
> >> >>>>> discussion
> >> >>>>> about PKZ is necessarily about PKZ.  I think it's about us.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> How do we deal with trolls, spamming, and the like in our
> >> daily
> >> >> lives?
> >> >>>>> Do
> >> >>>>> we ever respond to a legitimate interaction from someone as
> >> >> though they
> >> >>>>> are
> >> >>>>> a troll or spamming or in some other way simply because 
> that
> >> is
> >> >> what's
> >> >>>>> going
> >> >>>>> on?  I would say right now trolling and spamming and 
> flaming
> >> are
> >> >> a pretty
> >> >>>>> ordinary occurrence.  The current political climate here in
> >> >> Arizona was
> >> >>>>> pretty much of a flame war.  Television, the mail, and most 
> of
> >> >> the
> >> >>>>> telephone
> >> >>>>> calls I get are trolling and spamming.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Doesn't our culture basically embrace this type of behavior 
> as
> >> >> perfectly
> >> >>>>> acceptable?  Isn't this a part of the incoherence in our 
> daily
> >> >> lives?
> >> >>>>> And
> >> >>>>> how has this affected the way we communicate with each 
> other
> >> and
> >> >> our
> >> >>>>> ability
> >> >>>>> to be open and honest with each other?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> So you see, I wasn't really ignoring what you were 
> addressing.
> >> >> For me,
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>> best way to talk about it is within the story that is
> >> happening.
> >> >>  Getting
> >> >>>>> clear about the microcosm can help to see the macrocosm to 
> my
> >> >> way of
> >> >>>>> thinking.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> And I'll tell you something that I noticed when I was going
> >> >> through the
> >> >>>>> archives today.  The PKZ phenomenom seemed to stimulate a 
> lot
> >> of
> >> >> thought
> >> >>>>> at
> >> >>>>> the time and there were some really rousing and interesting
> >> >> conversation
> >> >>>>> that seemed to come out of it.  The same thing happened 
> here
> >> in
> >> >> Arizona
> >> >>>>> with
> >> >>>>> the political flame wars.  Although I really got tired of
> >> >> hearing the
> >> >>>>> politicians beating each other up, people seemed to wake up
> >> and
> >> >> get a
> >> >>>>> little
> >> >>>>> more interested in the issues and to be stimulated to vote.
> >> It
> >> >> was
> >> >>>>> certainly much better than the mediocre lackluster 
> campaigns
> >> of
> >> >> the past.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Do we bring this kind of phenomena on when things are 
> getting
> >> a
> >> >> little
> >> >>>>> too
> >> >>>>> stagnant perhaps?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Susan
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> >>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:22 PM
> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle
> >> way
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi Susan,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Um ... Its interesting its only when I have a response that 
> I
> >> >> realise
> >> >>>>> that
> >> >>>>> perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be to get what 
> I
> >> am
> >> >> saying
> >> >>>>> across.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I'm very able to pick and choose which messages I read and 
> am
> >> >> happy to
> >> >>>>> delete. I mentioned in my email deleting 50-75 emails a day
> >> from
> >> >> this
> >> >>>>> list.
> >> >>>>> I find some of the one liner don't add anything to what I
> >> think
> >> >> of
> >> >>>>> dialogue
> >> >>>>> and sometimes I wonder why they are not sent to the one 
> person
> >> >> they are
> >> >>>>> addressed to. So I guess I feel differently from you, the
> >> number
> >> >> of
> >> >>>>> emails
> >> >>>>> per day does not indicate for me anything about the quality 
> of
> >> >> the
> >> >>>>> dialogue.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The other point re 'PK and probably more accurate to say 
> maybe
> >> >> Z' ... in
> >> >>>>> a
> >> >>>>> way what I intended to communicate was to take the focus 
> away
> >> >> from PK(Z)
> >> >>>>> and
> >> >>>>> have it back on us ... What are we not paying attention to?
> >> ...
> >> >> What am I
> >> >>>>> not paying attention to? Am I really understanding the 
> message
> >> >> in the
> >> >>>>> messages that I do read ... And do my responses make a
> >> >> connection with
> >> >>>>> other
> >> >>>>> people in a way that transcends the more usual cultural
> >> >> assumptions.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> That was more of what I was meaning to talk about ...
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Gill
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> on 9/11/06 00:11, Susan Clemons at 
> Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Hi Gill.  It's nice to meet you.  I understand the current
> >> >> desire among
> >> >>>>>> many
> >> >>>>>> of you to explore the PKZ phenomena.  When I first joined 
> the
> >> >> list the
> >> >>>>>> same
> >> >>>>>> discussion was going on.  I jumped right in, eager to 
> explore
> >> >> it.  And
> >> >>>>>> it
> >> >>>>>> was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right
> >> now.
> >> >>>>>> Although
> >> >>>>>> at
> >> >>>>>> that time Peter was an active member of the group and he 
> was
> >> >> included in
> >> >>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>> discussion.  In the beginning I sounded much like you and
> >> some
> >> >> of the
> >> >>>>>> others
> >> >>>>>> right now.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring 
> the
> >> >> subject
> >> >>>>>> except
> >> >>>>>> Peter I began to feel differently.  Peter's response was
> >> mostly
> >> >> just to
> >> >>>>>> ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into
> >> >> himself, all
> >> >>>>>> he
> >> >>>>>> was interested in was goading the rest of us.  Rather than
> >> use
> >> >>>>>> suspension
> >> >>>>>> he
> >> >>>>>> would flood us with brief posts about the world being made 
> up
> >> >> of carrot
> >> >>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>> stick mentality and we should all recognize that the only
> >> >> solution was
> >> >>>>>> total
> >> >>>>>> chaos.  When he became determined to spam the group with
> >> >> anywhere from
> >> >>>>>> 75
> >> >>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>> 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day
> >> regardless
> >> >> of how
> >> >>>>>> any
> >> >>>>>> of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we
> >> felt)
> >> >> the
> >> >>>>>> decision
> >> >>>>>> (after much agonizing) was made to ban him.  At that point 
> I
> >> >> was ready
> >> >>>>>> for
> >> >>>>>> him to be banned.  He mostly just trolled for recruits for
> >> his
> >> >> OD site
> >> >>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>> spammed us for not being interested.  He also seems to 
> have a
> >> >> fixation
> >> >>>>>> with
> >> >>>>>> male authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a
> >> surrogate
> >> >>>>>> authority.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this 
> list
> >> >> as well as
> >> >>>>>> exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar
> >> >> problems that
> >> >>>>>> caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy 
> in
> >> my
> >> >> post to
> >> >>>>>> her.
> >> >>>>>> In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least 
> a
> >> >> loose and
> >> >>>>>> flexible structure.  Here's a link to some of the thoughts 
> I
> >> >> have had
> >> >>>>>> about
> >> >>>>>> the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our
> >> >> previous
> >> >>>>>> discussions:
> >> >>>>>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know 
> what
> >> >> happened
> >> >>>>>> with
> >> >>>>>> them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without 
> any
> >> >> warning and
> >> >>>>>> without any group discussion.  If that's true, then I 
> would
> >> say
> >> >> that I
> >> >>>>>> think
> >> >>>>>> anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or who 
> we
> >> >> suspect is
> >> >>>>>> Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be
> >> >> given a
> >> >>>>>> chance
> >> >>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>> speak for themselves.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day 
> or
> >> >> how long
> >> >>>>>> they
> >> >>>>>> are.  I used to worry about that.  But then I decided that
> >> the
> >> >> purpose
> >> >>>>>> of
> >> >>>>>> dialogue is to dialogue.  You can't do that without 
> posting.
> >> A
> >> >> healthy
> >> >>>>>> dialogue is going to have lots of posts.  I've learned to
> >> deal
> >> >> with it
> >> >>>>>> by
> >> >>>>>> learning to know which people are definitely going to have
> >> >> something to
> >> >>>>>> say
> >> >>>>>> that I'm interested in responding to and not.  On my busy
> >> days
> >> >> I skip
> >> >>>>>> through the posts and read only a few people or if there's 
> a
> >> >> good thread
> >> >>>>>> going I will read only that thread.  And, yes, sometimes I
> >> miss
> >> >> a lot
> >> >>>>>> doing
> >> >>>>>> that but it's better than the alternative of not being a 
> part
> >> >> of all of
> >> >>>>>> this.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Susan
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> >>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
> >> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the 
> middle
> >> way
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood 
> me
> >> ...
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness,
> >> >> compassion AND
> >> >>>>>> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I 
> think
> >> >> it is only
> >> >>>>>> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can 
> find a
> >> >> response
> >> >>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration
> >> >> here. I too
> >> >>>>>> have
> >> >>>>>> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75
> >> >> messages in one
> >> >>>>>> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth 
> (I
> >> >> like that
> >> >>>>>> term)
> >> >>>>>> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group 
> near
> >> >> where I
> >> >>>>>> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this
> >> >> possibility here
> >> >>>>>> matters to me.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do 
> we
> >> >> need to
> >> >>>>>> learn
> >> >>>>>> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I 
> hesitated
> >> >> about
> >> >>>>>> saying
> >> >>>>>> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what 
> is
> >> >> it in us,
> >> >>>>>> in
> >> >>>>>> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected
> >> >> response from
> >> >>>>>> PKZ.
> >> >>>>>> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I
> >> want
> >> >> or need
> >> >>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of 
> other
> >> >> people. Is
> >> >>>>>> it
> >> >>>>>> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract 
> that
> >> >> response
> >> >>>>>> from
> >> >>>>>> others?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I 
> have
> >> >> very much
> >> >>>>>> appreciated reading your emails.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody
> >> else
> >> >>>>>> struggle?
> >> >>>>>> As
> >> >>>>>> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally
> >> have
> >> >> sent
> >> >>>>>> three
> >> >>>>>> or so in one day ...
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Gill
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> info:
> >> >>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> dialogue facilitator:
> >> >>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >> >>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>> info:
> >> >>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> dialogue facilitator:
> >> >>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >> >>>> admin@david-bohm.net
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> info:
> >> >>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >> >>>
> >> >>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >> >>>
> >> >>> dialogue facilitator:
> >> >>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >> >>> admin@david-bohm.net
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> info:
> >> >> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >> >>
> >> >> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >> >>
> >> >> dialogue facilitator:
> >> >> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >> >>
> >> >> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >> >> admin@david-bohm.net
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > info:
> >> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >> >
> >> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >> >
> >> > dialogue facilitator:
> >> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >> >
> >> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> >> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> info:
> >> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>
> >> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> dialogue facilitator:
> >> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >> admin@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 

From MarkHarmer at aol.com  Tue Nov 14 09:56:27 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Wed Nov 15 11:01:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position
Message-ID: <412.d8fbd97.328adebb@aol.com>

 
One of my colleagues gave me a "gift" - a drawing of a tree-trunk with  roots 
under the ground. I think the tree image is powerful - for him, it  meant 
stillness, for me, nourishment and deep connection with the influences in  my 
life. Maybe some of that is also what truth is about?

truth is  what you trust in, and something is true, if you believe in  
it  strongly enough.
You believe that  you can rely on your truth, like  you can rely on  
the branch of an oak tree to hold you.
Or:   your trust in the truth is as solid and unbreakable as the wood of
an oak  tree. Sounds like a Germanic phantasy straight from the  
primordial  oak forest :)


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/9210f3d0/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 14 10:58:46 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Wed Nov 15 12:04:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <20061113.135308.2144.30.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C17F43D6.3A58%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>

Lovely Pat.

Gill


on 13/11/06 18:53, ae.dropper@juno.com at ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:

> This reminds me of a phenomenon that can happen in dialogue circles. Long
> story short,
> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group and
> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have little
> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
> 
> Sending, not "drafting," fully aware of probable? irrelevance.
> 
> Incidentally, still enjoying the interesting "self moderating"
> concept of - which was it? -  "spontaneous delay"
> or "delayed spontaneity?" Both seem useful.
> 
> pat
> 
> 
> Hi Francis,
>  
> I appreciate what you say here ... I guess my intention is to focus more
> on
> unearthing the assumptions I am making and when I am wanting to focus on
> something with another person I work hard at taking responsibility for my
> own feelings and thoughts and check out the intentions and parts others
> may
> be playing. I try to walk my talk although I guess I often fail but I
> never
> want to ask somebody to go somewhere where I haven't already been myself.
>  
> I guess a 'teacherly' style doesn't do it for me ... But I liked your
> honesty and what felt like to me openness.
>  
> Gill
>  
>  
> on 10/11/06 21:06, Franis Engel at franis_franis@juno.com wrote:
>  
>> Yes, Susan and myself both have the "teacherly" tone of writing.
>> It's something that has crept into my writing, and I don't necessarily
>> intend what I'm writing to come across that way. It seems this tone is
>> what happens when you begin to articulate assumptions - or at least,
>> that's when it has happened. Often some people feel insulted that
> you're
>> going back to square one with them, as if they do not know what is
>> obvious.
>> Franis
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 

From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 14 12:00:53 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Wed Nov 15 13:17:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <04F63E53-869F-498D-A447-1E40A046D739@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C17F5265.3A59%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>

Thanks Don,

I'll be interested to read your proposal when its ready.

Gill


on 13/11/06 18:20, donald factor at dfactor@dc.rr.com wrote:

> It wasn't me who referred to Zoe as it. But I understand that at
> least one person here does
> not believe that she is a female.
> 
> Regarding my sharing with the list my thoughts on how to handle any
> future difficulties, I
> intend to write a proposal for comment and consideration. But I am
> not there yet.
> don
> 
> 
> On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:57 AM, Gill Wyatt wrote:
> 
>> William and Don ...
>> 
>> I'd  be curious to hear each of your response to this email of
>> mine. And
>> also I'd like to understand the tone that each of you seem to take
>> when you
>> addressed Zoe. I think in one email one of you referred to Zoe as
>> 'it'.
>> 
>> Gill
>> 
>> 
>> on 10/11/06 13:14, Gill Wyatt at earthsky@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
>> 
>>> Don, Kathryn and all,
>>> 
>>> I need to be brief as work is calling ...
>>> 
>>> I feel fine about there being a Moderator for this list However in
>>> the
>>> future I would like the moderator to discuss with the group
>>> thoughts and
>>> proposals re kicking anybody off. There had been some discussion
>>> on the list
>>> re PK ... but because I think an assumption was made that Zoe was
>>> PK there
>>> was no or little discussion about kicking Zoe off.
>>> 
>>> I was surprised about this at the time ... Interestingly if Zoe is
>>> PK I'm OK
>>> about Zoe being kicked off but I am not convinced she is!! And if
>>> Zoe isn't
>>> then I think 'we' ie this list has treated her uncaringly and badly!
>>> 
>>> I would support Zoe being invited back as long as she accepts that
>>> this is a
>>> moderated list and that in the future the moderator would act
>>> after dialogue
>>> with the whole group re moderation decisions re kicking somebody off.
>>> 
>>> Gill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> on 10/11/06 12:50, Morgan Jett at griffyn23@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Good Morning Don and Fellow Group Members -
>>>> 
>>>> Here is what I have to say.
>>>> 
>>>> D: especially your playing protective mum. No offense intended
>>>> here, this is
>>>> just the way I feel.
>>>> K: None taken, Don.  I have tried to make clear that this is not
>>>> just a
>>>> Zoe-thing, and neither is it a Peter or Kris thing.  Nor is it a
>>>> gender-thing.  The present situation reflects all the clashes
>>>> through
>>>> history between nations, and the people that make them up.  It
>>>> illustrates
>>>> that without the proper procedures in place, the same thing can
>>>> happen to
>>>> any of us, at any time, anywhere. It is happening in the world as
>>>> we speak.
>>>> On a national level, Republicans have just lost complete control
>>>> of Capitol
>>>> Hill to the Democrats for this very reason. It has happened
>>>> throughout
>>>> history.  This seems to be a universally "stuck/blocked" place.
>>>> 
>>>> In case you missed that particular post, I am a professional
>>>> mediator,
>>>> deeply interested in Bohm as well as committed to social justice.
>>>> I am a
>>>> member of the Committee for Social Justice at Riverside Church,
>>>> and very
>>>> proud to claim the lineage and legacy of William Sloane Coffin,
>>>> and the Rev.
>>>> James Forbes.  For that reason, I have spoken out about what
>>>> happened to
>>>> Zoe, and volunteered to mediate the situation.
>>>> No offense is meant in my next remarks, or any others. But I can
>>>> ?t help but
>>>> be curious  - could one consider "playing protective mum" a
>>>> putdown?  Is it
>>>> a ?bootable offense??  If Zoe had made a similar remark, would
>>>> she have been
>>>> unsubscribed without warning?
>>>> 
>>>> D: If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something valuable to
>>>> this list,
>>>> she should write directly to William, since he is the one who needs
>>>> convincing,
>>>> K:  That's exactly my point.  As it stands now, it?s all about
>>>> what William,
>>>> and William alone, thinks.
>>>> The issue is not whether we have a moderator.  The real issue is
>>>> what powers
>>>> shall that moderator have, and from whence shall they derive.
>>>> Actually, why
>>>> should there be only one?  Why not co-moderators? And why shouldn
>>>> ?t the
>>>> co-moderators derive their powers from the group?  Hmmmmmm.  Do I
>>>> hear the
>>>> framers of our Constitution speaking, as they visited the Iroquois
>>>> Confederacy, admired their form of government, and worked on our
>>>> own?
>>>> 
>>>> "if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to "work together")
>>>> they have
>>>> to be able to create something in common, something that takes
>>>> shape in
>>>> their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that
>>>> is conveyed
>>>> from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act
>>>> as passive
>>>> instruments of this authority."        Bohm "On Dialog"
>>>> 
>>>> These are the words of a man who stood up for what he believed
>>>> in, protected
>>>> his colleagues from McCarthy, was consequently ?witch hunted?,
>>>> and ?booted?
>>>> from the USA.  This is our legacy that we need to honor.
>>>> 
>>>> Bohm postulates that everything is unceasingly in flux.  This is
>>>> not a
>>>> Euro-Anglo cultural view.  We are conditioned to fear change.
>>>> The ultimate
>>>> change is birth to life, and life to death.  Whereas our culture
>>>> holds loss
>>>> of life as the ultimate punishment, other cultures embrace death
>>>> as a
>>>> natural part of life.  As a result, we face a ?little death? each
>>>> time we
>>>> become conscious of change.
>>>> 
>>>> The issues we are confronting are about change, and especially
>>>> hard hitting
>>>> in a group springing from the ideas and experience of Bohm, and
>>>> democracy.
>>>> 
>>>> Those in our culture who have been visionaries, asked the tough
>>>> questions,
>>>> and acted on them, have turned (in some peoples? thinkgs) into a
>>>> kind of
>>>> ?romance of the outlaw? idea - almost a Manson (cult leader)
>>>> thing. Maybe
>>>> kin to the ?Noble Savage? nonsense. I disagree with that view.
>>>> For example
>>>> -  Have you ever heard of an English scholar of the 14th Century
>>>> named John
>>>> Wycliffe?  We have his ?romantic outlaw? proclivities to thank
>>>> for putting
>>>> the Bible into English, putting our language on a legitimate
>>>> footing, and
>>>> thereby taking away the power of the clergy. ?Rooms in quiet
>>>> Oxford colleges
>>>> were turned into revolutionary cells, production lines were
>>>> established ?
>>>> groups of people secretly translating it, copying it, passing it
>>>> on...later
>>>> hundreds would die the most horrible deaths for their part in
>>>> creating and
>>>> distributing to the people the first English Bible...?  The
>>>> Church seized
>>>> Wycliffe, subjected him to a mock trial and killed him, burned
>>>> his body
>>>> publicly, thereby presumably depriving him of the possibility of
>>>> eternal
>>>> life. (And thereby trying to threaten everybody else with eternal
>>>> damnation.)  His ashes were thrown into a tributary of the Avon.
>>>> Soon
>>>> afterwards a prophecy appeared:
>>>> The Avon to the Severn runs
>>>> The Severn to the Sea.
>>>> And Wycliff?s dust shall spread abroad
>>>> Wide as the waters be.
>>>> 
>>>> In English.                    ?The Biography of a Language?,
>>>> Melvyn Bragg,
>>>> p/ 87 ? 88
>>>> 
>>>> Later, there would be Martin Luther.  Before, we had Jesus
>>>> ? disciples. Bohm,
>>>> himself, was one of those visionaries.  Is it really accurate to
>>>> conclude
>>>> that those of us who explore the principles of dialog, those
>>>> nameless people
>>>> lost their lives for copying the Bible into English, and the
>>>> unnamed who
>>>> walked beside Martin Luther King, were seduced by some cult
>>>> leader under the
>>>> notion that this is romantic?  I don?t think so. But one thing
>>>> cults do have
>>>> in common ? they are run by a leader who wields absolute power
>>>> over his/her
>>>> members.
>>>> 
>>>> Don, I truly don?t want you to feel that you or William are
>>>> ?under attack?.
>>>> I am simply asking the hard questions that have to be asked, to
>>>> move the
>>>> percussion into dialog.  I have said on more than one occasion
>>>> that I
>>>> respect you as a scholar, a thinker, and a gentleman. William
>>>> needs to
>>>> respond to these hard questions, confront the blocks, and dialog
>>>> with us in
>>>> its true sense, too. We need to be here for each other as we work
>>>> through
>>>> these difficult, uncomfortable places.  And, as  difficult as these
>>>> questions are, if our group can?t work through them in a
>>>> supportive manner,
>>>> keeping true to Bohm ideals and principles, what hope then, is
>>>> there for the
>>>> rest of humankind? And of what value have been the lives of those
>>>> like
>>>> Wycliff and Bohm, whose shoulders we stand upon?
>>>> 
>>>> In conclusion, I ask, what is the next step for Dialog?  In one
>>>> of our
>>>> conversations, Zoe wrote, ?Dialogue shall open doors (windows),
>>>> NOT close
>>>> them --- Zoe.?  Do any of us disagree?  Keeping foremost in mind
>>>> that Zoe is
>>>> not Peter or Kris, I feel we should reinstate her without any more
>>>> discussion/percussion about what is ?acceptable? on her part.
>>>> She has never
>>>> spammed, never used confusing language, and I don?t believe she
>>>> has ever
>>>> flamed.
>>>> If anyone has any evidence that she has exhibited ?unacceptable?
>>>> behavior in
>>>> the past, please post it now.
>>>> Until then, my position is that it was un/?acceptable? to boot
>>>> her ?on
>>>> suspicion?, without warning, without due process, and without
>>>> proceeding
>>>> openly. It is un/?acceptable" to conduct any group that way.  Let
>>>> our group
>>>> ? which used to include her, come together again.  Bring her back
>>>> in without
>>>> further ado, and let us prove naturally and fairly what it is
>>>> that all of us
>>>> expect from, and have to offer, without expecting perfection, and
>>>> by helping
>>>> each other to get better and better.  Then, if she/we indeed be
>>>> found
>>>> wanting, let the decision to remove her come from, and be enacted
>>>> by us all
>>>> - The Bohm Dialog Group, walking in good conscience and right
>>>> relationship
>>>> to each other, and all our relations.  That is what I have to
>>>> say.  Hozhoon,
>>>> K
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:23:14 -0800
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am really getting bored with this whole thing and especially your
>>>>> playing protective mum. No offense intended here, this is just
>>>>> the  way I
>>>>> feel.  If Zoe really thinks she can contribute something
>>>>> valuable to this
>>>>> list, she should write directly to William, since he  is the one
>>>>> who needs
>>>>> convincing, In the meanwhile lets get on with  some more
>>>>> interesting and
>>>>> general considerations,
>>>>> 
>>>>> don
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello again, Don.  I'm going to be more specific in answering your
>>>>>> question this morning.  Last night, I was too tired.  You wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But I understood that following on from a conversation that I had
>>>>>> off-list with Kathy that she invited Zoe to  drop us a line
>>>>>> and  explain
>>>>>> what her intentions and interests in the  Bohm list were,  in
>>>>>> other words
>>>>>> to tell us why she thought it was  unfair of us to  disconnect
>>>>>> her.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The understanding that I conveyed to Zoe was that she was to
>>>>>> address an
>>>>>> email to the Administrator of the list, William, and  explain
>>>>>> why she
>>>>>> wanted to be a member of this group and what she  hoped to get
>>>>>> out of it.
>>>>>> If the administrator found her answer  "acceptable", she would
>>>>>> have to
>>>>>> resubscribe.  There was no mention  of "telling us why she
>>>>>> thought it was
>>>>>> unfair of us to disconnect  her".  And none whatsoever of
>>>>>> sharing any of
>>>>>> this with the list.
>>>>>> I let it rest for a little while, because when emotions are
>>>>>> high,  it's
>>>>>> hard to sort things out.  Then, I asked her why she had
>>>>>> answered that
>>>>>> way.  She asked me to please put myself in her place,  so I
>>>>>> could see what
>>>>>> her feelings and thinkgs might have been, then  we talked about
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> Here is that answer :  William, the person who was and still
>>>>>> is  convinced
>>>>>> she is Peter, had shut her down "on suspicion" of being  Peter,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> without warning.  This same person alone was to decide  whether
>>>>>> or not her
>>>>>> response was "acceptable".  The list not only  has no
>>>>>> guidelines and
>>>>>> procedures to protect itself, it has none to  protect its members.
>>>>>> Furthermore, since the list members not only  didn't even know
>>>>>> she had
>>>>>> been bounced, they would not even know  such a process was in
>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>> From when I sit, this looks like  microcosm in the macrocosm of
>>>>>> world
>>>>>> history.  I don't want to make  anyone angry here, so I'm just
>>>>>> going to
>>>>>> ask you to look into your  own knowledge bank for similar
>>>>>> situations. I
>>>>>> can, indeed, get  specific is asked to do so.
>>>>>> My teachers' union instructed us that if we got into a dispute
>>>>>> with  the
>>>>>> administration (in our case, the administrator), we were to
>>>>>> keep a log of
>>>>>> events, and above all, not to ever do anything  without an
>>>>>> observer
>>>>>> present.  That observer could be our union rep,  or anyone else
>>>>>> we chose.
>>>>>> I offered to play that role, if she  wanted me to.  And so,
>>>>>> here we are.
>>>>>> Zoe would like to come back, but neither she nor I feel the
>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>> offered are acceptable.  There is no procedure in place  for
>>>>>> such an
>>>>>> appeal, and no safeguards for the person appealing.  If  we can
>>>>>> work out
>>>>>> appropriate conditions, it is my understanding that  she would
>>>>>> procede
>>>>>> that way.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have not run this by zoe, I am simply thinking aloud now.  I
>>>>>> know  we
>>>>>> need precise wording as to precisely what it is Zoe needs to
>>>>>> respond to,
>>>>>> and a way for the decision of whether to invite her  back on
>>>>>> the list to
>>>>>> be decided fairly.  Just as I am running this  by you now, I
>>>>>> will run it
>>>>>> by Zoe today.  Shall I post her reply  online as part of my own
>>>>>> post?  May
>>>>>> she see your suggestions?  Is  there a way we can negotiate
>>>>>> proper terms?
>>>>>> This is essential,  because we are setting precedence for
>>>>>> future cases.
>>>>>> (Although, I  certainly hope it's never again necessary.)  I
>>>>>> would welcome
>>>>>> input  from list members as well as you, Don.     k
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:16:45 -0600
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> this suggestion made Zoe very angry
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Don -
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Zoe objected because of the word "acceptable".  She doesn't
>>>>>>> object  to
>>>>>>> the principle of being heard.  But that was clarified after
>>>>>>> you  and I
>>>>>>> spoke.  Then someone posted something like "...would anyone
>>>>>>> stand up for
>>>>>>> her".  And I responded "I would", and the ball was  rolling.
>>>>>>> I can find
>>>>>>> that post, if you like, but it will take me a  while.  I have
>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>> hundred to go through.
>>>>>>> Actually, I believe that Zoe plans to make that statement.  I
>>>>>>> told  her
>>>>>>> you were going on vacation, and she wanted you as well as
>>>>>>> William to be
>>>>>>> part of this.  i believe the procedure is for her to  address it
>>>>>>> specifically to the administrator who is William?    Correct
>>>>>>> me if I'm
>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>> Do you want her to wait until after the wedding?  best, k
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:54:33 -0800
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Susan,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks for this, it saves me having to post pretty much same
>>>>>>>> thing. I
>>>>>>>> am referring here to your first three paragraphs.
>>>>>>>> But was it Peter? Or was it a.a. gasinsytstem who, so far as
>>>>>>>> I  can  see
>>>>>>>> is the same person but this is just for the record. Gas  was
>>>>>>>> peter's
>>>>>>>> second go around. We had to close the list down  after
>>>>>>>> Peter's  first
>>>>>>>> invasion, And that's when we took the  radical step of
>>>>>>>> moderating the
>>>>>>>> list.  Or am I confused?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regarding Zoe, I still have my  doubts as I do about Kirsten
>>>>>>>> being  the
>>>>>>>> same person as Peter. But I understood that following  on from a
>>>>>>>> conversation that I had off-list with Kathy that she  invited
>>>>>>>> Zoe to
>>>>>>>> drop us a line and explain what her intentions  and interests
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> Bohm list were, in other words to tell us  why she thought it
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> unfair of us to disconnect her. I thought  that this would
>>>>>>>> clarify any
>>>>>>>> unclarity. But apparently, this  suggestion made Zoe very
>>>>>>>> angry, and
>>>>>>>> she has not written such a  letter or communicated with
>>>>>>>> either me,
>>>>>>>> William or Franis, so far  as I know.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If what I say here is at all accurate, then I wonder why
>>>>>>>> Kathy  is
>>>>>>>> pushing this. I would have thought that it should be up to
>>>>>>>> Zoe to  make
>>>>>>>> the next move.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> don
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Nov 8, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Gill.  It's nice to meet you.  I understand the current
>>>>>>>>> desire
>>>>>>>>> among many of you to explore the PKZ phenomena.  When I
>>>>>>>>> first  joined
>>>>>>>>> the list the same discussion was going on.  I  jumped right
>>>>>>>>> in, eager
>>>>>>>>> to explore it.  And it was a very  similar one to what you
>>>>>>>>> are all
>>>>>>>>> proposing right now.  Although  at that time Peter was an
>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>> member of the group and he was  included in the
>>>>>>>>> discussion.   In the
>>>>>>>>> beginning I sounded much  like you and some of the others
>>>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring
>>>>>>>>> the   subject
>>>>>>>>> except Peter I began to feel differently.  Peter's
>>>>>>>>> response  was
>>>>>>>>> mostly just to ignore any kind of idea of  exploring an
>>>>>>>>> introspection
>>>>>>>>> into himself, all he was interested  in was goading  the
>>>>>>>>> rest of us.
>>>>>>>>> Rather than use suspension he  would flood us with  brief
>>>>>>>>> posts about
>>>>>>>>> the world being made up  of carrot and stick  mentality and
>>>>>>>>> we should
>>>>>>>>> all recognize that  the only solution was  total chaos.
>>>>>>>>> When he became
>>>>>>>>> determined  to spam the group with  anywhere from 75 to 100
>>>>>>>>> nonsense
>>>>>>>>> messages of 1 or 2 lines each  every day regardless of how
>>>>>>>>> any  of us
>>>>>>>>> felt (and I'm pretty sure it  was because of how we felt)
>>>>>>>>> the decision
>>>>>>>>> (after much agonizing) was  made to ban him.  At  that point
>>>>>>>>> I was
>>>>>>>>> ready for him to be banned.   He mostly just  trolled for
>>>>>>>>> recruits for
>>>>>>>>> his OD site and spammed us  for not  being interested.  He
>>>>>>>>> also seems
>>>>>>>>> to have a fixation with  male  authority figures and chose
>>>>>>>>> Don F. to
>>>>>>>>> flame as a surrogate   authority.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this
>>>>>>>>> list  as  well
>>>>>>>>> as exploring it on a couple of other lists that had
>>>>>>>>> similar  problems
>>>>>>>>> that caused me to come to the conclusions that  I gave to
>>>>>>>>> Kathy in my
>>>>>>>>> post to her. In order for anything to  cohere there  needs
>>>>>>>>> to be at
>>>>>>>>> least a loose and flexible  structure.  Here's a link  to
>>>>>>>>> some of the
>>>>>>>>> thoughts I have had  about the structure and purpose  of
>>>>>>>>> Bohm Dialogue
>>>>>>>>> in one of our  previous discussions:
>>>>>>>>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know
>>>>>>>>> what   happened
>>>>>>>>> with them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned
>>>>>>>>> without any
>>>>>>>>> warning and without any group discussion.  If  that's  true,
>>>>>>>>> then I
>>>>>>>>> would say that I think anyone we suspect of  being a  troll
>>>>>>>>> or of
>>>>>>>>> spamming or who we suspect is Peter,  deserves to at  least
>>>>>>>>> be told of
>>>>>>>>> our feelings and be given a  chance to speak for  themselves.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day
>>>>>>>>> or  how
>>>>>>>>> long they are.  I used to worry about that.  But then I
>>>>>>>>> decided  that
>>>>>>>>> the purpose of dialogue is to dialogue.  You can't  do that
>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> posting.  A healthy dialogue is going to have  lots of
>>>>>>>>> posts.  I've
>>>>>>>>> learned to deal with it by learning to  know which  people are
>>>>>>>>> definitely going to have something to say  that I'm
>>>>>>>>> interested in
>>>>>>>>> responding to and not.  On my busy days  I skip  through the
>>>>>>>>> posts and
>>>>>>>>> read only a few people or if  there's a good  thread going I
>>>>>>>>> will read
>>>>>>>>> only that thread.  And,  yes, sometimes I  miss a lot doing
>>>>>>>>> that but
>>>>>>>>> it's better than the  alternative of not  being a part of
>>>>>>>>> all of this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt"
>>>>>>>>> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood me ...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness,
>>>>>>>>> compassion AND
>>>>>>>>> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I
>>>>>>>>> think it  is
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can find a
>>>>>>>>> response and
>>>>>>>>> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration
>>>>>>>>> here.  I
>>>>>>>>> too have
>>>>>>>>> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75
>>>>>>>>> messages  in
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth
>>>>>>>>> (I  like
>>>>>>>>> that term)
>>>>>>>>> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group near
>>>>>>>>> where I
>>>>>>>>> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this
>>>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>> matters to me.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do
>>>>>>>>> we  need  to
>>>>>>>>> learn
>>>>>>>>> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I
>>>>>>>>> hesitated  about
>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>>> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what
>>>>>>>>> is it  in
>>>>>>>>> us, in
>>>>>>>>> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected
>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>> from PKZ.
>>>>>>>>> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I
>>>>>>>>> want  or
>>>>>>>>> need and
>>>>>>>>> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of other
>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>> Is it
>>>>>>>>> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract
>>>>>>>>> that   response
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> others?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I have
>>>>>>>>> very  much
>>>>>>>>> appreciated reading your emails.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody else
>>>>>>>>> struggle? As
>>>>>>>>> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally
>>>>>>>>> have   sent
>>>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>>>> or so in one day ...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Gill
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> on 7/11/06 21:55, Joachim Faust at
>>>>>>>>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Inspired by by Gill's, Kari's, Lynne's, Pat's and Franis'
>>>>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>>>>> posts:  In Gill's post, there is the dichotomy between
>>>>>>>>>> being able
>>>>>>>>>> to "challenge" and being  "compassionate/aware." It is hard
>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>> both at the same time, and to find the
>>>>>>>>>> balanced "middle way" between the two ( I hope I am not
>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding you, Gill). Pat has talked about
>>>>>>>>>> words whose meaning turns out to be the opposite after deeper
>>>>>>>>>> exploration (the passion/patience/compassion-
>>>>>>>>>> example). And as far as Peter Krauss and the trolls go,
>>>>>>>>>> there  is the
>>>>>>>>>> same issue:  on the one hand, you want to
>>>>>>>>>> protect the dialogue from destructive forces, but  on the
>>>>>>>>>> other  hand,
>>>>>>>>>> you don't want to overprotect and cut off potential
>>>>>>>>>> sources of creative renewal (from both the outside and the
>>>>>>>>>> periphery). Again, the challenge is to find a sustainable
>>>>>>>>>> balance.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I would say, we are not doing too well on this list as far
>>>>>>>>>> as this
>>>>>>>>>> balance is concerned. Case in point: it is fascinating to me
>>>>>>>>>> how much power Peter Krauss actually has on this list,
>>>>>>>>>> even  now, when
>>>>>>>>>> at least
>>>>>>>>>> apparently, all his incarnations are banned.  Most
>>>>>>>>>> recently, in a
>>>>>>>>>> truly Hamletian fashion, we even managed to  channel  the
>>>>>>>>>> ghost of
>>>>>>>>>> his father,
>>>>>>>>>> the ostensible SS officer :)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I can't help it, but I think  there is something important
>>>>>>>>>> "Peter"
>>>>>>>>>> and "Kirsten" have to tell us, but we are not listening.
>>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to think about what this could be,
>>>>>>>>>> without  (or
>>>>>>>>>> before) letting them back in?
>>>>>>>>>> My intuition is that once we understand and consider their
>>>>>>>>>> message on
>>>>>>>>>> a deep level, they will go away. Or they will simply
>>>>>>>>>> do "their act" in an orderly manner, just like Gary and
>>>>>>>>>> Pine in
>>>>>>>>>> Franis' marvelous story about her hometown Bolinas.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On a more abstract level, could these problems be caused by a
>>>>>>>>>> propensity toward dualistic (or dichotomous)  thinking/
>>>>>>>>>> feeling,
>>>>>>>>>> that is, an "either/or-thinking": either "in" or "out," either
>>>>>>>>>> "core," or "periphery," either "active" or "passive,"
>>>>>>>>>> etc.,  without
>>>>>>>>>> being open to look for the liberating middle way.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I would like to reiterate Kari's observation/question:
>>>>>>>>>> "People who aren't open tend to stop the flow on some
>>>>>>>>>> level. Is  that
>>>>>>>>>> the case here?"
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Joachim
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 08.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-
>>>>>>>>>> bohm.org  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I do so appreciate lines of inquiry like this. Flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>> open,  and
>>>>>>>>>>> obviously sincere. The question for me is what is the
>>>>>>>>>>> intention of
>>>>>>>>>>> this listserv? Everyone is asked to agree to certain
>>>>>>>>>>> terms. If we
>>>>>>>>>>> want to stay true to the intention (inquiry in the spirit
>>>>>>>>>>> of  David
>>>>>>>>>>> Bohm or something I believe it is) of the list, then we
>>>>>>>>>>> should  have
>>>>>>>>>>> no problem ousting those who aren't on board with that. It is
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing personal; it's just terms of use. If we believe
>>>>>>>>>>> in  creating
>>>>>>>>>>> a container and a core possibly, then maybe we should work
>>>>>>>>>>> on  that
>>>>>>>>>>> before challenging ourselves by letting the more chaotic
>>>>>>>>>>> ones in.
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who has experienced in person dialogue knows the
>>>>>>>>>>> value of
>>>>>>>>>>> having people present and participating who are sensitive,
>>>>>>>>>>> supportive, and open to questioning (their own, but is
>>>>>>>>>>> there any
>>>>>>>>>>> difference really) assumptions and opinions. People who
>>>>>>>>>>> aren't  open
>>>>>>>>>>> tend to stop the flow on some level. Another question
>>>>>>>>>>> might be is
>>>>>>>>>>> that the case here as well?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Great post Lynne!
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> kari
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rodger,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Back on line after a busy weekend!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Yes I can see what you mean, what you said here kind of
>>>>>>>>>> warmed  me or
>>>>>>>>>> enheartened me! I guess I have found some of the language
>>>>>>>>>> orientated
>>>>>>>>>> discussions a bit cold, hard, mechanical ... And I am
>>>>>>>>>> drawn  more to
>>>>>>>>>> what I call heart-balanced being. Its about caring and being
>>>>>>>>>> compassionate and also aware and being willing to
>>>>>>>>>> challenge. And
>>>>>>>>>> finding a response and action that is not embedded within
>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>> cultural assumptions. I find so often the response or
>>>>>>>>>> action  taken to
>>>>>>>>>> a situation maintains the same culture.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway its something to aim for ...
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Um ... I can see core and periphery within an individual I
>>>>>>>>>> think as
>>>>>>>>>> you suggest.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> For me just responding doesn?t mean you become part of the
>>>>>>>>>> core I
>>>>>>>>>> think it is something to do with how you are received and
>>>>>>>>>> whether you
>>>>>>>>>> are responded to and what the response is.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Gill
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> on 4/11/06 14:29, Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com at
>>>>>>>>>> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Rodger __hi Gill, I firmly believe that if you see-sense
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> missing in a group process it is because no one else sees
>>>>>>>>>> it as
>>>>>>>>>> clearly as you do -- therefore you are the missing link._R
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Joachim Faust
>>>>>>>>>> joachimfaust@earthlink.net
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> Get today's hot entertainment gossip  http://movies.msn.com/ 
>>>>>>> movies/
>>>>>>> hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
>>>>>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-
>>>>>> us&source=hmtagline
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>> 
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
>>>> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>> 
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>> 
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>> 
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> 
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> 
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 

From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 14 12:16:52 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Wed Nov 15 13:25:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <007701c70737$69721b70$2278480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C17F5624.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>

Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that you are
quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.

I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and people's
responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its just the
way you interpret what I wrote ...

Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and at other
times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The authority I
sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what Pat said in
one of her recent mails ...

> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group and
> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have little
> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."

My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are saying 'you
have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do. What I have
been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem. Could we
just talk together as two people'.

Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I have been
trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...

I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters to you.
I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging and not
afraid of emotions.

Gill


on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:

> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone, including me)
> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?  Personally I think
> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other.  I try to look
> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
> responsibility to find that and learn from it.  I see that as enabling and
> empowering, not diminishing.
> 
> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take.  But, it's been my
> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite often
> different from the intentions of the sender.  And it does take inquiry to
> sort that out sometimes.  I'm glad you want to do that.  I suppose the
> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us have equal
> authority on this list.   To my way of thinking no one is more or less of an
> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or experience.  As Don
> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something brand new, a
> frontier.
> 
> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as though there's
> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though there is
> something wrong with it.  Again, I think the idea that all of us are
> authorities as being empowering.  It puts all of us on an equal status here
> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each other to my
> way of thinking.
> 
> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we are all equal
> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
> suppose.  If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to say.  My
> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group equally.
> 
> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit you in
> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being defensive.  Perhaps
> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being someone who
> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of lack and
> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being defensive?  Of
> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into a defensive
> position.  But I don't think any of the posts since I have rejoined the
> group would fall into that category yet.
> 
> I'm also someone who values emotional expression.  ALL emotions, not just
> some of them.  So that could be something you sense in my posts also.  I try
> to express myself openly and spontaneously.  I don't think it's caring,
> warm, or kind to repress our emotions.  At the same time I'm aware that
> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch for that, to
> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them against
> someone.
> 
> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft" posts.  I
> seldom feel the need for that these days.  I'm not sure why that is, and I
> do think about that sometimes.  Maybe it's because I feel there are enough
> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a little balance
> in the area of soft/firm?
> 
> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on reading your
> post.
> 
> Susan
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> 
> 
>> Hi Susan,
>> 
>> I have been with family and friends over the weekend so this is the first
>> chance I've had to respond ...
>> 
>> Yes I agree we have made 'a connection'. I guess connections can have very
>> many different qualities. They can be gentle, caring, warm, authorative,
>> cold, hard, arrogant and dismissive. And of course an infinitive number of
>> other qualities.
>> 
>> I'm glad your intention has not been to teach me about dialogue ... Its
>> rather paradoxical really ... Because I am very open to learning about
>> myself and dialogue, this is what my life is about ... Yet I will speak up
>> and check out peoples intentions when I feel diminished in some way, or
>> feel
>> restricted and made smaller than I am. Of course my sensitivity in these
>> areas show you all something of my history, the way that I have been
>> treated.
>> 
>> But please don't interpret this as me misperceiving situations ... It
>> could
>> be, and I'll work hard to recognise these situations ... And it could be
>> that I am recognising qualities that other people are sometimes not open
>> to
>> seeing. Will others work as hard?
>> 
>> And no I do not feel better after telling you a little about my
>> background.
>> I'll feel better when I feel you are not making assumptions about me. Each
>> time you have replied to me I have felt that you gave yourself some type
>> of
>> authority which I haven't understood. I felt it again in this email of
>> yours
>> when you say you found my email defensive.
>> 
>> Its kinda interesting ... Each time you have replied to me I've wondered
>> about whether you are being defensive. Until this moment I had decided to
>> 'suspend' using that word.
>> 
>> Gill
>> 
>> 
>> on 10/11/06 17:09, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Gill.  Well, as far as I can tell I haven't made any assumptions about
>>> you yet at all.  I can see where my posts may have sounded as though I
>>> was
>>> trying to teach you something, but that really wasn't my intention at
>>> all.
>>> I have simply been posting my own thoughts and ideas with the intention
>>> of
>>> making them available to the list as a whole.
>>> 
>>> It does seem that I have misinterpreted what you where trying to say
>>> about
>>> making a connection.  But isn't that how dialogue works?  Someone says
>>> something, another responds, the first person gives feedback, etc.  To my
>>> way of thinking we have connected by the very act of being on this list
>>> and
>>> responding to each other.  We are connecting now in our attempts to
>>> communicate our feelings, understandings and responses to each other.  It
>>> seems that somehow that connection doesn't feel satisfactory to you so
>>> far.
>>> I hope posting your credentials about dialogue has resolved some of the
>>> dissatisfaction for you.  Now I know you a little better and you can rest
>>> assured that I'm not trying to teach you something about dialogue.
>>> 
>>> I have to say Gill, your response does sound somewhat defensive to me.
>>> Please rest assured that I do not have the credentials to try to be any
>>> kind
>>> of an authority on Bohm or Dialogue.  In fact, Don F. is fond of
>>> reminding
>>> me that I haven't even done any extensive reading of Bohm and my only
>>> experience of Dialogue is on this list.  I've never even done Dialogue
>>> face
>>> to face.  And, although I have been on this list from some time, I don't
>>> think I am considered to be one of the "old timers" on the list who
>>> actually
>>> knew Bohm and went to his seminars.
>>> 
>>> I hope that clears up any of your assumptions about my assumptions.
>>> 
>>> Susan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:40 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Hi Susan,
>>>> 
>>>> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are trying to
>>>> teach
>>>> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this from both
>>>> of
>>>> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making an
>>>> assumption
>>>> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was gorgeous, and
>>>> maybe
>>>> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody agrees
>>>> with
>>>> me
>>>> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was meaning
>>>> it
>>>> in
>>>> my message.
>>>> 
>>>> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David Bohm is
>>>> saying
>>>> in
>>>> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would never mean
>>>> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the meeting of two
>>>> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are doing this in
>>>> this
>>>> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are making about
>>>> me.
>>>> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I guess I am
>>>> telling
>>>> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions were. It feels
>>>> as
>>>> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to this list
>>>> that
>>>> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have written a
>>>> Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops introducing
>>>> the
>>>> concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many years in how some
>>>> groups get to dialogue and how the shift in consciousness at a group
>>>> level
>>>> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have been the
>>>> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know about
>>>> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that kept on
>>>> occurring
>>>> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
>>>> 
>>>> Gill
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name).  Yes, it can be very
>>>>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on an intimate
>>>>> level.  However, since being in Dialogue I have come to cherish a
>>>>> different
>>>>> kind of connection that seems to be just as intimate if not more so.
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I look for now.
>>>>> I
>>>>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation that comes
>>>>> from
>>>>> exploring our differences.  So I'll defer to DB's words to describe it:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one person
>>>>> says
>>>>> something, the other person does not in general respond with exactly
>>>>> the
>>>>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings are
>>>>> only
>>>>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies, the
>>>>> first
>>>>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and what the
>>>>> other
>>>>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may then be able
>>>>> to
>>>>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and to those
>>>>> of
>>>>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the continual
>>>>> emergence of a new content that is common to both participants. Thus,
>>>>> in
>>>>> a
>>>>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas or
>>>>> items
>>>>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may be said
>>>>> that
>>>>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something
>>>>> new
>>>>> together."
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together" that I
>>>>> look
>>>>> for now through the exploration of our differences.  I no longer look
>>>>> for
>>>>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to see what we
>>>>> can
>>>>> create out of the hubris of our differences.  And when we manage to do
>>>>> that
>>>>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the common ground
>>>>> we
>>>>> share.  I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he talks about
>>>>> a
>>>>> "difference that makes a difference".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Susan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 

From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 14 12:21:06 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 15 13:26:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly, cont
Message-ID: <BAY22-F25FF7B8A2E557657049E2BA5EB0@phx.gbl>

F: Wouldn't you like to be flexible enough to bring about the effect for the 
reader you might intend?

K:  Yes, for me, Franis.  It seems to me that if we want to communicate with 
someone, we have to use words and a style that they can hear. That doesn't 
turn them deaf.   Maybe there's a time and a place for "no makeup" in 
regards to ourselves - like hoping to connect with someone whom you can 
touch souls with, be totally vulnerable with, and they with you.  I've been 
there, and it's so precious.  Then there's the ones whom you might even 
repulse or frighten, or push to places they aren't ready to go with one's 
writing style.  And there are degrees in between.
Remember my first post to you?  I was so afraid you'd think I was "talking 
down"?  And you said absolutely not?
I have had experiences where my companion just couldn't help being 
teacherly, and it made me feel as though she thought I was stupid.  But I 
have never felt that with anyone on this board.   k

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from 
Microsoft Office Live 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 14 12:17:50 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Wed Nov 15 13:32:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <ed6f2a2c0611120119t23e083bdy76f19f5a205c1d10@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>

Hi David,

I appreciate you drawing our attention to the power and freedom within
?paradox?. I love what you are saying  ...

And I sense there is so much ?truth? in your words ... But it brings me to
my learning edge. How does one live in this world? What shift is required in
order to live authentically within this paradoxical universe? What do I say
and how do I behave when ?Everything is connected by the same force that
sets them apart??

Gill


on 12/11/06 09:19, David da Costa at davidmillions@gmail.com wrote:

> "God is perfect" - God as the primary subject. The pseudo paradoxical energy
> that engages all perspectives. An ambiguously perfect existence. Every single
> detail is god itself.
> 
> "All and Nothing infer" - The concepts are the same. Good is Evil, High is
> Low, Everything is Nothing. If faced through a perfect logic. The ultimate
> understanding and epitomal insight, were all the forces of existence subdue by
> a pure thought that logically and simultaneously connects them all.
> 
> "In paradox there is no conflict. It is magic" - Everything is connected by
> the same force that sets them appart. This is the logic that enables all
> others. The divine symbiose between the substance that crosses our beings.
> 
> Those were emotional quotes. At times averse to literal meaning.
> 
> I wonder if Arthur C. Clarke would think that technology is more impressive
> than biology? 
> 
> I was lured here by the holographic vision, after knowing it would be
> impossible to meet Bohm. Even if I already did.
> 
> Love and hapinness for you all.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/ea8058cd/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Tue Nov 14 13:22:16 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 15 14:27:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question for Dr Hiley
Message-ID: <003b01c707e7$8d6e3bc0$bd19153f@DL01>

Here are some very interesting Ray Mondor questions for Hiley regarding the Bohm interpretation.

Thus, for purposes of consciousness research in general and for the
question of whether the human being possess a free will in particular,
it doesn't matter that the Bohm Interpretation 'restores determinism' by
attributing to each particle a definite position in between
measurements. What does matter for consciousness research is whether the
Bohm Interpretation 'repairs' or restores the validity of the above
argument based on the clockwork universe theory. 

Does the Bohm Interpretation hold that it is possible, in principle, to
acquire enough information about the state of the entire universe at
time t to predict the state of the entire universe at any subsequent
time? -- Ray Mondor

My sense is that Bohm's appeal to the substantial inadequacy of language, to Korzybski and to the Greek _logos_ say no to determinism because the very language with which the question of determinism is put is "faulty", is "insubstantial" and inadequate.

Any thoughts?  Don L



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph Polanik" <jPolanik@nc.rr.com>
To: <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: [jcs-online] Question for Dr. Hiley


> Ray Mondor wrote:
> 
> > Through a fortunate and fortuitous connection I am able to forward Dr.
> Basil Hiley's reply to some of Dr. Stapp's remarks.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > Sent: 07 November 2006 14:00
> > Subject: Reply to Henry Stapp's Comments on QM and consciousness
> 
> >To me the questions of whether the Bohm approach is 'deterministic',
> >whether it is 'causal', whether it is 'mechanical' of not are secondary
> >issues. We can debate these but not here.
> 
> Hiley's publications may be found here:
> http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/RecentPublications.html
> 
> In Non-Commutative Geometry, the Bohm Interpretation and the Mind-Matter
> Relationship, he says "However at the level of the wave function we
> restore determinism, continuity and locality in space-time ..."
> 
> Is Hiley talking about restoring determinism to particles or to people
> or both?
> 
> If you have further contact with Dr. Hiley, I suggest you ask him
> specifically whether the Bohm Interpretation of QM requires the observer
> to have a free will; prohibits the observer from having a free will; or,
> permits (without requiring) the observer to have a free will.
> 
> Or, even better, invite him to join the present disucssion here on this
> list. (All he has to do is subscribe by sending a blank email to
> jcs-online-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com).
> 
> ===================
> 
> [Mondor]:
> 
>   Finally, I don't claim that Bohm's theory supports my "contention that
>   humans lack a free will". It just demonstrates that QM does not
>   disprove determinism.
> 
> You may have misunderstood my argument. I'll try to restate it without
> referring to the Bohm Interpretation so that Dr. Hiley may, if he
> choses, address that point.
> 
> My argument is that:
> 
>   Those arguments for determinism (as to human beings) which were based
>   on the determinism of particles within classical physics have been
>   invalidated by the von Neuman Interpretation and other, orthodox,
>   interpretations of QM.
> 
> Those arguments are based on two assumptions of the clockwork universe
> theory/metaphor:
> 
>   if one had sufficient information about the state of the universe (eg
>   the position and momentum of each particle) at time t; then, one could
>   predict the state of the universe at any subsequent time.
> 
>   it is possible, in principle, to have sufficient information to make
>   such a prediction.
> 
>   therefore, humans lack free will
> 
> The strategy of such arguments is clearly described by Gary Zukav in The
> Dancing Wu Li Masters:
> 
>   According to the old physics, ... it is possible, in principle, to
>   predict *exactly* how a given event is going to unfold if we have
>   enought information about it. ... However, ... if the laws of nature
>   determine the future of an event, then, given enough information, we
>   could have predicted our present at some time in the past. That time
>   in the past also could have been predicted at a time still earlier. In
>   short, if we are to accept the mechanistic determination of Newtonian
>   physics --- if the universe really is a great machine --- then from
>   the moment that the universe was created and set into motion,
>   everththing that was to happen in it already was determined. [p.25-6]
> 
> Thus, for purposes of consciousness research in general and for the
> question of whether the human being possess a free will in particular,
> it doesn't matter that the Bohm Interpretation 'restores determinism' by
> attributing to each particle a definite position in between
> measurements. What does matter for consciousness research is whether the
> Bohm Interpretation 'repairs' or restores the validity of the above
> argument based on the clockwork universe theory.
> 
> Does the Bohm Interpretation hold that it is possible, in principle, to
> acquire enough information about the state of the entire universe at
> time t to predict the state of the entire universe at any subsequent
> time?
> 
> This is the question to which I'd like to hear Dr. Hiley's response;
> because, unless the Bohm Interpretation supports the class of argument
> specified above, it would remain correct to say that QM generally (not
> just orthodox QM) invalidates that class of argument.
> 
> Of course, philosophers would remain free to construct other arguments
> to prove that humans lacked a free will; but, that's a different issue.
> 
> Joe Polanik
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/b8c66ab1/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 14 13:24:42 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 15 14:29:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] List
In-Reply-To: <964473B3-933C-433A-ACB9-5C17D53C24D8@david-bohm.net>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F156ABC0E796BBEFB3E7B89A5EB0@phx.gbl>

Wow!  BTW - no problem with post length.  If I haven't cut down enough, just 
let me know.  Hotmail doesn't seem to have an mgb or kbg or whatever 
indicator.  k


>From: facilitator <facilitator@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] List
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:03:31 -0800
>
>If I ignore the fact that there are a few of us who have more than  one 
>e-mail address and that there are a few people who have "no mail"  checked 
>which means that they don't want to receive any posts, we  have hit the 
>hundred mark today. Actually, there are probably about  94 or 95 of us. But 
>100 sounds pretty landmarkish.
>
>facilitator
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip  
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001

From donlay at gte.net  Tue Nov 14 13:35:19 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 15 14:40:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <004c01c707e9$5d29e6b0$bd19153f@DL01>

Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second postHow does one live in this world? What shift is required in order to live authentically within this paradoxical universe? What do I say and how do I behave when 'Everything is connected by the same force that sets them apart'? -- Gill

Is the universe actually paradoxical -- or is it unknown just what it actually is?   Maybe when we see that para and doxa indicate beside and opinion, we see that the infinite universe is not subject to those opinions expressed in finite language.  

One of the hardest things to accept, it seems, is that language is faulty, that it often "tells us" what is untrue while not inferring that it is "just telling us what actually is".  Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and should be applied to language.  

Thoughts?  --  Don L

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gill Wyatt 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post


  Hi David,

  I appreciate you drawing our attention to the power and freedom within 'paradox'. I love what you are saying  ...

  And I sense there is so much 'truth' in your words ... But it brings me to my learning edge. How does one live in this world? What shift is required in order to live authentically within this paradoxical universe? What do I say and how do I behave when 'Everything is connected by the same force that sets them apart'?

  Gill


  on 12/11/06 09:19, David da Costa at davidmillions@gmail.com wrote:


    "God is perfect" - God as the primary subject. The pseudo paradoxical energy that engages all perspectives. An ambiguously perfect existence. Every single detail is god itself.

    "All and Nothing infer" - The concepts are the same. Good is Evil, High is Low, Everything is Nothing. If faced through a perfect logic. The ultimate understanding and epitomal insight, were all the forces of existence subdue by a pure thought that logically and simultaneously connects them all. 

    "In paradox there is no conflict. It is magic" - Everything is connected by the same force that sets them appart. This is the logic that enables all others. The divine symbiose between the substance that crosses our beings. 

    Those were emotional quotes. At times averse to literal meaning.

    I wonder if Arthur C. Clarke would think that technology is more impressive than biology? 

    I was lured here by the holographic vision, after knowing it would be impossible to meet Bohm. Even if I already did. 

    Love and hapinness for you all.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    _______________________________________________
    info:
    www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

    post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

    dialogue facilitator:
    facilitator@david-bohm.net

    Administrator of the mailing list:
    admin@david-bohm.net

    _______________________________________________







------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/40134223/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Tue Nov 14 13:36:46 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 15 14:42:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position
References: <412.d8fbd97.328adebb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <006001c707e9$8ef3b860$bd19153f@DL01>

Maybe some of that is also what truth is about? -- Mark

Seems to me this line of inquiry bears fruit. -- dbl
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MarkHarmer@aol.com 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position


  One of my colleagues gave me a "gift" - a drawing of a tree-trunk with roots under the ground. I think the tree image is powerful - for him, it meant stillness, for me, nourishment and deep connection with the influences in my life. Maybe some of that is also what truth is about?
    truth is what you trust in, and something is true, if you believe in  
    it strongly enough.
    You believe that  you can rely on your truth, like you can rely on  
    the branch of an oak tree to hold you.
    Or:  your trust in the truth is as solid and unbreakable as the wood of
    an oak tree. Sounds like a Germanic phantasy straight from the  
    primordial oak forest :)



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/852a7b23/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Tue Nov 14 13:39:40 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 15 14:44:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <C17F43D6.3A58%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <006701c707e9$f6bacc40$bd19153f@DL01>

Some time ago the suggestion was advanced that those on this list are 
neurotics, in which case: NEUROTICS ANONYMOUS.

I can live with that. -- dbl


http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way


> Lovely Pat.
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 13/11/06 18:53, ae.dropper@juno.com at ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> This reminds me of a phenomenon that can happen in dialogue circles. Long
>> story short,
>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group and
>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have little
>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>
>> Sending, not "drafting," fully aware of probable? irrelevance.
>>
>> Incidentally, still enjoying the interesting "self moderating"
>> concept of - which was it? -  "spontaneous delay"
>> or "delayed spontaneity?" Both seem useful.
>>
>> pat
>>
>>
>> Hi Francis,
>>
>> I appreciate what you say here ... I guess my intention is to focus more
>> on
>> unearthing the assumptions I am making and when I am wanting to focus on
>> something with another person I work hard at taking responsibility for my
>> own feelings and thoughts and check out the intentions and parts others
>> may
>> be playing. I try to walk my talk although I guess I often fail but I
>> never
>> want to ask somebody to go somewhere where I haven't already been myself.
>>
>> I guess a 'teacherly' style doesn't do it for me ... But I liked your
>> honesty and what felt like to me openness.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> on 10/11/06 21:06, Franis Engel at franis_franis@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, Susan and myself both have the "teacherly" tone of writing.
>>> It's something that has crept into my writing, and I don't necessarily
>>> intend what I'm writing to come across that way. It seems this tone is
>>> what happens when you begin to articulate assumptions - or at least,
>>> that's when it has happened. Often some people feel insulted that
>> you're
>>> going back to square one with them, as if they do not know what is
>>> obvious.
>>> Franis
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> 


From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 14 14:53:40 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 15 15:58:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <20061113.192922.2144.45.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2BC0F491DBDEA9F3F9040A5EB0@phx.gbl>


Do you have reason to think that Kirsten used tech skill to send that e-mail 
from zoe's address?

K: No, Pat.  I am concerned about my own privacy and safety.  I have pulled 
up my own posts to at least one group I used to belong to.  And among other 
concerns, suppose I belonged to a group that was exploring same sex 
relationships, and really wanted to keep that private.  Or other "taboos".  
Or things I perceived as taboo.  I know of a case where one person in that 
situation found out her husband had joined the same group under an assumed 
identity because he suspected something of the sort.  He lurked until he had 
what he considered "proof".  Domestic violence ensued.

In the fights for power in the days when we had elections for community 
school board representatives, candidates would post opponents' personal 
information as part of a particularly vicious smear campaign.

I'd simply like to know the truth about what are and aren't essential safety 
precautions on the net.  Until then, unless I trust people like I trust this 
group, I will use aliases, and be very careful about the personal 
information I put out there.

I won't go into all the precautions we in NYC have been advised to take, 
especially if we live alone.  I don't want to make the post too long.  But 
particularly seniors here are constantly warned, and given information on 
how to protect ourselves from being stalked, mugged and scammed.  So one 
thing I do is not use my real name, or give out personal information of any 
sort, including setting up patterns of behavior from which a potential thief 
or mugger or rapist could plot to attack me, until I'm pretty sure of who 
I'm dealing with.

Then, too, some of my oldest friends were members of Young Lords, Black 
Panthers, and the Puerto Rican Independentisa Party.  Their stories aren't 
too different from the McCarthy era tactics, which I also lived through.

I am a senior citizen living in a violent world.  I have to take every 
precaution.     k


>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:37:45 -0500
>
>PTW, it opens with an explanation of how one person can send
>emails from anothers' address.  (k)
>
>Do you have reason to think that Kirsten used tech skill
>to send that e-mail from zoe's address?
>
>pat
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates 
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx

From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 14 15:00:17 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Nov 15 16:05:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
In-Reply-To: <4558E6F1.000001.04268@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F15FFD3B16C9EAA8B6F2B91A5EB0@phx.gbl>

Thanks.  I'm in.


>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:43:14 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>Go to the info page at
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>click on "Bohm_dialogue archives"
>Type your email address (griffyn23@hotmail.com)
>Type the password (see monthly reminder)
>click button "let me in ..."
>
>Admin
>
>-------Original Message-------
>
>From: Morgan Jett
>Date: 13.11.2006 22:16:16
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Zoe, Zoe, Zoe
>
>OK, but just in case both or either of you missed my plea for help on the
>archives site, what do I do?  When I type in my address as requested, I get
>the message that it is an illegal address, therefore, I can go no further.
>Did somebody forget to tell the computer I changed my address?  Thanks, k
>


>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

From ae.dropper at juno.com  Tue Nov 14 17:24:46 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Nov 15 18:38:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question for Dr Hiley
Message-ID: <20061114.113059.2144.51.ae.dropper@juno.com>

My sense is that Bohm's appeal to the substantial inadequacy of language,
to Korzybski and to the Greek _logos_ say no to determinism because the
very language with which the question of determinism is put is "faulty",
is "insubstantial" and inadequate.

Any thoughts?  Don L

Thoughts? Yes. Not based on a claim to knowledge 
about specific "determinism" debates, but based only 
on your statement above. The argument above would
seem very much like a bohmian argument.

pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/03240579/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com  Tue Nov 14 17:57:06 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Nov 15 19:03:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
Message-ID: <20061114.115711.2144.53.ae.dropper@juno.com>

How does one live in this world? What shift is required in order to live
authentically within this paradoxical universe? What do I say and how do
I behave when ?Everything is connected by the same force that sets them
apart?? -- Gill

Is the universe actually paradoxical -- or is it unknown just what it
actually is?   Maybe when we see that para and doxa indicate beside and
opinion, we see that the infinite universe is not subject to those
opinions expressed in finite language.  

One of the hardest things to accept, it seems, is that language is
faulty, that it often "tells us" what is untrue while not inferring that
it is "just telling us what actually is".  Seems to me what Bohm says of
thought in 

TAS can and should be applied to language.  

Thoughts?  --  Don L

~~

Cancel the above "NOT?"       

The "paradox" thing is the limit of careful, honest, logical inquiry
regarding a thought. Paradox is about thought, opinion. It is
opinion's end, its logical conclusion. It is the function of
thought is all its beauty and fullness. It is the BEST that thought 
has to give us. When going with a paradox, the next 'step' is not linear.

It cannot be. Paradox is an opening. The actual linear progression of 
'inquiry to paradox' is progression to an "Opening." Paradox literally 
means "Beyond thought." And this speaks to the question of "How do I
behave?" One does not know [behavior] an instant in advance because
behavior
now is not "based on thought" (not that behavior does not make use of
thought 
but this is qualitatively different from its being based on thought).
Behavior is [known to be] based on 'everything', based on 'what is'.

pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/175249cc/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 18:56:37 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:01:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <C17F5624.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <007201c70816$3bdd2580$b178480c@HOME>

Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.

Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I don't think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone else "get my point" or with the expectations that they would take anyone anywhere in particular. I simply wrote them to the group as a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk about what I felt was important. It's my understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is that people have difficulty talking about what's important to them. And that seems to be what's happening with us. You seem to have something that's important to you that you want to talk about and you wrote a post about that. I responded to your post with what I felt was important to me.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps the expectations that some people would respond to you in a particular way that had meaning for you. But when I responded with what was important to me, I didn't respond in the way you were hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your posts to me are about. The idea that what's important to me doesn't seem to meet up with what's important to you. 

Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and people's responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its just the way you interpret what I wrote ...

Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly wasn't clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what you meant. I did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning but I don't remember you saying anything close to the last part of this sentence. And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each other several times this morning to see if I missed something or could see something new. I still don't see you saying that. As far as I'm concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote. And you don't seem to think that's a satisfying answer. I think it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. And no, I don't think giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People very often don't seem to be able to accept that the way they have interpreted someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you see something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.

Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and at other times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The authority I sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the way I did. 

Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we are all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is no one in a higher or lower position. We are all our own authorities and we each have to take responsibility for ourselves and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that I don't take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone). 

Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...

> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group and
> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have little
> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."

Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought was: There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this statement that I don't even want to respond to it. But since there have been more than one post supporting it and it's come up in this conversation I'll respond. It seems to me that you can't get more fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the way they are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're against going to war with them or trying to change them and since they don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards) we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out of it. That'll show them! 

I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the fact that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even preacherly. I've learned that it comes from growing up in a family of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I do think it's important to have other ways to communicate and I do strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also know that at this point in time it's not something I can completely eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not even sure I want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have this style.   It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a problem when we remain within that culture.  It only becomes a problem when we try to communicate with a different culture.  And I find that I have just as many problems with your style of communicating as you seem to have with mine.  That's one of the reasons I'm so willing to continue this conversation.

Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.

Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and you want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to you.  My response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for your feelings or your interpretations.  What I am willing to do is to talk to you about this as much as you want and to tell you what I'm thinking and feeling as openly and honestly as possible.  


Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.

Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want Gill?

Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters to you.  I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging and not afraid of emotions.

Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way


> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that you are
> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
> 
> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and people's
> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its just the
> way you interpret what I wrote ...
> 
> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and at other
> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The authority I
> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what Pat said in
> one of her recent mails ...
> 
>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group and
>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have little
>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
> 
> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are saying 'you
> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do. What I have
> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem. Could we
> just talk together as two people'.
> 
> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I have been
> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
> 
> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters to you.
> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging and not
> afraid of emotions.
> 
> Gill
> 
> 
> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> 
>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone, including me)
>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?  Personally I think
>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other.  I try to look
>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>> responsibility to find that and learn from it.  I see that as enabling and
>> empowering, not diminishing.
>> 
>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take.  But, it's been my
>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite often
>> different from the intentions of the sender.  And it does take inquiry to
>> sort that out sometimes.  I'm glad you want to do that.  I suppose the
>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us have equal
>> authority on this list.   To my way of thinking no one is more or less of an
>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or experience.  As Don
>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something brand new, a
>> frontier.
>> 
>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as though there's
>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though there is
>> something wrong with it.  Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>> authorities as being empowering.  It puts all of us on an equal status here
>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each other to my
>> way of thinking.
>> 
>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we are all equal
>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>> suppose.  If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to say.  My
>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group equally.
>> 
>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit you in
>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being defensive.  Perhaps
>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being someone who
>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of lack and
>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being defensive?  Of
>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into a defensive
>> position.  But I don't think any of the posts since I have rejoined the
>> group would fall into that category yet.
>> 
>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression.  ALL emotions, not just
>> some of them.  So that could be something you sense in my posts also.  I try
>> to express myself openly and spontaneously.  I don't think it's caring,
>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions.  At the same time I'm aware that
>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch for that, to
>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them against
>> someone.
>> 
>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft" posts.  I
>> seldom feel the need for that these days.  I'm not sure why that is, and I
>> do think about that sometimes.  Maybe it's because I feel there are enough
>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a little balance
>> in the area of soft/firm?
>> 
>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on reading your
>> post.
>> 
>> Susan
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/0ea0c258/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 19:00:58 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:05:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position
References: <20061114110004.1C69124950@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
	<0C152F0B-3FEF-42F4-8262-FCD3059E5997@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <008101c70816$d783f2c0$b178480c@HOME>

I think if you read the conversation that is happening between Gill and I 
you will have what your are looking for.  Only the conversation is perhaps 
between to "alpha" females rather than males.

Susan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joachim Faust" <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:56 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position


> Since etymology is popular on this list: "truth" is related to  "trust" 
> and
> also to "tree." (Indoeuropean *deru- tree, oak). If I had to
> reconstruct the underlying web of meaning, then it would be something 
> like:
> truth is what you trust in, and something is true, if you believe in  it 
> strongly enough.
> You believe that  you can rely on your truth, like you can rely on  the 
> branch of an oak tree to hold you.
> Or:  your trust in the truth is as solid and unbreakable as the wood of
> an oak tree. Sounds like a Germanic phantasy straight from the  primordial 
> oak forest :)
>
> The theme "can we live with two different truths" (particularly if  they 
> are represented by two
> competing alpha-males) reminded me of something that came up on this  list 
> a few months ago.
> Someone (I think it was Don F.) proposed to conduct a thought  experiment, 
> which in essence
> was to "put oneself into the two positions that constitute a given 
> conflict." If I remember correctly this
> was in connection with the Lebanese war in the summer, but it did not 
> meet with much interest, perhaps,
> because the two positions were too abstract, and there was nobody on  the 
> list who actually represented
> any of them in real life.
>
> However, I do think it could be a good idea, if you did this  experiment 
> with a conflict such as the one that we have
> at hand here ( the Don/William vs. Zoe-conflict). Each of the two 
> "partners" in conflict would have
> to suspend their truth temporarily, and assume the truth of the  other. 
> Then, moving back into their previous
> positions, they both observe and notice if anything has changed. Most 
> importantly, notice if and how
> a third position- a metaposition-  slowly but surely emerges.
>
> Didn't you do NLP, Susan?  In essence, this is an NLP-process, which  I 
> think could be modified to be applied
> to dialogue. Just a thought...
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
> On 14.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
>> But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)?  Isn't this a  really 
>> good example of what happens in the world at large?  I don't  see this as 
>> a narrow focus at all.  If we can find ways to solve  this here in this 
>> one small way, then there are ways to broaden it  and use it in larger 
>> scopes.
>>
>> Susan
>

From dfactor at dc.rr.com  Tue Nov 14 19:18:41 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:23:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
In-Reply-To: <20061114.000853.1408.3.franis_franis@juno.com>
References: <20061114.000853.1408.3.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <712AC3B9-53E4-4F9A-9D65-A65C4DDF45F8@dc.rr.com>

I think it might be difficult in writing but if you want to see how  
to do it in talking
have a listen to Bohm talking about his ideas. He was totally  
unteacherly in his
style, but hell, I learned a lot.

don
On Nov 13, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Franis Engel wrote:

> What if the way you want to come across in the way you mean to
> communicate isn't "teacherly"? Wouldn't you like to be flexible  
> enough to
> bring about the effect for the reader you might intend? I know that  
> there
> are times when I do not want to be regarded as teacherly, for  
> instance -
> so I'd like to know how to subtract that effect from my writing  
> style. -
> Franis
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:55:15 -0700 "Susan Clemons"
> <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> Well, I've stopped worrying about it Franis.  I've learned that
>> sometimes
>> people appreciate my posts and sometimes they don't.  And I've never
>> been
>> able to predict when or who that will happen with.  If I sound
>> teacherly...so be it.  If people don't like teacherly...so be it.
>> It's much
>> more important to me to write what I need to write in the moment
>> than it is
>> to worry about who is or is not going to like/appreciate my post.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:30 PM
>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
>>
>>
>>> I'm wondering why the culture thinks of me or Susan as teacherly;
>> or why
>>> I have learned to somehow use the language in that way to give
>> people the
>>> idea I'm teacherly. I mean, I do have some Alexander Technique
>> students
>>> sometimes - but that's more a process of coaching self-observation
>> rather
>>> than a process of me telling the other person information as most
>>> teachers do.
>>>
>>> It is in the assumptions where all the meat of meaning is for me.
>> So
>>> going over what the assumptions are can make me sound as if I'm
>> insulting
>>> someone's ability to see the obvious...but I'm sort of making a
>> list to
>>> see if we can spot an assumption that we could change. Other
>> people don't
>>> get my intent, so I've learned to spell it out before I do it.
>> Then the
>>> others can play too. Othewise if people do not know what is going
>> on,
>>> they tend to assign some negative motive to what I'm doing - which
>> is how
>>> I regard the "teacherly-ness." It's not that it's negative, but
>> it's a
>>> role to describe some sort of authority thing that is going on.
>>>
>>> I know I have a tendency to say things to see how they sound after
>> they
>>> come out of my mouth. I try out making a statement about something
>> to see
>>> how the rest of me reacts. This is part of what makes me sometimes
>> sound
>>> so full of it that my eyes are brown, because I'll make a
>> statement as if
>>> I know what I'm talking about when I know absolutely nothing.
>>>
>>> I seem to want to offer the benefit of my observations - but
>> really, it's
>>> mostly that I want to tell what I have observed so far because I
>> want to
>>> "trade notes" on certain topics. I have these many topics of
>> ongoing
>>> investigation that are extremely open-ended; so when someone
>> mentions
>>> something about them, my ears prick up. I guess trotting out what
>> I know
>>> about something so far isn't the way to evoke the responses I
>> want; but
>>> by doing that I have so often catapulted the conversation onto a
>> much
>>> deeper level. So I keep doing it - at the risk of sounding as if
>> I'm an
>>> authority - and I try to do damage control when I see mismatches.
>>>
>>> I hate being tagged as an authority when all I'm doing is putting
>>> whatever I have observed so far into words. On the other hand, I
>> hate not
>>> being in a position where what I have to offer is not valued. I
>> spend
>>> much of my time establishing rapport - and to be in rapport means
>> you
>>> don't get the respect in this culture, which is a shame.
>>>
>>> I really love and respect those people who could be described as
>>> unappreciated pearls, because they reject all presentation skills
>> and
>>> just go for content. But in this day and age, if you want to be in
>> the
>>> position of offering what you know, you almost have to work on how
>> you're
>>> presenting it, otherwise it goes completely unnoticed.
>>>
>>> Franis
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:31:52 +0000 Gill Wyatt
>> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>> writes:
>>>> Hi Francis,
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate what you say here ... I guess my intention is to
>> focus
>>>> more on
>>>> unearthing the assumptions I am making and when I am wanting to
>>>> focus on
>>>> something with another person I work hard at taking
>> responsibility
>>>> for my
>>>> own feelings and thoughts and check out the intentions and parts
>>>> others may
>>>> be playing. I try to walk my talk although I guess I often fail
>> but
>>>> I never
>>>> want to ask somebody to go somewhere where I haven't already been
>>>> myself.
>>>>
>>>> I guess a 'teacherly' style doesn't do it for me ... But I liked
>>>> your
>>>> honesty and what felt like to me openness.
>>>>
>>>> Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 10/11/06 21:06, Franis Engel at franis_franis@juno.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Susan and myself both have the "teacherly" tone of
>> writing.
>>>>> It's something that has crept into my writing, and I don't
>>>> necessarily
>>>>> intend what I'm writing to come across that way. It seems this
>>>> tone is
>>>>> what happens when you begin to articulate assumptions - or at
>>>> least,
>>>>> that's when it has happened. Often some people feel insulted
>> that
>>>> you're
>>>>> going back to square one with them, as if they do not know what
>> is
>>>>> obvious.
>>>>> Franis
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:40:27 +0000 Gill Wyatt
>>>> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>>> writes:
>>>>>> Hi Susan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I may be wrong about this but it feels to me as if you are
>> trying
>>>> to
>>>>>> teach
>>>>>> me something that you think I might not know. I've felt this
>> from
>>>>>> both of
>>>>>> your emails to me. If I am right I think you might be making
>> an
>>>>>> assumption
>>>>>> about what I meant by 'connection' when I said it was
>> gorgeous,
>>>> and
>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>> about me generally. I was certainly not meaning when somebody
>>>> agrees
>>>>>> with me
>>>>>> ... Occasionally that can be gorgeous but not in the way I was
>>>>>> meaning it in
>>>>>> my message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was in fact meaning something very similar to what David
>> Bohm
>>>> is
>>>>>> saying in
>>>>>> his quote that you include in your message. Connect would
>> never
>>>> mean
>>>>>> agreement to me. It is rather what is created through the
>> meeting
>>>> of
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> people via the connection they make. I don't think we are
>> doing
>>>> this
>>>>>> in this
>>>>>> conversation yet .... Because of the assumptions you are
>> making
>>>>>> about me.
>>>>>> And then again maybe I am making assumptions about you. I
>> guess I
>>>> am
>>>>>> telling
>>>>>> you how I felt and checking with you what your intentions
>> were.
>>>> It
>>>>>> feels as
>>>>>> if you might be assuming that because I am relatively new to
>> this
>>>>>> list that
>>>>>> I know relatively little about dialogue and David Bohm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not an expert but I have read several of his books, have
>>>> written
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> Masters dissertation in part on dialogue and run workshops
>>>>>> introducing the
>>>>>> concept of dialogue. I have been fascinated for many years in
>> how
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> groups get to dialogue and how the shift in consciousness at a
>>>> group
>>>>>> level
>>>>>> and at the level of the individual is phenomenal. Often I have
>>>> been
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> facilitator of these groups and at the beginning I didn't know
>>>> about
>>>>>> dialogue. It was in trying to understand this process that
>> kept
>>>> on
>>>>>> occurring
>>>>>> that took me to David Bohm's writing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> on 10/11/06 15:06, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Gill (sorry about misspelling your name).  Yes, it can be
>>>> very
>>>>>>> intoxicating when we feel we have connected with someone on
>> an
>>>>>> intimate
>>>>>>> level.  However, since being in Dialogue I have come to
>> cherish
>>>> a
>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> kind of connection that seems to be just as intimate if not
>> more
>>>>>> so.  I'm
>>>>>>> struggling to find the words for the kind of connection I
>> look
>>>> for
>>>>>> now.  I
>>>>>>> guess at this point in time I think of it as the stimulation
>>>> that
>>>>>> comes from
>>>>>>> exploring our differences.  So I'll defer to DB's words to
>>>>>> describe it:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when
>> one
>>>>>> person says
>>>>>>> something, the other person does not in general respond with
>>>>>> exactly the
>>>>>>> same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the
>>>>>> meanings are only
>>>>>>> similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person
>> replies,
>>>>>> the first
>>>>>>> person sees a difference between what he meant to say and
>> what
>>>> the
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> person understood. On considering this difference, he may
>> then
>>>> be
>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>> see something new, which is relevant both to his own views
>> and
>>>> to
>>>>>> those of
>>>>>>> the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the
>>>>>> continual
>>>>>>> emergence of a new content that is common to both
>> participants.
>>>>>> Thus, in a
>>>>>>> dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain
>>>>>> ideas or items
>>>>>>> of information that are already known to him. ~Rather, it may
>> be
>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>> the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating
>>>>>> something new
>>>>>>> together."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's these intimate acts of "creating something new together"
>>>> that
>>>>>> I look
>>>>>>> for now through the exploration of our differences.  I no
>> longer
>>>>>> look for
>>>>>>> what I have in common with someone to begin with, I look to
>> see
>>>>>> what we can
>>>>>>> create out of the hubris of our differences.  And when we
>> manage
>>>>>> to do that
>>>>>>> I find it far more intoxicating than simply finding the
>> common
>>>>>> ground we
>>>>>>> share.  I think this is what Don F. is referring to when he
>>>> talks
>>>>>> about a
>>>>>>> "difference that makes a difference".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:27 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle
>> way
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Susan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok I understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think sometimes I look, perhaps unrealistically for more
>> of
>>>> an
>>>>>> explicit
>>>>>>>> connection between what I have said and the person who
>> responds
>>>>>> to me. It
>>>>>>>> just feels so gorgeous when it happens.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the way my name is Gill, short for Gillian ... Not the
>> male
>>>>>> American
>>>>>>>> Gil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And yes I do agree that good discussions get triggered by
>>>>>> difficulties
>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>> and in the wider world. Well sometimes in the wider world,
>> if
>>>>>> that is not
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> being pessimistic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on 9/11/06 21:27, Susan Clemons at
>> Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Gil.  Actually you were very clear about what you
>> wanted.
>>>>>> And my
>>>>>>>>> response was about what I was feeling and thinking.  I put
>> the
>>>>>> link in to
>>>>>>>>> the past discussion we had on the purpose of dialogue to
>>>> respond
>>>>>> to you
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> the rest of the post was about me.  I personally don't
>> think
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>> about PKZ is necessarily about PKZ.  I think it's about us.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do we deal with trolls, spamming, and the like in our
>>>> daily
>>>>>> lives?
>>>>>>>>> Do
>>>>>>>>> we ever respond to a legitimate interaction from someone as
>>>>>> though they
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> a troll or spamming or in some other way simply because
>> that
>>>> is
>>>>>> what's
>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>> on?  I would say right now trolling and spamming and
>> flaming
>>>> are
>>>>>> a pretty
>>>>>>>>> ordinary occurrence.  The current political climate here in
>>>>>> Arizona was
>>>>>>>>> pretty much of a flame war.  Television, the mail, and most
>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> telephone
>>>>>>>>> calls I get are trolling and spamming.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't our culture basically embrace this type of behavior
>> as
>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>>>> acceptable?  Isn't this a part of the incoherence in our
>> daily
>>>>>> lives?
>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>> how has this affected the way we communicate with each
>> other
>>>> and
>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>>> to be open and honest with each other?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you see, I wasn't really ignoring what you were
>> addressing.
>>>>>> For me,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> best way to talk about it is within the story that is
>>>> happening.
>>>>>>  Getting
>>>>>>>>> clear about the microcosm can help to see the macrocosm to
>> my
>>>>>> way of
>>>>>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I'll tell you something that I noticed when I was going
>>>>>> through the
>>>>>>>>> archives today.  The PKZ phenomenom seemed to stimulate a
>> lot
>>>> of
>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> the time and there were some really rousing and interesting
>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>> that seemed to come out of it.  The same thing happened
>> here
>>>> in
>>>>>> Arizona
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> the political flame wars.  Although I really got tired of
>>>>>> hearing the
>>>>>>>>> politicians beating each other up, people seemed to wake up
>>>> and
>>>>>> get a
>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>> more interested in the issues and to be stimulated to vote.
>>>> It
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> certainly much better than the mediocre lackluster
>> campaigns
>>>> of
>>>>>> the past.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do we bring this kind of phenomena on when things are
>> getting
>>>> a
>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>> stagnant perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:22 PM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle
>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Susan,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Um ... Its interesting its only when I have a response that
>> I
>>>>>> realise
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be to get what
>> I
>>>> am
>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>>> across.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm very able to pick and choose which messages I read and
>> am
>>>>>> happy to
>>>>>>>>> delete. I mentioned in my email deleting 50-75 emails a day
>>>> from
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>> I find some of the one liner don't add anything to what I
>>>> think
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> dialogue
>>>>>>>>> and sometimes I wonder why they are not sent to the one
>> person
>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>>>> addressed to. So I guess I feel differently from you, the
>>>> number
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>> per day does not indicate for me anything about the quality
>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> dialogue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The other point re 'PK and probably more accurate to say
>> maybe
>>>>>> Z' ... in
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> way what I intended to communicate was to take the focus
>> away
>>>>>> from PK(Z)
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> have it back on us ... What are we not paying attention to?
>>>> ...
>>>>>> What am I
>>>>>>>>> not paying attention to? Am I really understanding the
>> message
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> messages that I do read ... And do my responses make a
>>>>>> connection with
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> people in a way that transcends the more usual cultural
>>>>>> assumptions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was more of what I was meaning to talk about ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on 9/11/06 00:11, Susan Clemons at
>> Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Gill.  It's nice to meet you.  I understand the current
>>>>>> desire among
>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>> of you to explore the PKZ phenomena.  When I first joined
>> the
>>>>>> list the
>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>> discussion was going on.  I jumped right in, eager to
>> explore
>>>>>> it.  And
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> was a very similar one to what you are all proposing right
>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>> Although
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> that time Peter was an active member of the group and he
>> was
>>>>>> included in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> discussion.  In the beginning I sounded much like you and
>>>> some
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But as time went by and I realized everyone was exploring
>> the
>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>> except
>>>>>>>>>> Peter I began to feel differently.  Peter's response was
>>>> mostly
>>>>>> just to
>>>>>>>>>> ignore any kind of idea of exploring an introspection into
>>>>>> himself, all
>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>> was interested in was goading the rest of us.  Rather than
>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> suspension
>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>> would flood us with brief posts about the world being made
>> up
>>>>>> of carrot
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> stick mentality and we should all recognize that the only
>>>>>> solution was
>>>>>>>>>> total
>>>>>>>>>> chaos.  When he became determined to spam the group with
>>>>>> anywhere from
>>>>>>>>>> 75
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> 100 nonsense messages of 1 or 2 lines each every day
>>>> regardless
>>>>>> of how
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> of us felt (and I'm pretty sure it was because of how we
>>>> felt)
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> decision
>>>>>>>>>> (after much agonizing) was made to ban him.  At that point
>> I
>>>>>> was ready
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> him to be banned.  He mostly just trolled for recruits for
>>>> his
>>>>>> OD site
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> spammed us for not being interested.  He also seems to
>> have a
>>>>>> fixation
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> male authority figures and chose Don F. to flame as a
>>>> surrogate
>>>>>>>>>> authority.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was this very phenomena and exploring it here on this
>> list
>>>>>> as well as
>>>>>>>>>> exploring it on a couple of other lists that had similar
>>>>>> problems that
>>>>>>>>>> caused me to come to the conclusions that I gave to Kathy
>> in
>>>> my
>>>>>> post to
>>>>>>>>>> her.
>>>>>>>>>> In order for anything to cohere there needs to be at least
>> a
>>>>>> loose and
>>>>>>>>>> flexible structure.  Here's a link to some of the thoughts
>> I
>>>>>> have had
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> the structure and purpose of Bohm Dialogue in one of our
>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>> discussions:
>>>>>>>>>> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/purpose.htm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to K and Z, as I told Kathy, I don't know
>> what
>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> them but it sounds like Zoe feels she was banned without
>> any
>>>>>> warning and
>>>>>>>>>> without any group discussion.  If that's true, then I
>> would
>>>> say
>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>> anyone we suspect of being a troll or of spamming or who
>> we
>>>>>> suspect is
>>>>>>>>>> Peter, deserves to at least be told of our feelings and be
>>>>>> given a
>>>>>>>>>> chance
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> speak for themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And, no, I don't worry about how many posts I make per day
>> or
>>>>>> how long
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> are.  I used to worry about that.  But then I decided that
>>>> the
>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> dialogue is to dialogue.  You can't do that without
>> posting.
>>>> A
>>>>>> healthy
>>>>>>>>>> dialogue is going to have lots of posts.  I've learned to
>>>> deal
>>>>>> with it
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> learning to know which people are definitely going to have
>>>>>> something to
>>>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>> that I'm interested in responding to and not.  On my busy
>>>> days
>>>>>> I skip
>>>>>>>>>> through the posts and read only a few people or if there's
>> a
>>>>>> good thread
>>>>>>>>>> going I will read only that thread.  And, yes, sometimes I
>>>> miss
>>>>>> a lot
>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>> that but it's better than the alternative of not being a
>> part
>>>>>> of all of
>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:36 AM
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the
>> middle
>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joachim, Kari and all others involved in this theme!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I appreciated you checking re whether you had understood
>> me
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I intended in my post was to highlight awareness,
>>>>>> compassion AND
>>>>>>>>>> challenge. I perhaps didn't emphasise the AND enough. I
>> think
>>>>>> it is only
>>>>>>>>>> within this paradoxical place of dualities that we can
>> find a
>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> the action that transcends our cultural assumptions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I love that we have broadened and deepened our exploration
>>>>>> here. I too
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> wondered about leaving after I had deleted another 50-75
>>>>>> messages in one
>>>>>>>>>> day! Yet the possibility of reaching out or calling forth
>> (I
>>>>>> like that
>>>>>>>>>> term)
>>>>>>>>>> dialogue here excites me. There isn't a dialogue group
>> near
>>>>>> where I
>>>>>>>>>> currently live in Devon, UK that I am aware of so this
>>>>>> possibility here
>>>>>>>>>> matters to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I so agree with those of you who have highlighted what do
>> we
>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>> learn
>>>>>>>>>> from the PKZ manifestation. What is it in us ... I
>> hesitated
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>>>> 'us', is there an 'us' ... Um, I guess there is ...so what
>> is
>>>>>> it in us,
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> me that calls forth this type of chaotic or disconnected
>>>>>> response from
>>>>>>>>>> PKZ.
>>>>>>>>>> I know sometimes I can only pay attention to me, to what I
>>>> want
>>>>>> or need
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> I sometimes loose my connection and thus my caring of
>> other
>>>>>> people. Is
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> that until I can minimise this within me I will attract
>> that
>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> others?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And hi Susan, I'm new since you were here before and I
>> have
>>>>>> very much
>>>>>>>>>> appreciated reading your emails.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do wish sometimes there weren't so many ... Does anybody
>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>> struggle?
>>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>>> a result I know I feel rather bad when I very occasionally
>>>> have
>>>>>> sent
>>>>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>>>>> or so in one day ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>

From dfactor at dc.rr.com  Tue Nov 14 19:32:28 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:37:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
References: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <FE8347C0-97E1-4AC7-A43C-EE06ED7006A7@dc.rr.com>


On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:17 AM, Gill Wyatt wrote:

> What do I say and how do I behave when ?Everything is connected by  
> the same force that sets them apart??

My first flush of response to this is to say, Just lie back, giggle  
and give in. And in a sense, on reflection, its got to be something  
like that. Maybe alertness or awareness is what its about - or  
attention. This sort of approach might feel risky since we - most of  
us haven't got very good yet in trusting the process - but it seems  
like its the only approach that might work, assuming that we want to  
test the proposal that everyting is connected by the same force that  
sets them apart.

Anyway, them's my sentiments at the moment. Even if while writing the  
above, I had a sudden moment of dejavue, which I am now pondering.

don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/78b008d5/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Tue Nov 14 19:37:58 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:39:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D06CE@msw2k.msw.local>

A professor of mine gave me a similar gift through words.  We were
sitting on his porch in rocking chairs and he began to talk about the
roots of the flowers in his yard and thinking about the strength that is
hidden that we don't think about--sort of like looking at a person's
outside without taking care to look at the "nourishment and deep
connection" .  Thanks for the reminder of the gift. D

________________________________

From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
MarkHarmer@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:56 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position


One of my colleagues gave me a "gift" - a drawing of a tree-trunk with
roots under the ground. I think the tree image is powerful - for him, it
meant stillness, for me, nourishment and deep connection with the
influences in my life. Maybe some of that is also what truth is about?

	truth is what you trust in, and something is true, if you
believe in  
	it strongly enough.
	You believe that  you can rely on your truth, like you can rely
on  
	the branch of an oak tree to hold you.
	Or:  your trust in the truth is as solid and unbreakable as the
wood of
	an oak tree. Sounds like a Germanic phantasy straight from the  
	primordial oak forest :)

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/e5299559/attachment.html
From dirk at mu6.com  Tue Nov 14 19:37:32 2006
From: dirk at mu6.com (Dirk Laureyssens)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:42:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <20061114.115711.2144.53.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061114.115711.2144.53.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <E25C7417-6D13-4989-9BFC-18C7C900C7AD@mu6.com>


On 14 Nov 2006, at 17:57, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:

> How does one live in this world? What shift is required in order to  
> live authentically within this paradoxical universe? What do I say  
> and how do I behave when ?Everything is connected by the same force  
> that sets them apart?? -- Gill
Dirk:  We can design models which are pure causal and can explain the  
interconnectivity. However for that we have to drop the Quantum  
approach. Isn't Quantum poor? Statistics can never represent  
reality.  Quantum is the confirmation that knowledge is not ready to  
grasp the real (implicate) system, are Quantum is "believing" in  
magic! ;-).
>
> Is the universe actually paradoxical -- or is it unknown just what  
> it actually is?   Maybe when we see that para and doxa indicate  
> beside and opinion, we see that the infinite universe is not  
> subject to those opinions expressed in finite language.
Dirk: indeed unknown for most.
My personal logic view: <http://www.mu6.com/holon_creation.html>.  
That is to me the implicate background. Since all comes from a single  
system, everything is a sub-set of the original system, and logically  
all sub-sets are connected.
>
> One of the hardest things to accept, it seems, is that language is  
> faulty, that it often "tells us" what is untrue while not inferring  
> that it is "just telling us what actually is".  Seems to me what  
> Bohm says of thought in
Dirk: Indeed language can be interpreted in some many ways. Therefor  
I prefer images.
>
> TAS can and should be applied to language.
>
> Thoughts?  --  Don L
>
> ~~
>
> Cancel the above "NOT?"
>
> The "paradox" thing is the limit of careful, honest, logical inquiry
> regarding a thought. Paradox is about thought, opinion. It is
> opinion's end, its logical conclusion. It is the function of
> thought is all its beauty and fullness. It is the BEST that thought
> has to give us. When going with a paradox, the next 'step' is not  
> linear.
> It cannot be. Paradox is an opening. The actual linear progression of
> 'inquiry to paradox' is progression to an "Opening." Paradox literally
> means "Beyond thought." And this speaks to the question of "How do I
> behave?" One does not know [behavior] an instant in advance because  
> behavior
> now is not "based on thought" (not that behavior does not make use  
> of thought
> but this is qualitatively different from its being based on thought).
> Behavior is [known to be] based on 'everything', based on 'what is'.
>
> pat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/ba2fe7b6/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com  Tue Nov 14 19:39:08 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:44:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Question for Dr Hiley
In-Reply-To: <003b01c707e7$8d6e3bc0$bd19153f@DL01>
References: <003b01c707e7$8d6e3bc0$bd19153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <891F825D-EF3B-43D8-851A-ADD5430AFF72@dc.rr.com>

I would say that in Bohm's approach, which he said restores causality  
to our descriptions of the world - the standard interpretation is  
acausal - is to some extent  deterministic. But it is a weak sort of  
determinism and is probably not computable or effects are not  easily  
predictable, except, perhaps, by a quantum computer. I can't recall  
where I read them but Bohm and later Hiley have commented on the  
subject of determinism re: their ontological interpretation. They  
say, it is not deterministic.

don

On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:22 AM, Don Lay wrote:

> Here are some very interesting Ray Mondor questions for Hiley  
> regarding the Bohm interpretation.
>
> Thus, for purposes of consciousness research in general and for the
> question of whether the human being possess a free will in particular,
> it doesn't matter that the Bohm Interpretation 'restores  
> determinism' by
> attributing to each particle a definite position in between
> measurements. What does matter for consciousness research is  
> whether the
> Bohm Interpretation 'repairs' or restores the validity of the above
> argument based on the clockwork universe theory.
>
> Does the Bohm Interpretation hold that it is possible, in  
> principle, to
> acquire enough information about the state of the entire universe at
> time t to predict the state of the entire universe at any subsequent
> time? -- Ray Mondor
>
> My sense is that Bohm's appeal to the substantial inadequacy of  
> language, to Korzybski and to the Greek _logos_ say no to  
> determinism because the very language with which the question of  
> determinism is put is "faulty", is "insubstantial" and inadequate.
>
> Any thoughts?  Don L
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Polanik" <jPolanik@nc.rr.com>
> To: <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 11:12 AM
> Subject: [jcs-online] Question for Dr. Hiley
>
> > Ray Mondor wrote:
> >
> > > Through a fortunate and fortuitous connection I am able to  
> forward Dr.
> > Basil Hiley's reply to some of Dr. Stapp's remarks.
> >
> >  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ----------
> >
> > > Sent: 07 November 2006 14:00
> > > Subject: Reply to Henry Stapp's Comments on QM and consciousness
> >
> > >To me the questions of whether the Bohm approach is  
> 'deterministic',
> > >whether it is 'causal', whether it is 'mechanical' of not are  
> secondary
> > >issues. We can debate these but not here.
> >
> > Hiley's publications may be found here:
> > http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/RecentPublications.html
> >
> > In Non-Commutative Geometry, the Bohm Interpretation and the Mind- 
> Matter
> > Relationship, he says "However at the level of the wave function we
> > restore determinism, continuity and locality in space-time ..."
> >
> > Is Hiley talking about restoring determinism to particles or to  
> people
> > or both?
> >
> > If you have further contact with Dr. Hiley, I suggest you ask him
> > specifically whether the Bohm Interpretation of QM requires the  
> observer
> > to have a free will; prohibits the observer from having a free  
> will; or,
> > permits (without requiring) the observer to have a free will.
> >
> > Or, even better, invite him to join the present disucssion here  
> on this
> > list. (All he has to do is subscribe by sending a blank email to
> > jcs-online-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com).
> >
> > ===================
> >
> > [Mondor]:
> >
> >   Finally, I don't claim that Bohm's theory supports my  
> "contention that
> >   humans lack a free will". It just demonstrates that QM does not
> >   disprove determinism.
> >
> > You may have misunderstood my argument. I'll try to restate it  
> without
> > referring to the Bohm Interpretation so that Dr. Hiley may, if he
> > choses, address that point.
> >
> > My argument is that:
> >
> >   Those arguments for determinism (as to human beings) which were  
> based
> >   on the determinism of particles within classical physics have been
> >   invalidated by the von Neuman Interpretation and other, orthodox,
> >   interpretations of QM.
> >
> > Those arguments are based on two assumptions of the clockwork  
> universe
> > theory/metaphor:
> >
> >   if one had sufficient information about the state of the  
> universe (eg
> >   the position and momentum of each particle) at time t; then,  
> one could
> >   predict the state of the universe at any subsequent time.
> >
> >   it is possible, in principle, to have sufficient information to  
> make
> >   such a prediction.
> >
> >   therefore, humans lack free will
> >
> > The strategy of such arguments is clearly described by Gary Zukav  
> in The
> > Dancing Wu Li Masters:
> >
> >   According to the old physics, ... it is possible, in principle, to
> >   predict *exactly* how a given event is going to unfold if we have
> >   enought information about it. ... However, ... if the laws of  
> nature
> >   determine the future of an event, then, given enough  
> information, we
> >   could have predicted our present at some time in the past. That  
> time
> >   in the past also could have been predicted at a time still  
> earlier. In
> >   short, if we are to accept the mechanistic determination of  
> Newtonian
> >   physics --- if the universe really is a great machine --- then  
> from
> >   the moment that the universe was created and set into motion,
> >   everththing that was to happen in it already was determined. [p. 
> 25-6]
> >
> > Thus, for purposes of consciousness research in general and for the
> > question of whether the human being possess a free will in  
> particular,
> > it doesn't matter that the Bohm Interpretation 'restores  
> determinism' by
> > attributing to each particle a definite position in between
> > measurements. What does matter for consciousness research is  
> whether the
> > Bohm Interpretation 'repairs' or restores the validity of the above
> > argument based on the clockwork universe theory.
> >
> > Does the Bohm Interpretation hold that it is possible, in  
> principle, to
> > acquire enough information about the state of the entire universe at
> > time t to predict the state of the entire universe at any subsequent
> > time?
> >
> > This is the question to which I'd like to hear Dr. Hiley's response;
> > because, unless the Bohm Interpretation supports the class of  
> argument
> > specified above, it would remain correct to say that QM generally  
> (not
> > just orthodox QM) invalidates that class of argument.
> >
> > Of course, philosophers would remain free to construct other  
> arguments
> > to prove that humans lacked a free will; but, that's a different  
> issue.
> >
> > Joe Polanik
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/6a9f173c/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Tue Nov 14 19:42:49 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:44:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D06CF@msw2k.msw.local>

and something is true, if you believe in  it 
> strongly enough??????

People believed strongly that blacks (African American) were inferior.
People believe strongly that homosexuality is a sin.  People believe
that women in China should have their feet bound.  People believe
strongly in circumcision of females.  People believe strongly that women
shouldn't show their faces or be educated or show anything other than
their face. 

-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Susan Clemons
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:01 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position

I think if you read the conversation that is happening between Gill and
I you will have what your are looking for.  Only the conversation is
perhaps between to "alpha" females rather than males.

Susan


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joachim Faust" <joachimfaust@earthlink.net>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:56 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] truth and taking second position


> Since etymology is popular on this list: "truth" is related to
"trust" 
> and
> also to "tree." (Indoeuropean *deru- tree, oak). If I had to
> reconstruct the underlying web of meaning, then it would be something 
> like:
> truth is what you trust in, and something is true, if you believe in
it 
> strongly enough.
> You believe that  you can rely on your truth, like you can rely on
the 
> branch of an oak tree to hold you.
> Or:  your trust in the truth is as solid and unbreakable as the wood
of
> an oak tree. Sounds like a Germanic phantasy straight from the
primordial 
> oak forest :)
>
> The theme "can we live with two different truths" (particularly if
they 
> are represented by two
> competing alpha-males) reminded me of something that came up on this
list 
> a few months ago.
> Someone (I think it was Don F.) proposed to conduct a thought
experiment, 
> which in essence
> was to "put oneself into the two positions that constitute a given 
> conflict." If I remember correctly this
> was in connection with the Lebanese war in the summer, but it did not 
> meet with much interest, perhaps,
> because the two positions were too abstract, and there was nobody on
the 
> list who actually represented
> any of them in real life.
>
> However, I do think it could be a good idea, if you did this
experiment 
> with a conflict such as the one that we have
> at hand here ( the Don/William vs. Zoe-conflict). Each of the two 
> "partners" in conflict would have
> to suspend their truth temporarily, and assume the truth of the
other. 
> Then, moving back into their previous
> positions, they both observe and notice if anything has changed. Most 
> importantly, notice if and how
> a third position- a metaposition-  slowly but surely emerges.
>
> Didn't you do NLP, Susan?  In essence, this is an NLP-process, which
I 
> think could be modified to be applied
> to dialogue. Just a thought...
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
> On 14.11.2006, at 05:00, bohm_dialogue-request@david-bohm.org wrote:
>
>> But isn't that what this is about (the PKZ thing)?  Isn't this a
really 
>> good example of what happens in the world at large?  I don't  see
this as 
>> a narrow focus at all.  If we can find ways to solve  this here in
this 
>> one small way, then there are ways to broaden it  and use it in
larger 
>> scopes.
>>
>> Susan
>

_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________


From dfactor at dc.rr.com  Tue Nov 14 19:43:00 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:48:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <004c01c707e9$5d29e6b0$bd19153f@DL01>
References: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
	<004c01c707e9$5d29e6b0$bd19153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <ACF7C177-40C5-4280-B65B-E427311A9A0A@dc.rr.com>


On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Don Lay wrote:

>  Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and should be  
> applied to language.

This is a topic that I think calls for a lot more inquiry. I would  
say that TAS in the sense that
you use it here applies primarily to language. But are there forms of  
thought that don't depend
on words or combinations of words? Is there such a thing as  
nonconceptual thought? I think
so, but I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words.

don

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/93732bce/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 19:44:43 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:49:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
	<FE8347C0-97E1-4AC7-A43C-EE06ED7006A7@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00b601c7081c$f3f848b0$b178480c@HOME>

I would say that this is only a problem if you think that being a-part (separate) is a problem.  To me, it's a beautiful form of harmony because both being a-part (separate) and being connected are both beautiful states of being that create harmony.

Susan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: donald factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post




  On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:17 AM, Gill Wyatt wrote:


    What do I say and how do I behave when ?Everything is connected by the same force that sets them apart??


  My first flush of response to this is to say, Just lie back, giggle and give in. And in a sense, on reflection, its got to be something like that. Maybe alertness or awareness is what its about - or attention. This sort of approach might feel risky since we - most of us haven't got very good yet in trusting the process - but it seems like its the only approach that might work, assuming that we want to test the proposal that everyting is connected by the same force that sets them apart.


  Anyway, them's my sentiments at the moment. Even if while writing the above, I had a sudden moment of dejavue, which I am now pondering.


  don


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/2f3ae6f9/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 19:47:24 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 20:52:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk><004c01c707e9$5d29e6b0$bd19153f@DL01>
	<ACF7C177-40C5-4280-B65B-E427311A9A0A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00c501c7081d$53990700$b178480c@HOME>

I would say that the words are not the concept, they are only the symbols we use to represent the concept.  This, for me,  goes back to that old idea of going to a restaurant and mistaking the menu for the food and trying to eat the menu.  

Susan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: donald factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post




  On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Don Lay wrote:


     Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and should be applied to language.  



  This is a topic that I think calls for a lot more inquiry. I would say that TAS in the sense that
  you use it here applies primarily to language. But are there forms of thought that don't depend
  on words or combinations of words? Is there such a thing as nonconceptual thought? I think
  so, but I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words.


  don




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/fdbfbcb4/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com  Tue Nov 14 20:04:52 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 15 21:09:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <007201c70816$3bdd2580$b178480c@HOME>
References: <C17F5624.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
	<007201c70816$3bdd2580$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <39C6B575-F8F0-43C9-9004-5761BE4B0230@dc.rr.com>

It seems to me that this sort of misunderstanding - that is, taking  
posts personally when that wasn't what was intended - has not been  
unusual. So maybe what we are doing here is having an impersonal  
conversation with everybody. And although to me this seems quite  
natural to me it may be that's because I've been doing it for a long  
time, or maybe it is more unusual than I thought. Actually, this also  
might refer to the "teacherly" thing. If I want to get a bit  
teacherly I can make clear that, like Bohm used to do, it is just a  
proposal for further inquiry, or something like that. What do you  
think? Anybody?

don

On Nov 14, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:

> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel  
> that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel  
> something similar.
>
> Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my  
> point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I  
> don't think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone  
> else "get my point" or with the expectations that they would take  
> anyone anywhere in particular. I simply wrote them to the group as  
> a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk about what I felt  
> was important. It's my understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is  
> that people have difficulty talking about what's important to them.  
> And that seems to be what's happening with us. You seem to have  
> something that's important to you that you want to talk about and  
> you wrote a post about that. I responded to your post with what I  
> felt was important to me.
>
> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first  
> post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps  
> the expectations that some people would respond to you in a  
> particular way that had meaning for you. But when I responded with  
> what was important to me, I didn't respond in the way you were  
> hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your  
> posts to me are about. The idea that what's important to me doesn't  
> seem to meet up with what's important to you.
>
> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own  
> explorations and people's responses to me and how easy it is to  
> just pass it back as ... Its just the way you interpret what I  
> wrote ...
>
> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly  
> wasn't clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what  
> you meant. I did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning  
> but I don't remember you saying anything close to the last part of  
> this sentence. And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each  
> other several times this morning to see if I missed something or  
> could see something new. I still don't see you saying that. As far  
> as I'm concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote.  
> And you don't seem to think that's a satisfying answer. I think  
> it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. And no, I don't think  
> giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People very often don't  
> seem to be able to accept that the way they have interpreted  
> someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you see  
> something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look  
> at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just  
> don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
>
> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish  
> others and at other times authority can be more facilitative of  
> self and others The authority I sensed in your email did not feel  
> like that of 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the  
> way I did.
>
> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be  
> used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we  
> are all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is  
> no one in a higher or lower position. We are all our own  
> authorities and we each have to take responsibility for ourselves  
> and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that I don't  
> take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my  
> posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my  
> feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
>
> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...
>
>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the  
>> group and
>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have  
>> little
>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit  
>> there
>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years  
>> back,
>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>
> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought  
> was: There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this  
> statement that I don't even want to respond to it. But since there  
> have been more than one post supporting it and it's come up in this  
> conversation I'll respond. It seems to me that you can't get more  
> fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I  
> was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and  
> coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me  
> it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the way they  
> are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're against  
> going to war with them or trying to change them and since they  
> don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules  
> (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)  
> we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out  
> of it. That'll show them!
>
> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters  
> Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the  
> fact that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even  
> preacherly. I've learned that it comes from growing up in a family  
> of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I  
> do think it's important to have other ways to communicate and I do  
> strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also  
> know that at this point in time it's not something I can completely  
> eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not even sure I  
> want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have  
> learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more  
> understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have  
> this style.   It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a  
> problem when we remain within that culture.  It only becomes a  
> problem when we try to communicate with a different culture.  And I  
> find that I have just as many problems with your style of  
> communicating as you seem to have with mine.  That's one of the  
> reasons I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
>
> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are  
> saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and  
> what to do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I  
> don't have a problem.
>
> Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you  
> have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and  
> you want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to  
> you.  My response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for  
> your feelings or your interpretations.  What I am willing to do is  
> to talk to you about this as much as you want and to tell you what  
> I'm thinking and feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
>
>
> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>
> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement  
> implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want  
> Gill?
>
> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what  
> I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what  
> matters to you.  I respect and often like people who are  
> spontaneous, challenging and not afraid of emotions.
>
> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's  
> helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own  
> thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that  
>> you are
>> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>>
>> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and  
>> people's
>> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its  
>> just the
>> way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>
>> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and  
>> at other
>> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The  
>> authority I
>> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
>> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what  
>> Pat said in
>> one of her recent mails ...
>>
>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the  
>>> group and
>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually]  
>>> have little
>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit  
>>> there
>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years  
>>> back,
>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>
>> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are  
>> saying 'you
>> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do.  
>> What I have
>> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.  
>> Could we
>> just talk together as two people'.
>>
>> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I  
>> have been
>> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>
>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what  
>> matters to you.
>> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging  
>> and not
>> afraid of emotions.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,  
>>> including me)
>>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?   
>>> Personally I think
>>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other.  I  
>>> try to look
>>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>>> responsibility to find that and learn from it.  I see that as  
>>> enabling and
>>> empowering, not diminishing.
>>>
>>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take.  But, it's  
>>> been my
>>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is  
>>> quite often
>>> different from the intentions of the sender.  And it does take  
>>> inquiry to
>>> sort that out sometimes.  I'm glad you want to do that.  I  
>>> suppose the
>>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us  
>>> have equal
>>> authority on this list.   To my way of thinking no one is more or  
>>> less of an
>>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or  
>>> experience.  As Don
>>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something  
>>> brand new, a
>>> frontier.
>>>
>>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as  
>>> though there's
>>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though  
>>> there is
>>> something wrong with it.  Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>>> authorities as being empowering.  It puts all of us on an equal  
>>> status here
>>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each  
>>> other to my
>>> way of thinking.
>>>
>>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we  
>>> are all equal
>>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>>> suppose.  If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to  
>>> say.  My
>>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group  
>>> equally.
>>>
>>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit  
>>> you in
>>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being  
>>> defensive.  Perhaps
>>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being  
>>> someone who
>>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of  
>>> lack and
>>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being  
>>> defensive?  Of
>>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into  
>>> a defensive
>>> position.  But I don't think any of the posts since I have  
>>> rejoined the
>>> group would fall into that category yet.
>>>
>>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression.  ALL emotions,  
>>> not just
>>> some of them.  So that could be something you sense in my posts  
>>> also.  I try
>>> to express myself openly and spontaneously.  I don't think it's  
>>> caring,
>>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions.  At the same time I'm  
>>> aware that
>>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch  
>>> for that, to
>>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them  
>>> against
>>> someone.
>>>
>>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft"  
>>> posts.  I
>>> seldom feel the need for that these days.  I'm not sure why that  
>>> is, and I
>>> do think about that sometimes.  Maybe it's because I feel there  
>>> are enough
>>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a  
>>> little balance
>>> in the area of soft/firm?
>>>
>>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on  
>>> reading your
>>> post.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com  Tue Nov 14 19:24:45 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Nov 15 21:29:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <20061114.115711.2144.53.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C17F660D.7FE3%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>

Maybe why so much of Zen ?teaching? is based on the koan.  It leads you
beyond thought.  I just read a review of a book by Zen master Seung Sahn
(whom I have not read).  The book is called Wanting Enlightenment is a Big
Mistake.  The review says that he taught that Zen is not about achieving
something, but about dwelling in the realm ?before thought.?

It seems to me that language (and I would agree that language and thought
are closely connected, maybe even the internal and external manifestations)
works fairly well in our created realm (meaning the one we create with out
thought/language), but not at all in the realm of ultimate reality  (I know
?ultimate? is a tricky word, but I?m using it to indicate a basic (more
real??) level of reality.

This is all so hard to express ? let me know if I said what I ?thought? I
said!

Lynne
On 11/14/06 10:57 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:

> How does one live in this world? What shift is required in order to live
> authentically within this paradoxical universe? What do I say and how do I
> behave when ?Everything is connected by the same force that sets them apart??
> -- Gill
>  
> Is the universe actually paradoxical -- or is it unknown just what it actually
> is?   Maybe when we see that para and doxa indicate beside and opinion, we see
> that the infinite universe is not subject to those opinions expressed in
> finite language. 
>  
> One of the hardest things to accept, it seems, is that language is faulty,
> that it often "tells us" what is untrue while not inferring that it is "just
> telling us what actually is".  Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in
>  
> TAS can and should be applied to language.
>  
> Thoughts?  --  Don L
>  
> ~~
>  
> Cancel the above "NOT?"
>  
> The "paradox" thing is the limit of careful, honest, logical inquiry
> regarding a thought. Paradox is about thought, opinion. It is
> opinion's end, its logical conclusion. It is the function of
> thought is all its beauty and fullness. It is the BEST that thought
> has to give us. When going with a paradox, the next 'step' is not linear.
> It cannot be. Paradox is an opening. The actual linear progression of
> 'inquiry to paradox' is progression to an "Opening." Paradox literally
> means "Beyond thought." And this speaks to the question of "How do I
> behave?" One does not know [behavior] an instant in advance because behavior
> now is not "based on thought" (not that behavior does not make use of thought
> but this is qualitatively different from its being based on thought).
> Behavior is [known to be] based on 'everything', based on 'what is'.
>  
> pat
>  
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> 
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> 
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> 
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/d49bc591/attachment.html
From stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com  Tue Nov 14 20:27:21 2006
From: stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com (STEPHEN DEVLIN)
Date: Wed Nov 15 21:32:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <C17F660D.7FE3%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <20061114192721.40090.qmail@web86501.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

I think I understand what you meant, because you kept it short and didnt over-elaborate.

Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post     Maybe why so much of Zen ?teaching? is based on the koan.  It leads you beyond thought.  I just read a review of a book by Zen master Seung Sahn (whom I have not read).  The book is called Wanting Enlightenment is a Big Mistake.  The review says that he taught that Zen is not about achieving something, but about dwelling in the realm ?before thought.?
 
 It seems to me that language (and I would agree that language and thought are closely connected, maybe even the internal and external manifestations) works fairly well in our created realm (meaning the one we create with out thought/language), but not at all in the realm of ultimate reality  (I know ?ultimate? is a tricky word, but I?m using it to indicate a basic (more real??) level of reality.
 
 This is all so hard to express ? let me know if I said what I ?thought? I said!
 
 Lynne
 On 11/14/06 10:57 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
 
 How does one live in this world? What shift is required in order to live authentically within this paradoxical universe? What do I say and how do I behave when ?Everything is connected by the same force that sets them apart?? -- Gill
  
 Is the universe actually paradoxical -- or is it unknown just what it actually is?   Maybe when we see that para and doxa indicate beside and opinion, we see that the infinite universe is not subject to those opinions expressed in finite language.  
  
 One of the hardest things to accept, it seems, is that language is faulty, that it often "tells us" what is untrue while not inferring that it is "just telling us what actually is".  Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in 
  
 TAS can and should be applied to language.  
  
 Thoughts?  --  Don L
  
 ~~
  
 Cancel the above "NOT?"       
  
 The "paradox" thing is the limit of careful, honest, logical inquiry
 regarding a thought. Paradox is about thought, opinion. It is
 opinion's end, its logical conclusion. It is the function of
 thought is all its beauty and fullness. It is the BEST that thought 
 has to give us. When going with a paradox, the next 'step' is not linear. 
 It cannot be. Paradox is an opening. The actual linear progression of 
 'inquiry to paradox' is progression to an "Opening." Paradox literally 
 means "Beyond thought." And this speaks to the question of "How do I
 behave?" One does not know [behavior] an instant in advance because behavior
 now is not "based on thought" (not that behavior does not make use of thought 
 but this is qualitatively different from its being based on thought).
 Behavior is [known to be] based on 'everything', based on 'what is'.
  
 pat
  
  
 
 
---------------------------------
_______________________________________________
 info:
 www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
 
 post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
 
 dialogue facilitator:
 facilitator@david-bohm.net
 
 Administrator of the mailing list:
 admin@david-bohm.net
 
 _______________________________________________
 
 
  _______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net

Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net

_______________________________________________



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/a59e651e/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com  Tue Nov 14 20:58:42 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 15 22:03:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <00c501c7081d$53990700$b178480c@HOME>
References: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
	<004c01c707e9$5d29e6b0$bd19153f@DL01>
	<ACF7C177-40C5-4280-B65B-E427311A9A0A@dc.rr.com>
	<00c501c7081d$53990700$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <4DC4BB1B-8423-4923-BB78-29482777037F@dc.rr.com>


On Nov 14, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:

> I would say that the words are not the concept, they are only the  
> symbols we use to represent the concept

This may be the case, but what is the difference? What is a concept  
that is unrepresented?
Of course individual words generally have to be strung together to  
represent a concept but concepts are what is communicated. No?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/24493e6f/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 14 21:04:33 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Wed Nov 15 22:09:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk><004c01c707e9$5d29e6b0$bd19153f@DL01><ACF7C177-40C5-4280-B65B-E427311A9A0A@dc.rr.com><00c501c7081d$53990700$b178480c@HOME>
	<4DC4BB1B-8423-4923-BB78-29482777037F@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00ee01c70828$20f241d0$b178480c@HOME>

It seems to me that you have left out a step.  We actually represent the concept to ourselves in our imagination first (through a construct of memories) and then assign a word to represent what we hold in our imagination.  That's what NLP helped me to understand about thought and how we structure our thoughts and the connection between thoughts (mental imaginings that include all five of our senses) and language.

Susan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: donald factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post




  On Nov 14, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:


    I would say that the words are not the concept, they are only the symbols we use to represent the concept


  This may be the case, but what is the difference? What is a concept that is unrepresented?
  Of course individual words generally have to be strung together to represent a concept but concepts are what is communicated. No?
  don



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/02e84cce/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net  Tue Nov 14 21:26:35 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Wed Nov 15 22:31:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <007201c70816$3bdd2580$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <455A267B.000001.04100@VAIO-584793128F>

 
 
From: Susan Clemons
>...We are all our own authorities and we each have to take responsibility 
>for ourselves and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that 
>I don?t take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my 
>posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don?t assign responsibility for my 
>feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone). 
 
"i am responsible for what i say, you are responsible for what you hear"
(william)
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/623c038c/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com  Tue Nov 14 21:29:41 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Wed Nov 15 22:34:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <00ee01c70828$20f241d0$b178480c@HOME>
References: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
	<004c01c707e9$5d29e6b0$bd19153f@DL01>
	<ACF7C177-40C5-4280-B65B-E427311A9A0A@dc.rr.com>
	<00c501c7081d$53990700$b178480c@HOME>
	<4DC4BB1B-8423-4923-BB78-29482777037F@dc.rr.com>
	<00ee01c70828$20f241d0$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <4A4F2EA4-9423-418F-899A-F1F4085C4677@dc.rr.com>

Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me. What would a mental image that  
precedes words look like? For instance, what would my sentence below  
look like? What would a construct of memories look like if they were  
about abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?

don

On Nov 14, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:

> It seems to me that you have left out a step.  We actually  
> represent the concept to ourselves in our imagination first  
> (through a construct of memories) and then assign a word to  
> represent what we hold in our imagination.  That's what NLP helped  
> me to understand about thought and how we structure our thoughts  
> and the connection between thoughts (mental imaginings that include  
> all five of our senses) and language.
>
> Susan
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: donald factor
>   To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:58 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>
>
>
>
>   On Nov 14, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>
>     I would say that the words are not the concept, they are only  
> the symbols we use to represent the concept
>
>
>   This may be the case, but what is the difference? What is a  
> concept that is unrepresented?
>   Of course individual words generally have to be strung together  
> to represent a concept but concepts are what is communicated. No?
>   don
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --------
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   info:
>   www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>   post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>   dialogue facilitator:
>   facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>   Administrator of the mailing list:
>   admin@david-bohm.net
>
>   _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

From donlay at gte.net  Tue Nov 14 21:27:11 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 15 22:35:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <20061114.115711.2144.53.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c7082b$ac4e5860$da56153f@DL01>


Yes, cancel the not.


  How does one live in this world? What shift is required in order to live authentically within this paradoxical universe? What do I say and how do I behave when 'Everything is connected by the same force that sets them apart'? -- Gill

  Is the universe actually paradoxical -- or is it unknown just what it actually is?   Maybe when we see that para and doxa indicate beside and opinion, we see that the infinite universe is not subject to those opinions expressed in finite language.  

  One of the hardest things to accept, it seems, is that language is faulty, that it often "tells us" what is untrue while inferring that it is "just telling us what actually is".  Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in 

  TAS can and should be applied to language.  

  Thoughts?  --  Don L

  ~~

  Cancel the above "NOT?"       

  The "paradox" thing is the limit of careful, honest, logical inquiry
  regarding a thought. Paradox is about thought, opinion. It is
  opinion's end, its logical conclusion. It is the function of
  thought is all its beauty and fullness. It is the BEST that thought 
  has to give us. When going with a paradox, the next 'step' is not linear. 
  It cannot be. Paradox is an opening. The actual linear progression of 
  'inquiry to paradox' is progression to an "Opening." Paradox literally 
  means "Beyond thought." And this speaks to the question of "How do I
  behave?" One does not know [behavior] an instant in advance because behavior
  now is not "based on thought" (not that behavior does not make use of thought 
  but this is qualitatively different from its being based on thought).
  Behavior is [known to be] based on 'everything', based on 'what is'.

  pat




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/50929976/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net  Tue Nov 14 21:36:24 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Nov 15 22:44:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <C17F565E.3A5B%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
	<004c01c707e9$5d29e6b0$bd19153f@DL01>
	<ACF7C177-40C5-4280-B65B-E427311A9A0A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <005b01c7082c$9054ac80$da56153f@DL01>

I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words. -- don

Yes.  It seems convenient at times to ignore that no matter what actually is, talking about seems to change it just as measuring an electron with an electron alters what is measured.

It really seems helpful to view words as measures of experience such that we say measuring experience alters what is measured. 

Thoughts?  dbl



http://home1.gte.net/donlay
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: donald factor 
  To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post




  On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Don Lay wrote:


     Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and should be applied to language.  



  This is a topic that I think calls for a lot more inquiry. I would say that TAS in the sense that
  you use it here applies primarily to language. But are there forms of thought that don't depend
  on words or combinations of words? Is there such a thing as nonconceptual thought? I think
  so, but I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words.


  don




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  info:
  www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue

  post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net

  dialogue facilitator:
  facilitator@david-bohm.net

  Administrator of the mailing list:
  admin@david-bohm.net

  _______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/6dbc6e62/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Tue Nov 14 21:48:36 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Wed Nov 15 22:50:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D070A@msw2k.msw.local>

that has meaning--measuring experience alters what is measured--or with
other words, describing experience alters (adds to) experience.  d

________________________________

From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:36 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post


I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words. -- don
 
Yes.  It seems convenient at times to ignore that no matter what
actually is, talking about seems to change it just as measuring an
electron with an electron alters what is measured.
 
It really seems helpful to view words as measures of experience such
that we say measuring experience alters what is measured. 
 
Thoughts?  dbl
 
 
 
http://home1.gte.net/donlay

	----- Original Message ----- 
	From: donald factor <mailto:dfactor@dc.rr.com>  
	To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org 
	Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:43 PM
	Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post


	On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Don Lay wrote:


		 Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and
should be applied to language.  


	This is a topic that I think calls for a lot more inquiry. I
would say that TAS in the sense that
	you use it here applies primarily to language. But are there
forms of thought that don't depend
	on words or combinations of words? Is there such a thing as
nonconceptual thought? I think
	so, but I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use
words.

	don


	
________________________________


	

	_______________________________________________
	info:
	www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
	
	post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
	
	dialogue facilitator:
	facilitator@david-bohm.net
	
	Administrator of the mailing list:
	admin@david-bohm.net
	
	_______________________________________________
	
	
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/08d8320e/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Tue Nov 14 21:50:52 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Wed Nov 15 22:52:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D070C@msw2k.msw.local>

after that, I am responsible for hearing what you have heard.

________________________________

From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of william
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:27 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way


 
 
From: Susan Clemons <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> 
>...We are all our own authorities and we each have to take
responsibility 
>for ourselves and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that 
>I don't take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my

>posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my 
>feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone). 
 
"i am responsible for what i say, you are responsible for what you hear"
(william)
 
			
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/4dc5f5eb/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com  Tue Nov 14 21:43:49 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 15 23:09:21 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
In-Reply-To: <20061115110001.D6C9F24BF5@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFC34F9006.27AE264C-ON85257226.00709F55-85257226.0071E048@dialogos.com>




Rodger__Hmm, maybe I'm just too old but I have never had an impression that
Susan or Franis used their diction to teach me something -- in dialogue.

Yes, they tend to express perspectives with some passion and enthusiasm, or
even sometimes explain themselves with zeal. But if I am ever too dumb or
stubborn to actually understand what they hope to share, it seems they are
always very quick to let the -lesson- GO. Which I think is very
UN-teacherly of them. _R
.
.
From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
What if the way you want to come across in the way you mean to communicate
isn't "teacherly"? Franis
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/5bd5ee16/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com  Tue Nov 14 22:11:51 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Wed Nov 15 23:13:41 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D0715@msw2k.msw.local>

I can't tell if someone is talking at me instead of to me unless I hear
the voice.  Printed words are what we make of them. d    

________________________________

From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:44 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly



Rodger__Hmm, maybe I'm just too old but I have never had an impression
that Susan or Franis used their diction to teach me something -- in
dialogue.

Yes, they tend to express perspectives with some passion and enthusiasm,
or even sometimes explain themselves with zeal. But if I am ever too
dumb or stubborn to actually understand what they hope to share, it
seems they are always very quick to let the -lesson- GO. Which I think
is very UN-teacherly of them. _R 
.
.
From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
What if the way you want to come across in the way you mean to
communicate isn't "teacherly"? Franis
.
.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/eb8917ed/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 14 22:57:09 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 00:02:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <4A4F2EA4-9423-418F-899A-F1F4085C4677@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F6C03FEEE166C36C969624A5EB0@phx.gbl>

That's where experimentation and feedback from another engaged in the same 
experiemtn is a blessing.  Zoe often mails me an image that's the heart of 
our dialog, and it takes me a good night's sleep and morning coffee to make 
sense of it.  Then, I find myself searching for images I want to send her, 
and the darn images reflect the cultural assumptions the words do!  So I 
think we have to invent, invent, invent --- just keep working on it.  If 
everything is always in flux, maybe the images will be, too.
Wicca says images reach deep mind as words never can.
Just gotta be patient with learning new things.   k


>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800
>
>Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me. What would a mental image that  
>precedes words look like? For instance, what would my sentence below  look 
>like? What would a construct of memories look like if they were  about 
>abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?
>
>don
>
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that you have left out a step.  We actually  represent the 
>>concept to ourselves in our imagination first  (through a construct of 
>>memories) and then assign a word to  represent what we hold in our 
>>imagination.  That's what NLP helped  me to understand about thought and 
>>how we structure our thoughts  and the connection between thoughts (mental 
>>imaginings that include  all five of our senses) and language.
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>   From: donald factor
>>   To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>   Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:58 PM
>>   Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Nov 14, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>
>>     I would say that the words are not the concept, they are only  the 
>>symbols we use to represent the concept
>>
>>
>>   This may be the case, but what is the difference? What is a  concept 
>>that is unrepresented?
>>   Of course individual words generally have to be strung together  to 
>>represent a concept but concepts are what is communicated. No?
>>   don
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>--------
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>>   info:
>>   www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>   post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>   dialogue facilitator:
>>   facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>   Administrator of the mailing list:
>>   admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 14 23:10:48 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 00:15:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <39C6B575-F8F0-43C9-9004-5761BE4B0230@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1533ECE6751BD5747E75B7A5EB0@phx.gbl>

It seems to me that this sort of misunderstanding - that is, taking  posts 
personally when that wasn't what was intended - has not been  unusual

I think you're absolutely right, Don.

Oops, this is a really long post.  Should it have been shortened?  k


>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:04:52 -0800
>
>It seems to me that this sort of misunderstanding - that is, taking  posts 
>personally when that wasn't what was intended - has not been  unusual. So 
>maybe what we are doing here is having an impersonal  conversation with 
>everybody. And although to me this seems quite  natural to me it may be 
>that's because I've been doing it for a long  time, or maybe it is more 
>unusual than I thought. Actually, this also  might refer to the "teacherly" 
>thing. If I want to get a bit  teacherly I can make clear that, like Bohm 
>used to do, it is just a  proposal for further inquiry, or something like 
>that. What do you  think? Anybody?
>
>don
>
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>>Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel  that 
>>you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel  something 
>>similar.
>>
>>Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my  point" 
>>or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I  don't think I 
>>wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone  else "get my point" 
>>or with the expectations that they would take  anyone anywhere in 
>>particular. I simply wrote them to the group as  a whole (and not just to 
>>you) as a way to talk about what I felt  was important. It's my 
>>understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is  that people have difficulty 
>>talking about what's important to them.  And that seems to be what's 
>>happening with us. You seem to have  something that's important to you 
>>that you want to talk about and  you wrote a post about that. I responded 
>>to your post with what I  felt was important to me.
>>
>>I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first  post 
>>that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps  the 
>>expectations that some people would respond to you in a  particular way 
>>that had meaning for you. But when I responded with  what was important to 
>>me, I didn't respond in the way you were  hoping I would. And ever since 
>>then that seems to be what your  posts to me are about. The idea that 
>>what's important to me doesn't  seem to meet up with what's important to 
>>you.
>>
>>Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own  explorations and 
>>people's responses to me and how easy it is to  just pass it back as ... 
>>Its just the way you interpret what I  wrote ...
>>
>>Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly  wasn't 
>>clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what  you meant. I 
>>did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning  but I don't 
>>remember you saying anything close to the last part of  this sentence. And 
>>I've gone back and read all of our posts to each  other several times this 
>>morning to see if I missed something or  could see something new. I still 
>>don't see you saying that. As far  as I'm concerned, it IS just the way 
>>you interpret what I wrote.  And you don't seem to think that's a 
>>satisfying answer. I think  it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. 
>>And no, I don't think  giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People 
>>very often don't  seem to be able to accept that the way they have 
>>interpreted  someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you 
>>see  something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look  
>>at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just  don't 
>>see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
>>
>>Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish  others and 
>>at other times authority can be more facilitative of  self and others The 
>>authority I sensed in your email did not feel  like that of 'equality' if 
>>it had I wouldn't have responded in the  way I did.
>>
>>Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be  used. To 
>>me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we  are all equal 
>>authorities to my way of thinking means that there is  no one in a higher 
>>or lower position. We are all our own  authorities and we each have to 
>>take responsibility for ourselves  and our own feelings and responses. It 
>>means to me that I don't  take responsibility for your feelings and 
>>interpretations of my  posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign 
>>responsibility for my  feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
>>
>>Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...
>>
>>>all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the  group and
>>>all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have  
>>>little
>>>to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit  there
>>>hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years  back,
>>>some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>
>>Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought  was: 
>>There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this  statement that I 
>>don't even want to respond to it. But since there  have been more than one 
>>post supporting it and it's come up in this  conversation I'll respond. It 
>>seems to me that you can't get more  fragmented than this kind of response 
>>and behavior. Truthfully, I  was shocked when I read this statement on a 
>>Dialogue group and  coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long 
>>as Pat. To me  it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the 
>>way they  are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're 
>>against  going to war with them or trying to change them and since they  
>>don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules  (change 
>>themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)  we'll just go 
>>off and form our own little group and leave them out  of it. That'll show 
>>them!
>>
>>I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters  Dialogue of 
>>any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the  fact that I sometimes 
>>come across as being teacherly or even  preacherly. I've learned that it 
>>comes from growing up in a family  of preachers and teachers and is very 
>>ingrained in me. And, yes, I  do think it's important to have other ways 
>>to communicate and I do  strive to watch for it and see when it is 
>>occurring. But I also  know that at this point in time it's not something 
>>I can completely  eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not 
>>even sure I  want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have  
>>learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more  
>>understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have  this 
>>style.   It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a  problem 
>>when we remain within that culture.  It only becomes a  problem when we 
>>try to communicate with a different culture.  And I  find that I have just 
>>as many problems with your style of  communicating as you seem to have 
>>with mine.  That's one of the  reasons I'm so willing to continue this 
>>conversation.
>>
>>Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are  
>>saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and  what to 
>>do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I  don't have a 
>>problem.
>>
>>Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you  have 
>>a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and  you want 
>>me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to  you.  My response 
>>to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for  your feelings or your 
>>interpretations.  What I am willing to do is  to talk to you about this as 
>>much as you want and to tell you what  I'm thinking and feeling as openly 
>>and honestly as possible.
>>
>>
>>Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>>
>>Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement  implies 
>>to me that you want more. What is this more that you want  Gill?
>>
>>Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what  I 
>>have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what  matters to 
>>you.  I respect and often like people who are  spontaneous, challenging 
>>and not afraid of emotions.
>>
>>Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's  helped me 
>>to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own  thinking. Thank 
>>you, and the respect is mutual.
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>>>Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that  you 
>>>are
>>>quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>>>
>>>I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and  
>>>people's
>>>responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its  just 
>>>the
>>>way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>>
>>>Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and  at 
>>>other
>>>times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The  
>>>authority I
>>>sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
>>>wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what  Pat 
>>>said in
>>>one of her recent mails ...
>>>
>>>>all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the  group 
>>>>and
>>>>all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually]  have 
>>>>little
>>>>to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit  there
>>>>hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years  back,
>>>>some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>>
>>>My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are  saying 
>>>'you
>>>have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do.  What I 
>>>have
>>>been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.  Could we
>>>just talk together as two people'.
>>>
>>>Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I  have 
>>>been
>>>trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>>
>>>I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what  matters to 
>>>you.
>>>I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging  and not
>>>afraid of emotions.
>>>
>>>Gill
>>>
>>>
>>>on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,  
>>>>including me)
>>>>feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?   Personally I 
>>>>think
>>>>we all have something to teach and to learn from each other.  I  try to 
>>>>look
>>>>at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>>>>responsibility to find that and learn from it.  I see that as  enabling 
>>>>and
>>>>empowering, not diminishing.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take.  But, it's  been 
>>>>my
>>>>experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is  quite 
>>>>often
>>>>different from the intentions of the sender.  And it does take  inquiry 
>>>>to
>>>>sort that out sometimes.  I'm glad you want to do that.  I  suppose the
>>>>authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us  have 
>>>>equal
>>>>authority on this list.   To my way of thinking no one is more or  less 
>>>>of an
>>>>authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or  experience.  As 
>>>>Don
>>>>F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something  brand new, 
>>>>a
>>>>frontier.
>>>>
>>>>But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as  though 
>>>>there's
>>>>something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though  there 
>>>>is
>>>>something wrong with it.  Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>>>>authorities as being empowering.  It puts all of us on an equal  status 
>>>>here
>>>>where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each  other to 
>>>>my
>>>>way of thinking.
>>>>
>>>>So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we  are all 
>>>>equal
>>>>authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>>>>suppose.  If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to  say.  
>>>>My
>>>>intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group  
>>>>equally.
>>>>
>>>>So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit  you 
>>>>in
>>>>some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being  defensive.  
>>>>Perhaps
>>>>you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being  someone 
>>>>who
>>>>"needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of  lack 
>>>>and
>>>>so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being  defensive?  Of
>>>>course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into  a 
>>>>defensive
>>>>position.  But I don't think any of the posts since I have  rejoined the
>>>>group would fall into that category yet.
>>>>
>>>>I'm also someone who values emotional expression.  ALL emotions,  not 
>>>>just
>>>>some of them.  So that could be something you sense in my posts  also.  
>>>>I try
>>>>to express myself openly and spontaneously.  I don't think it's  caring,
>>>>warm, or kind to repress our emotions.  At the same time I'm  aware that
>>>>emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch  for 
>>>>that, to
>>>>use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them  
>>>>against
>>>>someone.
>>>>
>>>>And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft"  posts.  
>>>>I
>>>>seldom feel the need for that these days.  I'm not sure why that  is, 
>>>>and I
>>>>do think about that sometimes.  Maybe it's because I feel there  are 
>>>>enough
>>>>people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a  little 
>>>>balance
>>>>in the area of soft/firm?
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on  reading 
>>>>your
>>>>post.
>>>>
>>>>Susan
>>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from 
Microsoft Office Live 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 14 23:24:49 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 00:29:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <ACF7C177-40C5-4280-B65B-E427311A9A0A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F17136F4A240CAE31AD5CA6A5EB0@phx.gbl>

I don't dream in words, and I have a theory that dream images indicate the 
body's natural capacity to produce symbols for thought. Remember Arnheim's 
"Visual Thinking"?  And so-called "rock art", and teepee decorations?  They 
aren't "decorations".  They are language.  I have books of them down in 
storage.  k


>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:43:00 -0800
>
>
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>
>>  Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and should be  applied 
>>to language.
>
>This is a topic that I think calls for a lot more inquiry. I would  say 
>that TAS in the sense that
>you use it here applies primarily to language. But are there forms of  
>thought that don't depend
>on words or combinations of words? Is there such a thing as  nonconceptual 
>thought? I think
>so, but I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words.
>
>don
>


>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip  
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001

From griffyn23 at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 14 23:43:05 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 00:48:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
Message-ID: <BAY22-F24A62FA1A4799E9AFBA533A5EB0@phx.gbl>

It was a privilege to read last year's posts.  So interesting, the same 
topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by some of the 
same people.  There were some particularly beautiful ones.

What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don?  I gather BD has been 
around since 1992 or 3. k

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us