From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 15 00:14:32 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 15 00:17:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Message-ID: <20071214.181521.1072.75.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Wouldn't you know that comedectomies would get comedectomized?
-- funny
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:40:56 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
writes:
i'll be surprised and disappointed if you find it. I just made it up. I
think.
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:34:52 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Stop blamiing Mom. Go look it up on an online dictionary. Merriam
Webster for starters.
On Dec 13, 2007 7:30 PM, Alan E. DeBakey < a.debakey@yahoo.com> wrote:
comedectomies
Mom, among a few others, has locked up too the dictionary book. Other
wise I would be in there, in a heart beat, to unlook it up ;->
Alan
rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
some are comedectomies
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0500
From: irenedarcy@gmail.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies
I: So why are some funnies runny and some aren't?
On Dec 13, 2007 10:32 AM, < ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
them. (I)
Maybe that's why I've been so alone all these years.
All of the other funny's have run away from spending time with me.
Except for all these funny trees. Except they are not "trees" at all.
They are "funnies" too. Just not runny funnies.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:58:07 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com >
writes:
I: I absolutely agree, Alfred. That's why I'd like to find a way for
BDers to know each other better. A way to meet and spend some time
together in our natural habitats, or to approximate it as much as
possible. And I'm not defining cyberspace as 'natural'. One can
manipulate words any way you like.
Some say words manipulate us, but that's a two way street.
And trees, unlike people, can't run away from your spending time with
them.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 AM, Alfred Landman < landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance,
thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc
(which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees
into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation
of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one
get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact,
it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that.
AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
"intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that
it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt
that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess,
is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you
do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and
out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no
one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
--
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day
I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/c2d9558c/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 15 00:31:05 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 15 00:32:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Message-ID: <20071214.183112.1072.77.ae.dropper@juno.com>
So what could we call a cancerous growth on a line of poetry?
Metricaloma? Or wait, wasn't that a low calorie milkshake in the 50's
-- funny
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:54:42 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
I: We certainly have to be careful of skin cancer and light!
Previously, it was sunburn. We aren't leaves. One size doesn't fit
all.
On Dec 14, 2007 2:51 PM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
do our leaves get eaten by light before they fall?
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
DIALOGUE DANCE
A dialogue circle of trees, dancing trees
we do not sit in chairs but we stand in the woods
with the light filtering through our autumn leaves
and we are dancing - our roots are our feet
and our millions of toes, dancing.
A wind comes and some of our leaves fall
from some of our fingers,
our million fingers, one for every dancing toe,
one explication for every implication
our roots hidden, unknown
but known constantly as that
which ever refuses naming
while the naming plays with itself
somewhere out of reach
of the dance itself.
-- funny
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful?
Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we
"understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than
one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance,
thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc
(which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees
into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation
of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one
get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact,
it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a
living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that.
AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense
that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when
seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
"intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely
right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during
about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism
would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind.
Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on
with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that
it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to
get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt
that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you
forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess,
is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you
do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely
is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis
terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe
away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's
no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood
takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and
out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no
one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling
--
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our
common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day
I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am
speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on
the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment
of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and
so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/3e2fdf60/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 15 00:46:08 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sat Dec 15 00:51:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] understanding (was noname 2)
In-Reply-To: <024c01c83e90$033fba60$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl><006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com>
<012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<BAY123-W14B5DEF9CCCB6A64FBBA6DC670@phx.gbl>
<024c01c83e90$033fba60$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <71F28E22-335E-4201-993E-680771E209B7@dc.rr.com>
So are you suggesting there is a difference between "I understand"
and "I see"? I don't see a difference, but I hear one:-)
It reminds me that Marshal McLuan wrote that there is are differences
in understanding or perception between cultures. There are some that
primarily visual and some that are primarily tactile. I think he
pegged the US as visual and the UK as tactile. I can't recall whether
there were any that were primarily aural, but I would think that
possibly some pre-literate cultures would qualify for that. In any
case understanding in each of these cultures would probably be
somewhat different. Verstehen sie?
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Don Lay wrote:
> I don't know.
>
> Maybe one must imagine an articulated position and then imagine
> standing under that position.
>
> Sometimes people say "I see" instead of "I understand". I suppose
> when they say "I see", the meaning is that they imagine it and
> refer to seeing it mentally or in tas. -- dl
>
> From: rob mooney
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:46 PM
> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> stand under though? it doesn't seem an obvious metaphor...
>
> From: donlay@knology.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:24:29 -0500
>
> My understanding is that 2+2=4. That is, I stand under the
> position taught regarding numbers, math, etc, common to us all.
>
> Bohm says words are images.
>
> Maybe in that sense, understanding an articulated, identified
> position might be seen as protecting one from making the same
> mistakes over and over. If for example, if you had erred and told
> your teacher on a test that 2+2=6 and the teacher had articulated
> the right answers, you might then say I understand -- meaning I
> stand under what was taught.
>
> Those teaching try to get students to understand -- stand under the
> position taught. I do. Don't you? -- dl
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Irene Darcy
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> standing under an articulated position.
>
> I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position
> like some kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not
> trying to be funny, dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image
> literally flashed through my mind. A roof has the purpose of
> protecting one from rain or excessive sun. How would the idea of
> protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you 'get' it, you
> don't keep making the same mistake?
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
> it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first
> question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it
> under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so
> far. -- Rob
>
> Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
>
> Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity,
> Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there
> being Truth in all of them. -- dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rob mooney
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first
> question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it
> under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so
> far.
>
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more
> useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into
> objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of
> it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
>
> Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for
> instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their
> natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive"
> people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so
> forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this
> can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better
> than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise
> opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism
> that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
>
> Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
>
> From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
>
>
> to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
> Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
> quote):
> >...<
> Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one.
> His, or
> ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
> WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
>
> Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
>
> I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant.
> In my
> (not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't
> explain.
> If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
> choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or
> leave it.
> To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it
> short. And
> have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per
> per-
> son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is
> rude.
> Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
> negligent.
> And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug
> Bilodeau, an
> acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
> *
> " >JPL:
> >"Shout, shout, let it all out
> >these are the things I can do without,
> >come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
> " >>Wm:
> >>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
> William
> *
> Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
> "si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: Re: purpose of list
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello All,
>
> I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm
> sending this
> message to check for echo.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
> From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
> Subject: inside out
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would share another thought that I found interesting.
>
> The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the
> sense that
> it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which
> is (or
> can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is
> continuous,
> contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though
> when seen
> from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
>
> My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on
> the
> form or on the un-form that borders it.
>
> The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
> represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
> viewing angle has been intriguing.
>
> Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
>
> From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
> Subject: Re:intentional dying
>
> Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the
> *right
> kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer
> "intentional
> dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
> 'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems
> absolutely right:
>
> > ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
> >cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The
> neural
> >chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body,
> during about
> >twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
> >self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the
> organism would
> >try to go to work without the interference of the conscious
> mind. Normally,
> >our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to
> get on with
> >our work. =
>
> I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself
> that it's
> sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply
> try to get
> back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no
> doubt that
> with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later
> you forget
> -- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately
> very
> rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I
> guess, is
> *acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps
> me,
> because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
> lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
>
> I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
> Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world
> you do
> not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work
> overtime." But
> I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth
> surely is
> we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits
> are NOT
> people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian
> analysis terms
> -- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can
> soothe away
> the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue.
> There's no
> obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the
> mood takes.
> So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world
> may go
> through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts
> everything
> the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis
> on a
> top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in
> and out a
> lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up
> the
> enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that
> no one
> responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe
> seems to
> have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is
> falling --
> and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
> hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
> unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
>
> Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle
> in one
> short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that --
> with
> *me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten --
> our common
> humanity.
> I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal
> error'
> note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding
> Meaning"
> (Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers"
> because
> someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the
> other day I
> re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I
> am speaking
> to one of its authors!
>
>
> >A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm
> drifting: on the
> >one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
> >
> >The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
> >directly; "What could be a better experience than being the
> unfolding
> >universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
>
> Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with
> 'unlived
> lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the
> moment of
> birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper
> dying; and so
> no full living either. No?
>
> I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
> >
> >is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego
> self?
> >
> >julia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/1a91fa00/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 15 02:50:28 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 15 02:55:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] understanding (was noname 2)
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl><006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com><012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01><BAY123-W14B5DEF9CCCB6A64FBBA6DC670@phx.gbl><024c01c83e90$033fba60$b5c16018@DL01>
<71F28E22-335E-4201-993E-680771E209B7@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <031601c83ebc$deebfac0$b5c16018@DL01>
So are you suggesting there is a difference between "I understand" and "I see"? I don't see a difference, but I hear one:-) -- df
Maybe you're hearing thingKs and seeing thingKs not there.
Is it not apodictic that language evolved while people understood reality or actuality to be a separated observer subject observing a separated observed object?
So what!??
So, it seems important to see or understand that what language says is known is not necessarily that which is.
So what!!?
I don't know. -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] understanding (was noname 2)
So are you suggesting there is a difference between "I understand" and "I see"? I don't see a difference, but I hear one:-)
It reminds me that Marshal McLuan wrote that there is are differences in understanding or perception between cultures. There are some that primarily visual and some that are primarily tactile. I think he pegged the US as visual and the UK as tactile. I can't recall whether there were any that were primarily aural, but I would think that possibly some pre-literate cultures would qualify for that. In any case understanding in each of these cultures would probably be somewhat different. Verstehen sie?
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Don Lay wrote:
I don't know.
Maybe one must imagine an articulated position and then imagine standing under that position.
Sometimes people say "I see" instead of "I understand". I suppose when they say "I see", the meaning is that they imagine it and refer to seeing it mentally or in tas. -- dl
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
stand under though? it doesn't seem an obvious metaphor...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:24:29 -0500
My understanding is that 2+2=4. That is, I stand under the position taught regarding numbers, math, etc, common to us all.
Bohm says words are images.
Maybe in that sense, understanding an articulated, identified position might be seen as protecting one from making the same mistakes over and over. If for example, if you had erred and told your teacher on a test that 2+2=6 and the teacher had articulated the right answers, you might then say I understand -- meaning I stand under what was taught.
Those teaching try to get students to understand -- stand under the position taught. I do. Don't you? -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
standing under an articulated position.
I Is this some reference to an image? The articulated position like some kind of thatched roof the speaker stands under? I'm not trying to be funny, dl, if that's what you're thinking. That image literally flashed through my mind. A roof has the purpose of protecting one from rain or excessive sun. How would the idea of protection fit understanding? Maybe that once you 'get' it, you don't keep making the same mistake?
On Dec 13, 2007 8:03 PM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Alfred Landman wrote:
Hi Irene Darcy. If a brain wants to learn about trees, for instance, thought could simply spend time with them in their natural habitat etc (which is what many traditionally "primitive" people do). Breaking trees into their cellular components and so forth enables genetic manipulation of them, for instance, but this can't be said to "objectively" help one get to know a tree better than simply spending time with them. In fact, it does the precise opposite. This brain can never genuinely know a living organism that you've instrumentalized and objectified like that. AL
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Space and Time (Don F)
From: ami_kes@juno.com (John A MIKES)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:59:24 EDT
to: Bohm, Subject Space and Time
Dear Don, nice wisdom in your Sep.25 'Space & Time note. Yet:(your
quote):
>...<
Foucault was right: there is no such epoque as the present one. His, or
ours, does not matter. Past reflection does not match live experience.
WE are the experiencers, not memory. So: hold your enthusiasm.
Also: I was glad: A rare thing on this list a reference to David Bohm!
I find this unending exchange "about the list-filling" redundant. In my
(not so humble) opinion a list is like love: practice it, don't explain.
If it does not live up to your expectations, there are other lists to
choose from. Nobody can change BB or anybody else. Accept it or leave it.
To explain one's views ABOUT participating: nice, but keep it short. And
have mercy on the receiving parties: half a dozen posts per day per per-
son in exorbitant length, or sometimes 5 consecutive attachments is rude.
Who does not have the time to write short, should keep it. Length is
negligent.
And to the following exchange I have a plagiarism from Doug Bilodeau, an
acclaimed physicist from the JCS-list:(see below) - the 'exchange':
*
" >JPL:
>"Shout, shout, let it all out
>these are the things I can do without,
>come on, I'm talking to you, come on.." whereupon
" >>Wm:
>>Pssst... not so loud, I think the others are meditating.
William
*
Not so sure! I refer to my remark on a "no response" to a post:
"si tacent clamant": Dough B: corrected me: "or: si tacent dormiunt".
From: "Chris Hooley" < chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: Re: purpose of list
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:24:15 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello All,
I've heard nothing from the group for several days. So, I'm sending this
message to check for echo.
Regards
Chris
From: "Chris Hooley" <chooley@idnsi.net>
Subject: inside out
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 97 18:19:50 PDT
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Hello Everyone,
I would share another thought that I found interesting.
The gastrointestinal track is actually "outside" the body in the sense that
it's a long, open-ended tube. In the same way, "no-thing", which is (or
can be seen to be) at the center of every manifested form, is continuous,
contiguous to itself. It is "outside" the space/time form though when seen
from within the form it appears to be isolated like droplets.
My intuition is that we can focus (reside *as* attention) either on the
form or on the un-form that borders it.
The experience of attending to the un-form in-between can't be fully
represented, even to ourselves, I think, but experimenting with this
viewing angle has been intriguing.
Received: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:21:50 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:21 +0100 (BST)
From: maximus@dircon.co.uk (Barron Burrow)
Subject: Re:intentional dying
Extraordinary and moving message you sent us, Don ... Full of the *right
kind* of fight, too, I felt. For the struggle against cancer "intentional
dying" *feels* like the right way to go. And what you say about
'death-rebirth' through finding the right life-rhythms seems absolutely right:
> ultradian rhythms. These involved 90 minute to 2 hour
>cycles during which the body would, as it were, shift gears. The neural
>chemistry changes, hemispheric dominance shifts and the body, during about
>twenty minutes of each cycle, does its best to get into a quiet,
>self-repair mode. As he put it, the unconscious parts of the organism would
>try to go to work without the interference of the conscious mind. Normally,
>our culture has trained us to override these cycles in order to get on with
>our work. =
I think there is great truth in this last remark. I find myself that it's
sometimes the hardest thing to just ignore the world, and simply try to get
back into touch with one's own internal rhythms; but there's no doubt that
with practice you can get better at it. However, sooner or later you forget
-- and have to learn the inexplicable and difficult (but ultimately very
rewarding) process all over again. What's difficult about it, I guess, is
*acceptance* of dying -- "intentional dying" ... Bimodal-psa. helps me,
because it puts me in touch with the deepest source of my own 'unlived
lines' (but there are clearly many ways to get back 'in touch').
I wldn't overdo it, on the email. I understand very well what Matti
Vaittenen means when he says, today, " " ... but in a virtual world you do
not get your hands dirty, you do not sweat; you just work overtime." But
I've decided it's okay to just fade in and out. Because the truth surely is
we are as much talking to ourselves as to each other: binary bits are NOT
people ... On the other hand, I think of the Net in Kleinian analysis terms
-- as a kind of substitute 'container'. Just as the mother can soothe away
the infant's "nameless dread" so too can this kind of dialogue. There's no
obligation to post even weekly -- just fade in and out when the mood takes.
So, sorry to see you go, Matti -- but in the end I think the world may go
through a phase transition, led by the Net, that gradually puts everything
the right way round again, and dethrones the present over-emphasis on a
top-down culture that *separates* mind and body. So I may fade in and out a
lot, but I'm staying with it. Gustava (?) in S. America brought up the
enormous problem of world over-population recently; I felt bad that no one
responded. It's a diabolical problem -- but one which in Europe seems to
have been largely overcome (e.g. Spain and Russia's population is falling --
and most other nations in Europe are not being over-populated
hand-over-fist). Catholic ideology on birth-control seems hopelessly
unrealistic, and the worst effects seem to be in S. America.
Don has summed up an incredible eleven years of his life-struggle in one
short email message, and I feel grateful that he has shared that -- with
*me*. It reminds me of something that is so easily forgotten -- our common
humanity.
I can see the irony of having yr message bounced back with a 'fatal error'
note :-) On my kitchen table, Don, is a copy of "The Unfolding Meaning"
(Routledge, 1987) (it's odd your saying "perseverance furthers" because
someone in Australia recently said the same thing)( -- and the other day I
re-read yr Introduction, rather neat, I thought. And now here I am speaking
to one of its authors!
>A couple of feelings guide me, acting as warnings that I'm drifting: on the
>one side is the "hope of winning", and on the other is "self pity."
>
>The affirmations that I'm using aren't self strenghtening, at least
>directly; "What could be a better experience than being the unfolding
>universe? Having given up, I can relax! Etc."
Unfolding meaning, yes, but also knowing how to get in touch with 'unlived
lines' -- parts of oneself one had last been in touch with at the moment of
birth, for instance. Because without that there is no proper dying; and so
no full living either. No?
I think Julia has hit on something important when she says:
>
>is dialogue about facilitating the intentional dying of the ego self?
>
>julia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/86d296f6/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 04:42:47 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 15 04:48:19 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Standing Under Understanding
In-Reply-To: <3D118E88-7E10-4232-A461-BC0975DA32E3@dc.rr.com>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com>
<012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com>
<004701c83e48$0ddd8d50$b5c16018@DL01>
<005601c83e4a$32d7bac0$b5c16018@DL01>
<006f01c83e4f$74ca4290$b5c16018@DL01>
<15312071-70F2-46EC-9FFA-BAE8EE624E94@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712141136l2740cc36ib65d515d883dcc4a@mail.gmail.com>
<3D118E88-7E10-4232-A461-BC0975DA32E3@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712141942v6f333de2i25a066790b5f781f@mail.gmail.com>
I: I don't consider what I said "blurting", and if my explanation isn't
covered in 'suspension', perhaps the idea needs reexamining.
On Dec 14, 2007 3:25 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> I: Always appreciate suggestions, but quite frequently - as is the case
> with dl atm - my remarks are piggybacking off his. And I think, vice
> versa. I don't believe suspension means inhibit, unless it's a reflex to
> tell someone they're wrong without giving a reason why. Or unless you're
> inhibiting a virtual punch in the nose. I think it means suspend ideas out
> in public where we can all have a crack at them.
>
>
> No, it means to suspend your thought/phrase/ intended utterance up on the
> wall where you can have a good look at it and perhaps refine it, fill it out
> or see its meaning. It also means to stop and consider what you are about to
> blurt out. It means that one should be aware that any utterance is
> implicitly a request for a response. So it makes sense to to try to say what
> you actually want to say, rather than carry on your internal dialogue out in
> the world where it is likely to be misunderstood or to mislead since it has
> not been refined within your own psyche.
>
> don
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/fb1a39c1/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 05:52:09 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 15 05:57:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
In-Reply-To: <014001c83e8e$fdafe3a0$d076480c@HOME>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com>
<004701c83e48$0ddd8d50$b5c16018@DL01>
<002c01c83e5c$6443fdf0$d076480c@HOME>
<c47283890712140625g32e8d2b3j4231bc159453df8@mail.gmail.com>
<016c01c83e83$e2951c80$b5c16018@DL01>
<00d501c83e8b$e363bd80$d076480c@HOME>
<021f01c83e8d$af389150$b5c16018@DL01>
<014001c83e8e$fdafe3a0$d076480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <c47283890712142052r1442f2f1l301f8e9aa2a488e@mail.gmail.com>
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running.
But, I don't see how that relates to *feeling* music.
I: Sorry I disappeared on you. Doorbell rang; Had an improv session
scheduled, then we went to hear the Goldberg. I wish you could have been
there. If you ever get a chance to hear Jeffrey Kahane in person, you would
see as he performed, how the body does more than reflect the emotions and
meanings of music. Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his
entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
Words can't really describe this. If we ever meet in person, I can show you
how to experience it. How about London in April for the Bohm Conference?
On Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music
> because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your
> body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as you
> do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that people have
> different preferences and those preferences are what guide our choices. But
> I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the
> extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling
> experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
>
> Susan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> Because music works just like that. -- Susan
>
> A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to
> understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color must
> be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must be felt
> that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
>
> Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than is
> making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved
> music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as meaning
> very much.
>
> Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the visual
> experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is the
> meaning? -- dl
>
>
> <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking, some
> like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some feels
> sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the internal
> movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's part of it.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running.
> But, I don't see how that relates to *feeling* music.
>
> I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to what
> needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don, when
> you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step cuts in
> half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens to the size
> of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when you change from
> those three modes of moving.
>
> Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed in
> order to become aware.
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in
> > your body when you listen to it?
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/a866501f/attachment.html
From landmana at yahoo.com Sat Dec 15 06:00:09 2007
From: landmana at yahoo.com (Alfred Landman)
Date: Sat Dec 15 06:05:41 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <C38841D4.F9A0%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <391798.96656.qm@web57412.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Hi Lynne Tolk. On a fish-trip for meaning, it happened. On Friday, as you can see, thoughts washed up "oil balls" on beaches that had avoided damage and it moved toward a tidal flat. A week after a crane on a barge punched holes in a tanker that then leaked 10,500 metric tons of crude oil, densified parts of the spill have fallen to the sea floor and washed up on coast guard officials. The dense oil can kill fish, marine plants and plankton, in effect wiping out marine life in the directory of nature ecosystem. They are more difficult to remove than initial parts of the party. More than 25,000 people on Friday used shovels, absorbent cloth and their rubber-gloved hands to remove oil from about 150 Kilometers popular with tourists. "Overall, the pollution is on a movement trend," the coast guard said in a statement. That triggered concern among the maritime ministry which has conceded it was not properly prepared for the tanker party meeting and did not have enough remaining
cargo of crude. AL
Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I once read that comprehend, which we often use as a synonym for understand, comes from the French comprendre (com - with, and prendre - take or grasp). So there ends up a kind of union or communion between subject and object. This makes much more sense to me than standing under something.
Lynne
On 12/14/07 1:33 PM, "donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Damn, this topic turned up in an exchange between Bohm and a German friend. Unfortunately, my copies of this lie at the bottom of a box, six thousand miles away. But I do recall that he spoke about using the word "understanding" in the sense of "verstehen". Perhaps some of our German speaking friends here can help to expand this. What does verstehen mean and what other sorts of understanding might there be? As I recall when I looked understand up in my etymological dictionary it didn't seem very helpful.
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:39 AM, rob mooney wrote:
yes. i get that, that is often said. but why standing under? why not sitting on top? or lying in the middle? I wonder if it is something to do with the sky.
---------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:59 -0500
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
---------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071214/c9166ca4/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 15 15:45:40 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 15 15:51:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><25AC6162-BA38-4B83-AA29-FA47354C6A38@dc.rr.com><BAY123-W75DC06DA8B4FAA5831B4EDC670@phx.gbl><006001c83ded$35f2d7b0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131711y72929a88hffddbd1d1b826113@mail.gmail.com><012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com><004701c83e48$0ddd8d50$b5c16018@DL01><002c01c83e5c$6443fdf0$d076480c@HOME><c47283890712140625g32e8d2b3j4231bc159453df8@mail.gmail.com><016c01c83e83$e2951c80$b5c16018@DL01><00d501c83e8b$e363bd80$d076480c@HOME><021f01c83e8d$af389150$b5c16018@DL01>
<014001c83e8e$fdafe3a0$d076480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <007d01c83f29$2aff69d0$b5c16018@DL01>
But I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending. -- Susan
When people "block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience", is that an example of what db references as fragmentation? They are somehow fragmented to such a degree that they cannot feel music?
I've seen psychopaths on TV as having no feeling regarding a crime they had committed. I've also heard of people talking about music therapy for the mentally ill. Maybe that would help psychopaths feel, or become able to feel and therefore be normal.
Maybe a similar situation obtains regarding people who block out feeling or block out the pleasure of experiencing visual art, paintings, etc.
I like visual art, musical art, dance and other expressions of art. I like music, but not to the degree that when I hear it, I must stop everything and dance. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as you do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that people have different preferences and those preferences are what guide our choices. But I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. -- Susan
A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color must be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must be felt that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than is making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as meaning very much.
Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the visual experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is the meaning? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking, some like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some feels sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the internal movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's part of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don, when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step cuts in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens to the size of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when you change from those three modes of moving.
Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed in order to become aware.
On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in your body when you listen to it?
Susan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/1bf3fb27/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 15 16:02:03 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 15 16:07:38 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com><004701c83e48$0ddd8d50$b5c16018@DL01><002c01c83e5c$6443fdf0$d076480c@HOME><c47283890712140625g32e8d2b3j4231bc159453df8@mail.gmail.com><016c01c83e83$e2951c80$b5c16018@DL01><00d501c83e8b$e363bd80$d076480c@HOME><021f01c83e8d$af389150$b5c16018@DL01><014001c83e8e$fdafe3a0$d076480c@HOME>
<c47283890712142052r1442f2f1l301f8e9aa2a488e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009401c83f2b$73c67a30$b5c16018@DL01>
Irene: Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
dl: Very interesting expression. My friend Tom, an English teacher, said something similar regarding a ballet performance. When he talked of it, he became animated with a tune, pom . pom, pom-pom, pom . pom, pom-pom, his body moving rhythmically with each note as dancers do.
Irene: You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
dl: This reminds me of db in WIO talking about the piano player. Also, a computer programmer friend says he goes to work in the morning and begins writing code and looks up hours later to find it quitting time. He says it is a selfless experience in the sense of being unaware of ordinary self-concerns. Maybe that's true of dancers, etc, while "being the music".
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I: Sorry I disappeared on you. Doorbell rang; Had an improv session scheduled, then we went to hear the Goldberg. I wish you could have been there. If you ever get a chance to hear Jeffrey Kahane in person, you would see as he performed, how the body does more than reflect the emotions and meanings of music. Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music. You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
Words can't really describe this. If we ever meet in person, I can show you how to experience it. How about London in April for the Bohm Conference?
On Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as you do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that people have different preferences and those preferences are what guide our choices. But I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. -- Susan
A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color must be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must be felt that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than is making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as meaning very much.
Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the visual experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is the meaning? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking, some like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some feels sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the internal movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's part of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don, when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step cuts in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens to the size of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when you change from those three modes of moving.
Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed in order to become aware.
On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in your body when you listen to it?
Susan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/6418fbc6/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 15 16:15:23 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 15 16:20:58 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
References: <C38841D4.F9A0%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <00a801c83f2d$506f78a0$b5c16018@DL01>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2I see the "sense" expressed by comprehend as the person grasping something. I can see that, in a sense, as a person extending a grasping hand and grasping something. Maybe that image could stand for the imaginary homunculus grasping an idea.
This view might present the persona as more important or more fundamental than the idea being grasped.
The "sense" expressed by the person standing under an articulated position expresses something quite different. In this view, the persona is not presented as dominant or more fundamental than the idea to be grasped.
This view might not present the persona as a dominant or as a fundamental entity. Maybe both are useful concepts in differing situations. -- dl
From: Lynne Tolk
To: BohmDialogue
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I once read that comprehend, which we often use as a synonym for understand, comes from the French comprendre (com - with, and prendre - take or grasp). So there ends up a kind of union or communion between subject and object. This makes much more sense to me than standing under something.
Lynne
On 12/14/07 1:33 PM, "donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Damn, this topic turned up in an exchange between Bohm and a German friend. Unfortunately, my copies of this lie at the bottom of a box, six thousand miles away. But I do recall that he spoke about using the word "understanding" in the sense of "verstehen". Perhaps some of our German speaking friends here can help to expand this. What does verstehen mean and what other sorts of understanding might there be? As I recall when I looked understand up in my etymological dictionary it didn't seem very helpful.
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:39 AM, rob mooney wrote:
yes. i get that, that is often said. but why standing under? why not sitting on top? or lying in the middle? I wonder if it is something to do with the sky.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:59 -0500
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/740892fa/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 15 16:45:11 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 15 16:50:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com><012d01c83df0$1307c1e0$b5c16018@DL01><c47283890712131732p5017860djb9c130b1bc56a572@mail.gmail.com><004701c83e48$0ddd8d50$b5c16018@DL01><002c01c83e5c$6443fdf0$d076480c@HOME><c47283890712140625g32e8d2b3j4231bc159453df8@mail.gmail.com><016c01c83e83$e2951c80$b5c16018@DL01><00d501c83e8b$e363bd80$d076480c@HOME><021f01c83e8d$af389150$b5c16018@DL01><014001c83e8e$fdafe3a0$d076480c@HOME><c47283890712142052r1442f2f1l301f8e9aa2a488e@mail.gmail.com>
<009401c83f2b$73c67a30$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <00c101c83f31$7a6fbdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
CORRECTION:
That should have been: pom pom, popom-popom, pom pom popom.
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
Irene: Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
dl: Very interesting expression. My friend Tom, an English teacher, said something similar regarding a ballet performance. When he talked of it, he became animated with a tune, pom . pom, pom-pom, pom . pom, pom-pom, his body moving rhythmically with each note as dancers do.
Irene: You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
dl: This reminds me of db in WIO talking about the piano player. Also, a computer programmer friend says he goes to work in the morning and begins writing code and looks up hours later to find it quitting time. He says it is a selfless experience in the sense of being unaware of ordinary self-concerns. Maybe that's true of dancers, etc, while "being the music".
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I: Sorry I disappeared on you. Doorbell rang; Had an improv session scheduled, then we went to hear the Goldberg. I wish you could have been there. If you ever get a chance to hear Jeffrey Kahane in person, you would see as he performed, how the body does more than reflect the emotions and meanings of music. Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music. You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
Words can't really describe this. If we ever meet in person, I can show you how to experience it. How about London in April for the Bohm Conference?
On Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as you do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that people have different preferences and those preferences are what guide our choices. But I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. -- Susan
A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color must be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must be felt that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than is making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as meaning very much.
Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the visual experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is the meaning? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking, some like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some feels sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the internal movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's part of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don, when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step cuts in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens to the size of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when you change from those three modes of moving.
Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed in order to become aware.
On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in your body when you listen to it?
Susan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/a8d236a1/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 17:20:02 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 15 17:25:42 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
In-Reply-To: <00c101c83f31$7a6fbdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<002c01c83e5c$6443fdf0$d076480c@HOME>
<c47283890712140625g32e8d2b3j4231bc159453df8@mail.gmail.com>
<016c01c83e83$e2951c80$b5c16018@DL01>
<00d501c83e8b$e363bd80$d076480c@HOME>
<021f01c83e8d$af389150$b5c16018@DL01>
<014001c83e8e$fdafe3a0$d076480c@HOME>
<c47283890712142052r1442f2f1l301f8e9aa2a488e@mail.gmail.com>
<009401c83f2b$73c67a30$b5c16018@DL01>
<00c101c83f31$7a6fbdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <c47283890712150820i67bf1af0jca435e44008b103@mail.gmail.com>
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
I: Me, too. But for Bohm, I'm going to take a chance. Hope you come.
DOWN
On Dec 15, 2007 10:45 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
> CORRECTION:
>
> That should have been: *pom pom, popom-popom, pom pom popom.*
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:02 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
>
> Irene: Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
>
> dl: Very interesting expression. My friend Tom, an English teacher,
> said something similar regarding a ballet performance. When he talked of
> it, he became animated with a tune, *pom . pom, pom-pom, pom . pom,
> pom-pom,* his body moving rhythmically with each note as dancers do.
>
>
All dancers don't, but Tom was. And you don't have to dance to be the
music. My pianist last night didn't dance with feet through space.
This introduces another idea. I picked up a book at the Harvard Book Store
called 'Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think". Typing on a
computer certainly blocks that. How might that affect dialogue?
>
> Irene: You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his
> face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
>
> dl: This reminds me of db in WIO talking about the piano player. Also, a
> computer programmer friend says he goes to work in the morning and begins
> writing code and looks up hours later to find it quitting time. He says it
> is a *selfless experience* in the sense of being unaware of ordinary
> self-concerns. Maybe that's true of dancers, etc, while "being the music".
>
> I: Yes. When he finished all 30 variations and the two statements of the
theme last night, he sat silently for so long; he wasn't in this world and
had to come back. The audience was completely silent, reading his face for
a signal that the time was right to applaud. When the signal came, the
applause was deafening, and everyone rose to their feet. Then he stood up,
faced us, and picked up a copy of the Goldberg with a gesture that said "The
applause belongs to Bach, not to me."
And that brings me to another thought inspired by the concert. Why can't we
think of all the various "I's" & "me's", selves, personas as variations on a
theme, all of which are integrated to make one single work of art?
You raise interesting questions about loss of affect and music therapy. I'd
like to explore that, but I need to do some Googling first. If you have any
ideas or information on it - or anyone else does - please post them.
How's Florida? What's on tap for the Holidays? Tomorrow night there's a
Fool's Mass at St John the Divine.
>
> I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
>
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 11:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
>
> I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running.
> But, I don't see how that relates to *feeling* music.
>
> I: Sorry I disappeared on you. Doorbell rang; Had an improv session
> scheduled, then we went to hear the Goldberg. I wish you could have been
> there. If you ever get a chance to hear Jeffrey Kahane in person, you would
> see as he performed, how the body does more than reflect the emotions and
> meanings of music. Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
> You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his
> entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
>
> Words can't really describe this. If we ever meet in person, I can show
> you how to experience it. How about London in April for the Bohm
> Conference?
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music
> > because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your
> > body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as you
> > do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that people have
> > different preferences and those preferences are what guide our choices. But
> > I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the
> > extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling
> > experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> >
> > Because music works just like that. -- Susan
> >
> > A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to
> > understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color must
> > be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must be felt
> > that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
> >
> > Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than is
> > making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved
> > music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as meaning
> > very much.
> >
> > Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the
> > visual experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is
> > the meaning? -- dl
> >
> >
> > <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> >
> > Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking, some
> > like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some feels
> > sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the internal
> > movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's part of it.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> >
> > I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and
> > running. But, I don't see how that relates to *feeling* music.
> >
> > I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to
> > what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
> >
> >
> > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> >
> > I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don,
> > when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step cuts
> > in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens to the
> > size of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when you change
> > from those three modes of moving.
> >
> > Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed in
> > order to become aware.
> >
> > On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in
> > > your body when you listen to it?
> > >
> > > Susan
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/848f563b/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sat Dec 15 17:52:40 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sat Dec 15 17:58:19 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712150820i67bf1af0jca435e44008b103@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <140157.99544.qm@web45814.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Hey folks, howdie! I just wanted to put a few words our in order to say something. Anything. Will do, no ;-)
Alan
(0-k)) -- & now back to the (other) animals.
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
I: Me, too. But for Bohm, I'm going to take a chance. Hope you come.
DOWN
On Dec 15, 2007 10:45 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
CORRECTION:
That should have been: pom pom, popom-popom, pom pom popom.
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
Irene: Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
dl: Very interesting expression. My friend Tom, an English teacher, said something similar regarding a ballet performance. When he talked of it, he became animated with a tune, pom . pom, pom-pom, pom . pom, pom-pom, his body moving rhythmically with each note as dancers do.
All dancers don't, but Tom was. And you don't have to dance to be the music. My pianist last night didn't dance with feet through space.
This introduces another idea. I picked up a book at the Harvard Book Store called 'Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think". Typing on a computer certainly blocks that. How might that affect dialogue?
Irene: You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
dl: This reminds me of db in WIO talking about the piano player. Also, a computer programmer friend says he goes to work in the morning and begins writing code and looks up hours later to find it quitting time. He says it is a selfless experience in the sense of being unaware of ordinary self-concerns. Maybe that's true of dancers, etc, while "being the music".
I: Yes. When he finished all 30 variations and the two statements of the theme last night, he sat silently for so long; he wasn't in this world and had to come back. The audience was completely silent, reading his face for a signal that the time was right to applaud. When the signal came, the applause was deafening, and everyone rose to their feet. Then he stood up, faced us, and picked up a copy of the Goldberg with a gesture that said "The applause belongs to Bach, not to me."
And that brings me to another thought inspired by the concert. Why can't we think of all the various "I's" & "me's", selves, personas as variations on a theme, all of which are integrated to make one single work of art?
You raise interesting questions about loss of affect and music therapy. I'd like to explore that, but I need to do some Googling first. If you have any ideas or information on it - or anyone else does - please post them.
How's Florida? What's on tap for the Holidays? Tomorrow night there's a Fool's Mass at St John the Divine.
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I: Sorry I disappeared on you. Doorbell rang; Had an improv session scheduled, then we went to hear the Goldberg. I wish you could have been there. If you ever get a chance to hear Jeffrey Kahane in person, you would see as he performed, how the body does more than reflect the emotions and meanings of music. Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music. You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
Words can't really describe this. If we ever meet in person, I can show you how to experience it. How about London in April for the Bohm Conference?
On Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as you do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that people have different preferences and those preferences are what guide our choices. But I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. -- Susan
A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color must be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must be felt that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than is making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as meaning very much.
Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the visual experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is the meaning? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking, some like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some feels sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the internal movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's part of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don, when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step cuts in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens to the size of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when you change from those three modes of moving.
Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed in order to become aware.
On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in your body when you listen to it?
Susan
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/2d91e294/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sat Dec 15 17:55:59 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sat Dec 15 18:01:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <391798.96656.qm@web57412.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <150701.31524.qm@web45815.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Wait, that one too, quickly, before I sky myself: Alfred, you ok? "Looks" like a bit freshair would hurt you either not, goodmistr :--o
Alan
Alfred Landman <landmana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Lynne Tolk. On a fish-trip for meaning, it happened. On Friday, as you can see, thoughts washed up "oil balls" on beaches that had avoided damage and it moved toward a tidal flat. A week after a crane on a barge punched holes in a tanker that then leaked 10,500 metric tons of crude oil, densified parts of the spill have fallen to the sea floor and washed up on coast guard officials. The dense oil can kill fish, marine plants and plankton, in effect wiping out marine life in the directory of nature ecosystem. They are more difficult to remove than initial parts of the party. More than 25,000 people on Friday used shovels, absorbent cloth and their rubber-gloved hands to remove oil from about 150 Kilometers popular with tourists. "Overall, the pollution is on a movement trend," the coast guard said in a statement. That triggered concern among the maritime ministry which has conceded it was not properly prepared for the tanker party meeting and did not have enough
remaining cargo of crude. AL
Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
I once read that comprehend, which we often use as a synonym for understand, comes from the French comprendre (com - with, and prendre - take or grasp). So there ends up a kind of union or communion between subject and object. This makes much more sense to me than standing under something.
Lynne
On 12/14/07 1:33 PM, "donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Damn, this topic turned up in an exchange between Bohm and a German friend. Unfortunately, my copies of this lie at the bottom of a box, six thousand miles away. But I do recall that he spoke about using the word "understanding" in the sense of "verstehen". Perhaps some of our German speaking friends here can help to expand this. What does verstehen mean and what other sorts of understanding might there be? As I recall when I looked understand up in my etymological dictionary it didn't seem very helpful.
don
On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:39 AM, rob mooney wrote:
yes. i get that, that is often said. but why standing under? why not sitting on top? or lying in the middle? I wonder if it is something to do with the sky.
---------------------------------
From: donlay@knology.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:59 -0500
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far. -- Rob
Tillich says it means standing under an articulated position.
Thus, one might say he understands a bit of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., which might direct attention to the idea of there being Truth in all of them. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney <mailto:rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
it is very difficult to understand understanding. the first question i asked here, quite a while or two ago now was why is it under standing? no satisfactory explanation has been synopsized so far.
---------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:46 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Don't you think though, that maybe a bit of both is even more useful? Just so long as we don't turn the tree - or others - into objects that we "understand" completely. Actually, as I think of it, there is more than one way to understand understanding.
don
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/45334580/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 15 18:34:23 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 15 18:37:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
Message-ID: <20071215.123618.1072.85.ae.dropper@juno.com>
This inspires me to say something too.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:52:40 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey"
<a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Hey folks, howdie! I just wanted to put a few words our in order to say
something. Anything. Will do, no ;-)
Alan
(0-k)) -- & now back to the (other) animals.
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
I: Me, too. But for Bohm, I'm going to take a chance. Hope you come.
DOWN
On Dec 15, 2007 10:45 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
CORRECTION:
That should have been: pom pom, popom-popom, pom pom popom.
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
Irene: Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
dl: Very interesting expression. My friend Tom, an English teacher,
said something similar regarding a ballet performance. When he talked of
it, he became animated with a tune, pom . pom, pom-pom, pom . pom,
pom-pom, his body moving rhythmically with each note as dancers do.
All dancers don't, but Tom was. And you don't have to dance to be the
music. My pianist last night didn't dance with feet through space.
This introduces another idea. I picked up a book at the Harvard Book
Store called 'Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think". Typing on
a computer certainly blocks that. How might that affect dialogue?
Irene: You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his
face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the
music.
dl: This reminds me of db in WIO talking about the piano player. Also,
a computer programmer friend says he goes to work in the morning and
begins writing code and looks up hours later to find it quitting time.
He says it is a selfless experience in the sense of being unaware of
ordinary self-concerns. Maybe that's true of dancers, etc, while "being
the music".
I: Yes. When he finished all 30 variations and the two statements of
the theme last night, he sat silently for so long; he wasn't in this
world and had to come back. The audience was completely silent, reading
his face for a signal that the time was right to applaud. When the
signal came, the applause was deafening, and everyone rose to their feet.
Then he stood up, faced us, and picked up a copy of the Goldberg with a
gesture that said "The applause belongs to Bach, not to me."
And that brings me to another thought inspired by the concert. Why can't
we think of all the various "I's" & "me's", selves, personas as
variations on a theme, all of which are integrated to make one single
work of art?
You raise interesting questions about loss of affect and music therapy.
I'd like to explore that, but I need to do some Googling first. If you
have any ideas or information on it - or anyone else does - please post
them.
How's Florida? What's on tap for the Holidays? Tomorrow night there's a
Fool's Mass at St John the Divine.
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running.
But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I: Sorry I disappeared on you. Doorbell rang; Had an improv session
scheduled, then we went to hear the Goldberg. I wish you could have been
there. If you ever get a chance to hear Jeffrey Kahane in person, you
would see as he performed, how the body does more than reflect the
emotions and meanings of music. Susan's words came close, but the body
IS the music. You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see
his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the
music.
Words can't really describe this. If we ever meet in person, I can show
you how to experience it. How about London in April for the Bohm
Conference?
On Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music
because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your
body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as
you do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that
people have different preferences and those preferences are what guide
our choices. But I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual
experience to the extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from
their feeling experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their
ego/pretending.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. -- Susan
A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to
understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color
must be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must
be felt that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than is
making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved
music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as
meaning very much.
Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the visual
experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is the
meaning? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking, some
like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some
feels sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the
internal movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's
part of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running.
But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to
what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don,
when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step
cuts in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens
to the size of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when
you change from those three modes of moving.
Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed in
order to become aware.
On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in your
body when you listen to it?
Susan
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/dcea6085/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Sat Dec 15 18:46:47 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 15 18:47:43 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION - 4th excerpt
Message-ID: <20071215.124648.1072.86.ae.dropper@juno.com>
SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION - 4th excerpt
LN: Why do you think that there is a resistance to looking at the
mechanical nature of this process?
DB: Because it has gotten tied up with the self/world image. One feels
uneasy about saying that one's deep gut feelings may have no meaning
because it begins to threaten the notion of the self-identity. For you
identify yourself, among other things, with those deep gut feelings. So
if you begin to think these deep gut feelings may have no meaning, and
you have depended on them for the foundation of a lot of your life, you
begin to worry about your whole self, right? There's a thought behind it
that's ready to defend the self by not allowing this to be seen. It's
really defending the self-image. We don't know what the self is, nobody
has ever managed to look at the self, but what we have is a kind of an
image of a self with an image of a world in which it lives. This image
creates a wide range of neurophysiological effects, implying that this is
all a reality of very great significance. We have already discussed some
of these
10
effects. And if this image is altered, the whole neurophysiological
system goes into chaos so that there's a response from the body and from
the brain to do something to restore equilibrium. The most immediate way
to do that would be to produce thoughts which would change those
responses toward equilibrium. But then that would be a mechanical way of
thinking, which is false. So you get mechanical feelings and mechanical
thoughts working on each other.
LN: Just to put this into perspective from where we started, it seems
that this apparently simple notion of observation, pursued in the way
that you've described it, will actually lead one into difficulty and not
necessarily clarity. For the act of looking at the connections in the way
that you've indicated will eventually lead to this very point of
questioning the meaning of one's deepest feelings.
DB: Yes, and also one's deepest thoughts.
LN: And one's deepest thoughts. This is not a particularly comfortable
position to find oneself in. Is it possible that this is one reason that
observation never penetrates beyond a certain point?
DB: Yes, I think that there's a kind of defense which is based on the
assumption that whenever this whole system starts getting too disturbed,
it's best to keep away from whatever is disturbing it. The whole body
reacts instinctively that way to pain, moving away from the pain, and
then that same reaction is carried up into the higher functions of the
brain by some movement of thought, away from the issue which is
disturbing it. It moves in such a way as to ease the system. And that's
not an intelligent way for thought to operate.
LN: Now, let's say that a person comes to the point that you're
describing. The deeper feelings and thoughts which
11
constitute the sense of self for that individual begin to be exposed.
DB: Yes, as mechanical, and therefore having little value.
LN: Isn't it particularly important at this level to have developed a
certain skill? That skill being the ability to suspend judgment regarding
the fact that one holds these beliefs or feelings or ideas. Because once
you penetrate to a particularly deep and sensitive level, if you again
begin to judge, it seems that it can be very destructive, and that this
mechanism to protect might be appropriate.
DB: Well yes, you might say you could easily become very depressed or
something.
LN: Yes, that's the issue I'm trying to point to -- how to avoid becoming
deeply depressed at this point and so depressed at least, that it
inhibits pursuing the question.
DB: I think the idea is not to push it too hard in the sense, don't push
it to the point where it would carry you into depression. You have to
find a certain skill of pushing it to the point where you can observe and
not to push too much, because that's really more mechanical action again.
You need insight, you see, and the whole point of suspension is merely to
get insight, not to produce predetermined results. Only the insight can
change you. The insight that this process is mechanical will change you.
It will decrease the importance of the process in your mind, and
therefore, the whole thing will change.
But there's always a danger that you haven't gone far enough in doing
this, because there's more to the process. There's all sorts of deeper
things you haven't touched yet, and you are beginning to shake them, too.
But all I'm saying is: Don't go too fast. Start with anger, where people
generally realize that the thing is
12
destructive, so that you are able to work on it. It doesn't shake you too
much to discover these things about anger. You might then work on fear,
because fear has a similar structure. And so does desire and pleasure.
They all have a similar structure. In fact, desire comes from projecting
in the imagination, the thing you want, and anticipating the satisfaction
of pleasure, or whatever. And fear is the same thing except you
anticipate all the trouble and pain that's coming. So between desire and
fear, there's very little difference; it's just that you anticipate
something nice or something bad.
LN: Both rooted in anticipation.
DB: Yes. Anticipation is a function you need, but here it's begun to go
wrong. Because you're anticipating the internal state of the mind and not
realizing it's just an image.
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 15 19:55:45 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sat Dec 15 20:01:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <00a801c83f2d$506f78a0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <C38841D4.F9A0%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
<00a801c83f2d$506f78a0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <E7A24AD4-5F39-4706-A5BD-24CCCC07FB3B@dc.rr.com>
On Dec 15, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Don Lay wrote:
> This view might not present the persona as a dominant or as a
> fundamental entity. Maybe both are useful concepts in differing
> situations. -- dl
>
That's, I think, the difficulty. It's not that language does this or
that but that it does that and that, In other words, I suppose it
would help if we were able to preface all our remarks with an
indication of what system or pov we were starting from. That's why
Bohm made the point that a theory is a way of looking at something
that might reveal certain aspects of it that another way of looking
would not. Its also the undelying point of dialogue. You get a lot of
theories displayed all together and this allows the possibility that
a new metatheory might emerge Of course, that may be asking far too
much, since it seems we live in an age where we are always in a hurry
and we tend to be wedded to our own theories.
"we" as used here denotes most humans.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/00a8587b/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 15 19:58:47 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sat Dec 15 20:04:29 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712150820i67bf1af0jca435e44008b103@mail.gmail.com>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<002c01c83e5c$6443fdf0$d076480c@HOME>
<c47283890712140625g32e8d2b3j4231bc159453df8@mail.gmail.com>
<016c01c83e83$e2951c80$b5c16018@DL01>
<00d501c83e8b$e363bd80$d076480c@HOME>
<021f01c83e8d$af389150$b5c16018@DL01>
<014001c83e8e$fdafe3a0$d076480c@HOME>
<c47283890712142052r1442f2f1l301f8e9aa2a488e@mail.gmail.com>
<009401c83f2b$73c67a30$b5c16018@DL01>
<00c101c83f31$7a6fbdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712150820i67bf1af0jca435e44008b103@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EADD4DFC-5EC6-4FC8-9860-56646852DE44@dc.rr.com>
I have heard from Peat that what is planning with Basil Hiley at the
moment would be two meetings, one for physicists and one for
philosophers to be held at his place in Italy, probably in May. Then,
maybe, there would be a public meeting in London. But he didn't
mention a date. Assuming he keeps me informed I will keep you all
informed. And vice versa I hope
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
>
> I: Me, too. But for Bohm, I'm going to take a chance. Hope you
> come.
>
> DOWN
>
> On Dec 15, 2007 10:45 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
> CORRECTION:
>
> That should have been: pom pom, popom-popom, pom pom popom.
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
>
> Irene: Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
>
> dl: Very interesting expression. My friend Tom, an English
> teacher, said something similar regarding a ballet performance.
> When he talked of it, he became animated with a tune, pom . pom,
> pom-pom, pom . pom, pom-pom, his body moving rhythmically with each
> note as dancers do.
>
> All dancers don't, but Tom was. And you don't have to dance to be
> the music. My pianist last night didn't dance with feet through
> space.
>
> This introduces another idea. I picked up a book at the Harvard
> Book Store called 'Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think".
> Typing on a computer certainly blocks that. How might that affect
> dialogue?
>
> Irene: You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see
> his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce
> the music.
>
> dl: This reminds me of db in WIO talking about the piano player.
> Also, a computer programmer friend says he goes to work in the
> morning and begins writing code and looks up hours later to find it
> quitting time. He says it is a selfless experience in the sense of
> being unaware of ordinary self-concerns. Maybe that's true of
> dancers, etc, while "being the music".
> I: Yes. When he finished all 30 variations and the two statements
> of the theme last night, he sat silently for so long; he wasn't in
> this world and had to come back. The audience was completely
> silent, reading his face for a signal that the time was right to
> applaud. When the signal came, the applause was deafening, and
> everyone rose to their feet. Then he stood up, faced us, and
> picked up a copy of the Goldberg with a gesture that said "The
> applause belongs to Bach, not to me."
>
> And that brings me to another thought inspired by the concert. Why
> can't we think of all the various "I's" & "me's", selves, personas
> as variations on a theme, all of which are integrated to make one
> single work of art?
>
> You raise interesting questions about loss of affect and music
> therapy. I'd like to explore that, but I need to do some Googling
> first. If you have any ideas or information on it - or anyone else
> does - please post them.
>
> How's Florida? What's on tap for the Holidays? Tomorrow night
> there's a Fool's Mass at St John the Divine.
>
> I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
>
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Irene Darcy
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
>
> I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and
> running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
>
> I: Sorry I disappeared on you. Doorbell rang; Had an improv
> session scheduled, then we went to hear the Goldberg. I wish you
> could have been there. If you ever get a chance to hear Jeffrey
> Kahane in person, you would see as he performed, how the body does
> more than reflect the emotions and meanings of music. Susan's
> words came close, but the body IS the music. You would need a
> seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body
> and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
>
> Words can't really describe this. If we ever meet in person, I can
> show you how to experience it. How about London in April for the
> Bohm Conference?
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM, Susan Clemons <
> Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music
> because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music
> in your body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling
> experience as you do to your visual experience. I would say it
> simply means that people have different preferences and those
> preferences are what guide our choices. But I have also noticed
> that people who prefer their visual experience to the extent that
> they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience
> do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> Because music works just like that. -- Susan
>
> A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend
> to understand what green looked like, but he never could because a
> color must be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal
> movement must be felt that mirrors the beat of music. I've never
> noticed that.
>
> Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression
> than is making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a
> lady who loved music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just
> never saw it as meaning very much.
>
> Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the
> visual experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did.
> What is the meaning? -- dl
>
>
>
> From: Susan Clemons
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking,
> some like running, some like jumping up and down, some like
> marching, some feels sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with
> music is the internal movement that mirrors the beat of the music.
> At least, that's part of it.
>
> Susan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and
> running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
>
> I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed
> to what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
>
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Irene Darcy
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
> I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention
> Don, when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of
> your step cuts in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging.
> Notice what happens to the size of your step in relation to the
> speed at which you move when you change from those three modes of
> moving.
>
> Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be
> noticed in order to become aware.
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons <
> Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in
> your body when you listen to it?
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/5b15cef0/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 20:06:53 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 15 20:12:34 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
In-Reply-To: <EADD4DFC-5EC6-4FC8-9860-56646852DE44@dc.rr.com>
References: <286727.34373.qm@web57416.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<016c01c83e83$e2951c80$b5c16018@DL01>
<00d501c83e8b$e363bd80$d076480c@HOME>
<021f01c83e8d$af389150$b5c16018@DL01>
<014001c83e8e$fdafe3a0$d076480c@HOME>
<c47283890712142052r1442f2f1l301f8e9aa2a488e@mail.gmail.com>
<009401c83f2b$73c67a30$b5c16018@DL01>
<00c101c83f31$7a6fbdf0$b5c16018@DL01>
<c47283890712150820i67bf1af0jca435e44008b103@mail.gmail.com>
<EADD4DFC-5EC6-4FC8-9860-56646852DE44@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712151106n69ced1a7gf18ab8aba6a4d51a@mail.gmail.com>
Deal. May is better. Let's hope the public meeting comes through. It
would be a pity to make this exclusive.
On Dec 15, 2007 1:58 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> I have heard from Peat that what is planning with Basil Hiley at the
> moment would be two meetings, one for physicists and one for philosophers to
> be held at his place in Italy, probably in May. Then, maybe, there would be
> a public meeting in London. But he didn't mention a date. Assuming he keeps
> me informed I will keep you all informed. And vice versa I hope
> don
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
>
> I: Me, too. But for Bohm, I'm going to take a chance. Hope you come.
>
> DOWN
>
> On Dec 15, 2007 10:45 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
>
> > CORRECTION:
> >
> > That should have been: *pom pom, popom-popom, pom pom popom.*
> >
> >
> > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:02 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
> >
> > Irene: Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
> >
> > dl: Very interesting expression. My friend Tom, an English teacher,
> > said something similar regarding a ballet performance. When he talked of
> > it, he became animated with a tune, *pom . pom, pom-pom, pom . pom,
> > pom-pom,* his body moving rhythmically with each note as dancers do.
> >
> >
> All dancers don't, but Tom was. And you don't have to dance to be the
> music. My pianist last night didn't dance with feet through space.
>
> This introduces another idea. I picked up a book at the Harvard Book
> Store called 'Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think". Typing on a
> computer certainly blocks that. How might that affect dialogue?
>
> >
> > Irene: You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his
> > face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
> >
> > dl: This reminds me of db in WIO talking about the piano player. Also,
> > a computer programmer friend says he goes to work in the morning and begins
> > writing code and looks up hours later to find it quitting time. He says it
> > is a *selfless experience* in the sense of being unaware of ordinary
> > self-concerns. Maybe that's true of dancers, etc, while "being the music".
> >
> > I: Yes. When he finished all 30 variations and the two statements of
> the theme last night, he sat silently for so long; he wasn't in this world
> and had to come back. The audience was completely silent, reading his face
> for a signal that the time was right to applaud. When the signal came, the
> applause was deafening, and everyone rose to their feet. Then he stood up,
> faced us, and picked up a copy of the Goldberg with a gesture that said "The
> applause belongs to Bach, not to me."
>
> And that brings me to another thought inspired by the concert. Why can't
> we think of all the various "I's" & "me's", selves, personas as variations
> on a theme, all of which are integrated to make one single work of art?
>
> You raise interesting questions about loss of affect and music therapy.
> I'd like to explore that, but I need to do some Googling first. If you have
> any ideas or information on it - or anyone else does - please post them.
>
> How's Florida? What's on tap for the Holidays? Tomorrow night there's a
> Fool's Mass at St John the Divine.
>
> >
> > I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 11:52 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
> >
> > I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and
> > running. But, I don't see how that relates to *feeling* music.
> >
> > I: Sorry I disappeared on you. Doorbell rang; Had an improv session
> > scheduled, then we went to hear the Goldberg. I wish you could have been
> > there. If you ever get a chance to hear Jeffrey Kahane in person, you would
> > see as he performed, how the body does more than reflect the emotions and
> > meanings of music. Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
> > You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his
> > entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
> >
> > Words can't really describe this. If we ever meet in person, I can show
> > you how to experience it. How about London in April for the Bohm
> > Conference?
> >
> > On Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music
> > > because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your
> > > body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as you
> > > do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that people have
> > > different preferences and those preferences are what guide our choices. But
> > > I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the
> > > extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling
> > > experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
> > >
> > > Susan
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> > >
> > > Because music works just like that. -- Susan
> > >
> > > A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to
> > > understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color must
> > > be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must be felt
> > > that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
> > >
> > > Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than
> > > is making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved
> > > music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as meaning
> > > very much.
> > >
> > > Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the
> > > visual experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is
> > > the meaning? -- dl
> > >
> > >
> > > <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> > >
> > > *From:* Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> > >
> > > Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking,
> > > some like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some
> > > feels sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the internal
> > > movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's part of it.
> > >
> > > Susan
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Don Lay <donlay@knology.net>
> > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> > >
> > > I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and
> > > running. But, I don't see how that relates to *feeling* music.
> > >
> > > I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to
> > > what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.knology.net/~donlay/ <http://www.knology.net/%7Edonlay/>
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
> > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
> > >
> > > I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don,
> > > when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step cuts
> > > in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens to the
> > > size of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when you change
> > > from those three modes of moving.
> > >
> > > Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed
> > > in order to become aware.
> > >
> > > On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in
> > > > your body when you listen to it?
> > > >
> > > > Susan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/97813984/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 20:41:08 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 15 20:46:48 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] between us
Message-ID: <c47283890712151141g1ac53d51l6b9700d1f06cede7@mail.gmail.com>
Why is the Bohm Conference separating the philosophers and physicists?
Isn't that not only fragmentation, but a continuation of the criticisms I
have read in many places? I understand why each might want to be with those
who are really fluent in their expertise, but a joint session seems
necessary as well. Bohm's work in the two domains complimented each other.
"Between us' because I'm not part of the 'group', but can't help thinking.
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/83dd3fe8/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Sat Dec 15 21:30:35 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Dec 15 21:36:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
References: <C38841D4.F9A0%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com><00a801c83f2d$506f78a0$b5c16018@DL01>
<E7A24AD4-5F39-4706-A5BD-24CCCC07FB3B@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <010d01c83f59$59849700$b5c16018@DL01>
I suppose it would help if we were able to preface all our remarks with an indication of what system or pov we were starting from. -- df
Yes. Maybe careful speakers/writers do that.
What about the idea that the POV is implied in the language, situation, etc?
Of course, then the problem of the speaker/writer shifting his POV without awareness of doing so and then confusion follows.
Sometimes a POV seems to be purely imaginary and may appear sensible until the imagination changes. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
On Dec 15, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Don Lay wrote:
This view might not present the persona as a dominant or as a fundamental entity. Maybe both are useful concepts in differing situations. -- dl
That's, I think, the difficulty. It's not that language does this or that but that it does that and that, In other words, I suppose it would help if we were able to preface all our remarks with an indication of what system or pov we were starting from. That's why Bohm made the point that a theory is a way of looking at something that might reveal certain aspects of it that another way of looking would not. Its also the undelying point of dialogue. You get a lot of theories displayed all together and this allows the possibility that a new metatheory might emerge Of course, that may be asking far too much, since it seems we live in an age where we are always in a hurry and we tend to be wedded to our own theories.
"we" as used here denotes most humans.
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/5c2d5cac/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sat Dec 15 21:37:31 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sat Dec 15 21:43:13 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
In-Reply-To: <20071215.123618.1072.85.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <27910.57610.qm@web45806.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Ofunni, it sure luuks like you made me day may be '_)
Thanks a thou.
Aman
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
This inspires me to say something too.
-- funny
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:52:40 -0800 (PST) "Alan E. DeBakey" <a.debakey@yahoo.com> writes:
Hey folks, howdie! I just wanted to put a few words our in order to say something. Anything. Will do, no ;-)
Alan
(0-k)) -- & now back to the (other) animals.
Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
I: Me, too. But for Bohm, I'm going to take a chance. Hope you come.
DOWN
On Dec 15, 2007 10:45 AM, Don Lay <donlay@knology.net> wrote:
CORRECTION:
That should have been: pom pom, popom-popom, pom pom popom.
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
Irene: Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music.
dl: Very interesting expression. My friend Tom, an English teacher, said something similar regarding a ballet performance. When he talked of it, he became animated with a tune, pom . pom, pom-pom, pom . pom, pom-pom, his body moving rhythmically with each note as dancers do.
All dancers don't, but Tom was. And you don't have to dance to be the music. My pianist last night didn't dance with feet through space.
This introduces another idea. I picked up a book at the Harvard Book Store called 'Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think". Typing on a computer certainly blocks that. How might that affect dialogue?
Irene: You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
dl: This reminds me of db in WIO talking about the piano player. Also, a computer programmer friend says he goes to work in the morning and begins writing code and looks up hours later to find it quitting time. He says it is a selfless experience in the sense of being unaware of ordinary self-concerns. Maybe that's true of dancers, etc, while "being the music".
I: Yes. When he finished all 30 variations and the two statements of the theme last night, he sat silently for so long; he wasn't in this world and had to come back. The audience was completely silent, reading his face for a signal that the time was right to applaud. When the signal came, the applause was deafening, and everyone rose to their feet. Then he stood up, faced us, and picked up a copy of the Goldberg with a gesture that said "The applause belongs to Bach, not to me."
And that brings me to another thought inspired by the concert. Why can't we think of all the various "I's" & "me's", selves, personas as variations on a theme, all of which are integrated to make one single work of art?
You raise interesting questions about loss of affect and music therapy. I'd like to explore that, but I need to do some Googling first. If you have any ideas or information on it - or anyone else does - please post them.
How's Florida? What's on tap for the Holidays? Tomorrow night there's a Fool's Mass at St John the Divine.
I'll consider London, but I dislike flying. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling experience
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I: Sorry I disappeared on you. Doorbell rang; Had an improv session scheduled, then we went to hear the Goldberg. I wish you could have been there. If you ever get a chance to hear Jeffrey Kahane in person, you would see as he performed, how the body does more than reflect the emotions and meanings of music. Susan's words came close, but the body IS the music. You would need a seat close to the stage so you could see his face, his entire body and soul - not just his fingers - produce the music.
Words can't really describe this. If we ever meet in person, I can show you how to experience it. How about London in April for the Bohm Conference?
On Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Then I would say that you have definitely learned to feel the music because that is what dancing is, reflecting the feel of the music in your body. You just don't assign as much value to your feeling experience as you do to your visual experience. I would say it simply means that people have different preferences and those preferences are what guide our choices. But I have also noticed that people who prefer their visual experience to the extent that they block out the pleasure to be had from their feeling experience do seem to have a tendency to get stuck in their ego/pretending.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. -- Susan
A friend tells the childhood story of trying to get a blind friend to understand what green looked like, but he never could because a color must be seen to be known. Similarly, maybe some internal movement must be felt that mirrors the beat of music. I've never noticed that.
Maybe visual or graphic art is very different kind of expression than is making music or even feeling music. Once I lived with a lady who loved music, loved dancing. I learned to dance, but just never saw it as meaning very much.
Interesting how people are different. My wife never cared for the visual experience of graphic art, even though she like what I did. What is the meaning? -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
Because music works just like that. Some music feels like walking, some like running, some like jumping up and down, some like marching, some feels sleepy like napping, etc. What you feel with music is the internal movement that mirrors the beat of the music. At least, that's part of it.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I'm aware of difference in step measure re walking, jogging and running. But, I don't see how that relates to feeling music.
I agree with the notion that people need having awareness directed to what needs to be noticed, etc. -- dl
http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
I: Sure he does. He just doesn't know it. I forgot to mention Don, when you move from walking to jogging, notice how the size of your step cuts in half. Running is twice as fast as jogging. Notice what happens to the size of your step in relation to the speed at which you move when you change from those three modes of moving.
Sometimes people just have to be directed to what needs to be noticed in order to become aware.
On Dec 14, 2007 9:19 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Let me get this straight dl, are you saying you don't feel music in your body when you listen to it?
Susan
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/cfd2b47e/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sat Dec 15 21:38:11 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sat Dec 15 21:43:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION - 4th excerpt
In-Reply-To: <20071215.124648.1072.86.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <98516.98692.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Swell timing }----}}
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION - 4th excerpt
LN: Why do you think that there is a resistance to looking at the
mechanical nature of this process?
DB: Because it has gotten tied up with the self/world image. One feels
uneasy about saying that one's deep gut feelings may have no meaning
because it begins to threaten the notion of the self-identity. For you
identify yourself, among other things, with those deep gut feelings. So
if you begin to think these deep gut feelings may have no meaning, and
you have depended on them for the foundation of a lot of your life, you
begin to worry about your whole self, right? There's a thought behind it
that's ready to defend the self by not allowing this to be seen. It's
really defending the self-image. We don't know what the self is, nobody
has ever managed to look at the self, but what we have is a kind of an
image of a self with an image of a world in which it lives. This image
creates a wide range of neurophysiological effects, implying that this is
all a reality of very great significance. We have already discussed some
of these
10
effects. And if this image is altered, the whole neurophysiological
system goes into chaos so that there's a response from the body and from
the brain to do something to restore equilibrium. The most immediate way
to do that would be to produce thoughts which would change those
responses toward equilibrium. But then that would be a mechanical way of
thinking, which is false. So you get mechanical feelings and mechanical
thoughts working on each other.
LN: Just to put this into perspective from where we started, it seems
that this apparently simple notion of observation, pursued in the way
that you've described it, will actually lead one into difficulty and not
necessarily clarity. For the act of looking at the connections in the way
that you've indicated will eventually lead to this very point of
questioning the meaning of one's deepest feelings.
DB: Yes, and also one's deepest thoughts.
LN: And one's deepest thoughts. This is not a particularly comfortable
position to find oneself in. Is it possible that this is one reason that
observation never penetrates beyond a certain point?
DB: Yes, I think that there's a kind of defense which is based on the
assumption that whenever this whole system starts getting too disturbed,
it's best to keep away from whatever is disturbing it. The whole body
reacts instinctively that way to pain, moving away from the pain, and
then that same reaction is carried up into the higher functions of the
brain by some movement of thought, away from the issue which is
disturbing it. It moves in such a way as to ease the system. And that's
not an intelligent way for thought to operate.
LN: Now, let's say that a person comes to the point that you're
describing. The deeper feelings and thoughts which
11
constitute the sense of self for that individual begin to be exposed.
DB: Yes, as mechanical, and therefore having little value.
LN: Isn't it particularly important at this level to have developed a
certain skill? That skill being the ability to suspend judgment regarding
the fact that one holds these beliefs or feelings or ideas. Because once
you penetrate to a particularly deep and sensitive level, if you again
begin to judge, it seems that it can be very destructive, and that this
mechanism to protect might be appropriate.
DB: Well yes, you might say you could easily become very depressed or
something.
LN: Yes, that's the issue I'm trying to point to -- how to avoid becoming
deeply depressed at this point and so depressed at least, that it
inhibits pursuing the question.
DB: I think the idea is not to push it too hard in the sense, don't push
it to the point where it would carry you into depression. You have to
find a certain skill of pushing it to the point where you can observe and
not to push too much, because that's really more mechanical action again.
You need insight, you see, and the whole point of suspension is merely to
get insight, not to produce predetermined results. Only the insight can
change you. The insight that this process is mechanical will change you.
It will decrease the importance of the process in your mind, and
therefore, the whole thing will change.
But there's always a danger that you haven't gone far enough in doing
this, because there's more to the process. There's all sorts of deeper
things you haven't touched yet, and you are beginning to shake them, too.
But all I'm saying is: Don't go too fast. Start with anger, where people
generally realize that the thing is
12
destructive, so that you are able to work on it. It doesn't shake you too
much to discover these things about anger. You might then work on fear,
because fear has a similar structure. And so does desire and pleasure.
They all have a similar structure. In fact, desire comes from projecting
in the imagination, the thing you want, and anticipating the satisfaction
of pleasure, or whatever. And fear is the same thing except you
anticipate all the trouble and pain that's coming. So between desire and
fear, there's very little difference; it's just that you anticipate
something nice or something bad.
LN: Both rooted in anticipation.
DB: Yes. Anticipation is a function you need, but here it's begun to go
wrong. Because you're anticipating the internal state of the mind and not
realizing it's just an image.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/60c65a53/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sat Dec 15 21:39:50 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sat Dec 15 21:45:31 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <20071215.124648.1072.86.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <700108.71562.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/32b16a55/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 15 22:32:17 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sat Dec 15 22:37:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] between us
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712151141g1ac53d51l6b9700d1f06cede7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c47283890712151141g1ac53d51l6b9700d1f06cede7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F543964A-833F-4921-ABCB-8DF90B030C34@dc.rr.com>
I agree. It sounds like Basil's suggestion. He's many a numbers man
and they don't get along well with philosophers.
Anyway, its their ball game.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> Why is the Bohm Conference separating the philosophers and
> physicists? Isn't that not only fragmentation, but a continuation
> of the criticisms I have read in many places? I understand why
> each might want to be with those who are really fluent in their
> expertise, but a joint session seems necessary as well. Bohm's
> work in the two domains complimented each other.
>
> "Between us' because I'm not part of the 'group', but can't help
> thinking.
>
> --
> Irene
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/5ab9f36e/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 15 22:38:45 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sat Dec 15 22:44:25 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <700108.71562.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <700108.71562.qm@web45812.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4C0BC217-EB0D-4486-8EFB-C6D495220D1A@dc.rr.com>
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
>
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/85f2c1bb/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 22:40:02 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Sat Dec 15 22:45:45 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] between us
In-Reply-To: <F543964A-833F-4921-ABCB-8DF90B030C34@dc.rr.com>
References: <c47283890712151141g1ac53d51l6b9700d1f06cede7@mail.gmail.com>
<F543964A-833F-4921-ABCB-8DF90B030C34@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712151340p54596dc3o20da59fd07c96b01@mail.gmail.com>
I: For me, it's really Bohm's ball game.
Off to a concert.
On Dec 15, 2007 4:32 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> I agree. It sounds like Basil's suggestion. He's many a numbers man and
> they don't get along well with philosophers.Anyway, its their ball game.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> Why is the Bohm Conference separating the philosophers and physicists?
> Isn't that not only fragmentation, but a continuation of the criticisms I
> have read in many places? I understand why each might want to be with those
> who are really fluent in their expertise, but a joint session seems
> necessary as well. Bohm's work in the two domains complimented each other.
>
> "Between us' because I'm not part of the 'group', but can't help thinking.
>
> --
> Irene
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/7b15d629/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 15 22:58:58 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sat Dec 15 23:04:39 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] between us
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712151340p54596dc3o20da59fd07c96b01@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c47283890712151141g1ac53d51l6b9700d1f06cede7@mail.gmail.com>
<F543964A-833F-4921-ABCB-8DF90B030C34@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712151340p54596dc3o20da59fd07c96b01@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A06905FE-6B41-4F6E-9D1A-9766BA7D9DAD@dc.rr.com>
On Dec 15, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> I: For me, it's really Bohm's ball game.
>
> Off to a concert.
>
Maybe. but Bohm's work has entered the multiverse, so it is now a
part of the 'whole thing",
Bohm would have said that once something enters the public sphere
nobody owns it anymore.
I think that Alan's link this morning, tells that story pretty
clearly. In case you missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/10eb71b6/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Sat Dec 15 23:06:39 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Sat Dec 15 23:12:21 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
In-Reply-To: <010d01c83f59$59849700$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <C38841D4.F9A0%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com><00a801c83f2d$506f78a0$b5c16018@DL01>
<E7A24AD4-5F39-4706-A5BD-24CCCC07FB3B@dc.rr.com>
<010d01c83f59$59849700$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <3B9D6B51-8B04-4450-A63D-DDCB26783243@dc.rr.com>
All of this got me thinking and I remembered this.
"In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing
all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to
be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is
the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social
consequences of any medium - that is, of any extension of ourselves -
result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each
extension of ourselves, or by any new technology." (McLuhan 7) Thus
begins the classic work of Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media, in
which he introduced the world to his enigmatic paradox, "The medium
is the message."
McLuhan wrote this back in 1965. Here is a link to an article that
takes off on this and clarifies it.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/
article_mediumisthemessage.htm
I think that it ties in very closely with what we have been exploring
here in regard to understanding, comprfehension, "getting it", etc.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Don Lay wrote:
> I suppose it would help if we were able to preface all our remarks
> with an indication of what system or pov we were starting from. -- df
>
> Yes. Maybe careful speakers/writers do that.
>
> What about the idea that the POV is implied in the language,
> situation, etc?
>
> Of course, then the problem of the speaker/writer shifting his POV
> without awareness of doing so and then confusion follows.
>
> Sometimes a POV seems to be purely imaginary and may appear
> sensible until the imagination changes. -- dl
>
> http://www.knology.net/~donlay/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 1:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] noname 2
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>
>> This view might not present the persona as a dominant or as a
>> fundamental entity. Maybe both are useful concepts in differing
>> situations. -- dl
>>
> That's, I think, the difficulty. It's not that language does this
> or that but that it does that and that, In other words, I suppose
> it would help if we were able to preface all our remarks with an
> indication of what system or pov we were starting from. That's why
> Bohm made the point that a theory is a way of looking at something
> that might reveal certain aspects of it that another way of looking
> would not. Its also the undelying point of dialogue. You get a lot
> of theories displayed all together and this allows the possibility
> that a new metatheory might emerge Of course, that may be asking
> far too much, since it seems we live in an age where we are always
> in a hurry and we tend to be wedded to our own theories.
>
> "we" as used here denotes most humans.
>
> don
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/c646c0bd/attachment.html
From a.debakey at yahoo.com Sat Dec 15 23:28:12 2007
From: a.debakey at yahoo.com (Alan E. DeBakey)
Date: Sat Dec 15 23:33:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] SELF, SOCIETY AND PROPRIOCEPTION
In-Reply-To: <4C0BC217-EB0D-4486-8EFB-C6D495220D1A@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <32080.6853.qm@web45810.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Cheers funni, n kiip it comin.... this here just a qucki:
http://thinkg.net/david_bohm/self_society_proprioception.html
"Gotta" run, ovr to the bigg bois to plai wth, and (un)do som serius wrk.
Ala n
Ps: Let me know if you like so see some changes (colors, fonts, sizes.... - realli just a draft)
Pss: When did you publish the others xerpts?
donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
Terrific! My sentiments eggsactly.
don
On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Alan E. DeBakey wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071215/ee48fedf/attachment.html