From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 00:13:38 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:18:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F1533ECE6751BD5747E75B7A5EB0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F1533ECE6751BD5747E75B7A5EB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <FCE845AD-EB30-4096-B735-E230B7D9BD3E@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> Oops, this is a really long post. Should it have been shortened? k
>
Yes, it has three info's at the end nor to mention copies of earlier
messages that the
recipients already have in their inboxes.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/fbc8a1f3/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 00:17:11 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:22:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <FCE845AD-EB30-4096-B735-E230B7D9BD3E@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F509754E4FB35C069E9B1EA5EB0@phx.gbl>
It would be helpful to me if you indicate at what point it should have
happened. I don't have any way to gauge size on hotmail, and I can use that
as an example. I have to estimate, and I suspect others did too, since I
only added a couple of words. Thanks, k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:13:38 -0800
>
>
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>Oops, this is a really long post. Should it have been shortened? k
>>
>Yes, it has three info's at the end nor to mention copies of earlier
>messages that the
>recipients already have in their inboxes.
>don
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From admin at david-bohm.net Wed Nov 15 00:18:15 2006
From: admin at david-bohm.net (dialogue-admin)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:23:20 2006
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
References: <BAY22-F24A62FA1A4799E9AFBA533A5EB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <455A4EB7.000001.05164@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Morgan Jett
>What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don?
>I gather BD has been around since 1992 or 3. k
we didn't want an archive back then. Last year around this time there was
talk about whether or not we should activate the archive. I checked it out
to see if it would work in case we decided to switch it on. It worked but I
forgot to switch it off again. Ever since we have the archive running
without knowing it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/9044a35b/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 00:23:27 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:28:30 2006
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <455A4EB7.000001.05164@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F192390DE2869AA7992E0D7A5EB0@phx.gbl>
Thanks for the reply. I learned so much about dialog from today's browsing,
that I'd really like to read others. It would seem that the closer they are
to when Bohm was alive, the more valuable they would be to Bohm history. Do
let us know when they're available.
I noticed today's are up, and it amazed me, because I have trouble keeping
my Inbox clear! k
>From: "dialogue-admin" <admin@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:18:15 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>
>From: Morgan Jett
> >What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don?
> >I gather BD has been around since 1992 or 3. k
>
>we didn't want an archive back then. Last year around this time there was
>talk about whether or not we should activate the archive. I checked it out
>to see if it would work in case we decided to switch it on. It worked but I
>forgot to switch it off again. Ever since we have the archive running
>without knowing it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 00:27:07 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:32:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F17136F4A240CAE31AD5CA6A5EB0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F17136F4A240CAE31AD5CA6A5EB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8F40E09B-661A-4519-8984-DC5CC2DD7F25@dc.rr.com>
Yes, picture writing preceded separate icons in "written" language.
But I wonder if people didn't talk together before they learned how
to record it.
Hieroglyphs were early forms of writing and each glyph had a
conceptual meaning. Later, it would appear, that the need for greater
clarity or specificity required "letters" of some sort to accomplish
the required ends. After all, rock art and carving clay tablets took
a lot of work, and there wasn't much room for making mistakes. I
mean, typewriters in the pre-word processing era - for those of you
who remember them - were a pain.
You would type out a whole page and then your finger would slip and
you would have to type the whole thing out again.
So, yes, images are valuable but only for very general statements
unless they are symbols that contain previously shared meanings, like
a crucifix for example. And they remain ambiguous. The notorious dead
cut in half dead woman's body has since become an icon for a
Hollywood movie about the murder of that woman. This has taken some
of the charge out of it, but that's only when it is seen in the
context of the movie. So even pictures are context dependent. The
rest is imagination.
Thus endeth today's lesson
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> I don't dream in words, and I have a theory that dream images
> indicate the body's natural capacity to produce symbols for
> thought. Remember Arnheim's "Visual Thinking"? And so-called "rock
> art", and teepee decorations? They aren't "decorations". They are
> language. I have books of them down in storage. k
>
>
>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:43:00 -0800
>>
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and should be
>>> applied to language.
>>
>> This is a topic that I think calls for a lot more inquiry. I
>> would say that TAS in the sense that
>> you use it here applies primarily to language. But are there forms
>> of thought that don't depend
>> on words or combinations of words? Is there such a thing as
>> nonconceptual thought? I think
>> so, but I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use
>> words.
>>
>> don
>>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 00:30:53 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:36:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F24A62FA1A4799E9AFBA533A5EB0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F24A62FA1A4799E9AFBA533A5EB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <D96314F1-DDD0-49D5-8B1A-2522DE4D9F8C@dc.rr.com>
I don't know if they still exist. After we closed down and started a
new list William blocked any access to them. Only later when some of
us wanted them, they were re-opened for list-member use. But the
older ones might have been lost. I have some of the earlier ones but
they are not at all complete and are organised in a way that I can
only use them when I want to look up a particular word or phrase.
But William may know more
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> It was a privilege to read last year's posts. So interesting, the
> same topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by
> some of the same people. There were some particularly beautiful ones.
>
> What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don? I gather BD
> has been around since 1992 or 3. k
>
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Nov 15 00:28:40 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:38:46 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
Message-ID: <20061114.152841.1408.6.franis_franis@juno.com>
Yeah, guess that would mean that (Morgan) k is even more teacherly. She's
awfully persistent. ;o)
I used to think that I wasn't persistent, then I realized I have the kind
of persistence that keeps circling back around, rather than the kind that
keeps pushing and repeating.
- Franis
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:43:49 -0500 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes:
>
>
>
> Rodger__Hmm, maybe I'm just too old but I have never had an
> impression that
> Susan or Franis used their diction to teach me something -- in
> dialogue.
>
> Yes, they tend to express perspectives with some passion and
> enthusiasm, or
> even sometimes explain themselves with zeal. But if I am ever too
> dumb or
> stubborn to actually understand what they hope to share, it seems
> they are
> always very quick to let the -lesson- GO. Which I think is very
> UN-teacherly of them. _R
> .
> .
> From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> .
> What if the way you want to come across in the way you mean to
> communicate
> isn't "teacherly"? Franis
> .
> .=
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Nov 15 00:25:22 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:38:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
Message-ID: <20061114.152841.1408.5.franis_franis@juno.com>
concepts are the relationships that are communicated...see more images
below in the context of the questions...
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
writes:
> Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me.
image of light traveling along a wire, and running into a roadblock
What would a mental image that
>
> precedes words look like?
an empty outline of a silouette of me, positioned underneath a newspaper
of words.
For instance, what would my sentence below
>
> look like? What would a construct of memories look like if they were
>
> about abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?
> > don
Well, my symbols tend to give an experience toward the "things," which
are transformed into being impossible things. Such as:
coats are hanging on a rack; when you walk up the rack and push into the
coats to see what they look like, you find there are the memories of the
people who wore the coats flickering across their cloth patterns, like a
coat held up in the way of a movie projector.
...so a movie of the experience of searching through a file of memories,
like searching through an outdoor closet of free things to try on...
Franis
>
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that you have left out a step. We actually
> > represent the concept to ourselves in our imagination first
> > (through a construct of memories) and then assign a word to
> > represent what we hold in our imagination. That's what NLP helped
>
> > me to understand about thought and how we structure our thoughts
> > and the connection between thoughts (mental imaginings that
> include
> > all five of our senses) and language.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: donald factor
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> >
> >
> > I would say that the words are not the concept, they are only
>
> > the symbols we use to represent the concept
> >
> >
> > This may be the case, but what is the difference? What is a
> > concept that is unrepresented?
> > Of course individual words generally have to be strung together
>
> > to represent a concept but concepts are what is communicated. No?
> > don
> >
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 00:38:17 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:43:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F509754E4FB35C069E9B1EA5EB0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F509754E4FB35C069E9B1EA5EB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8A41FF25-D2A0-4FEE-B696-186EA4CE033E@dc.rr.com>
This has two info's at the bottom. I have removed them from this
reply and just left the post that you responded to. Si just scroll
down and see what is directly relevant to your reply. If it has been
copied before by you or someone else and then scrub it. If you have
some reason to want to keep whole threads together you might do well
to copy them onto a text file and keep them in a separate folder
That's what I sometimes do.. As for number of KBs, just so long as
the post is less than 100 the post will go through. Often it is just
laziness. I have often been guilty of that and have had posts refused
for the same reason.
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> It would be helpful to me if you indicate at what point it should
> have happened. I don't have any way to gauge size on hotmail, and
> I can use that as an example. I have to estimate, and I suspect
> others did too, since I only added a couple of words. Thanks, k
>
>
>
>
>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:13:38 -0800
>>
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>> Oops, this is a really long post. Should it have been shortened? k
>>>
>> Yes, it has three info's at the end nor to mention copies of
>> earlier messages that the
>> recipients already have in their inboxes.
>> don
>
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Nov 15 00:36:46 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:46:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
Message-ID: <20061114.153648.1408.7.franis_franis@juno.com>
I still have some from '05 and '04 and pre...I guess I could convert them
to a file and send that to you, k. - Franis
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:30:53 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
writes:
> I don't know if they still exist. After we closed down and started a
>
> new list William blocked any access to them. Only later when some of
>
> us wanted them, they were re-opened for list-member use. But the
> older ones might have been lost. I have some of the earlier ones but
>
> they are not at all complete and are organised in a way that I can
> only use them when I want to look up a particular word or phrase.
>
> But William may know more
>
> don
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
> > It was a privilege to read last year's posts. So interesting, the
>
> > same topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by
>
> > some of the same people. There were some particularly beautiful
> ones.
> >
> > What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don? I gather
> BD
> > has been around since 1992 or 3. k
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 00:43:17 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:48:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <20061114.152841.1408.5.franis_franis@juno.com>
References: <20061114.152841.1408.5.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <AE25C2F5-2798-4AC8-9756-A5EB3A4350FB@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Franis Engel wrote:
> concepts are the relationships that are communicated...see more images
> below in the context of the questions...
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> writes:
>> Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me.
>
> image of light traveling along a wire, and running into a roadblock
>
>
> What would a mental image that
>>
>> precedes words look like?
>
> an empty outline of a silouette of me, positioned underneath a
> newspaper
> of words.
>
> For instance, what would my sentence below
>>
>> look like? What would a construct of memories look like if they were
>>
>> about abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?
>>> don
>
> Well, my symbols tend to give an experience toward the "things," which
> are transformed into being impossible things. Such as:
> coats are hanging on a rack; when you walk up the rack and push
> into the
> coats to see what they look like, you find there are the memories
> of the
> people who wore the coats flickering across their cloth patterns,
> like a
> coat held up in the way of a movie projector.
>
> ...so a movie of the experience of searching through a file of
> memories,
> like searching through an outdoor closet of free things to try on...
>
>
> Franis
So, yeah, we could send each other little movies and I could use the
rest of my waking hours watching them and then making my own
but words are more efficient. And, for that matter, how easy is would
it be to interpret the meanings of a movie of a bunch of coats in a
closet?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/6bb56c19/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 00:47:49 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:52:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <8F40E09B-661A-4519-8984-DC5CC2DD7F25@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F153002A0A876DD973823F1A5EB0@phx.gbl>
D: But I wonder if people didn't talk together before they learned how to
record it.
K: Absolutely. And Curt Sachs says that music and dance possibly preceeded
speech.
D: You would type out a whole page and then your finger would slip and
>you would have to type the whole thing out again.
K. That was the composer's delimma before whiteout and Finale (computer
software)! Awful!!!
D: . So even pictures are context dependent. The rest is imagination.
K: All symbols have to have meaning, and meaning is context dependent. I'm
not saying to throw away words and just use images. My experiment is seeing
at what place they reinforce, amplify, intersect, or say more than words
can. Words can't describe my feelings on seeing sunset in the Grand Canyon.
And maybe I don't want you to clone my experience. I want you to feel
your own feelings for it. Then in a moment of shared silence, we
communicate wordlessly. Something like that can be more powerful and more
bonding than words. Where did the saying "a picture is worth a thousand
words" come from?
The picture of Christ with the crown of thorns that I held after my mother
beat me when I was 7 went so deep into my deep mind, I didn't even remember
it until I got onlist. That image put me and Christ against everybody in
the world who would hurt another person, animal or plant. I suspect your
"mum" image of me hooked into that, and thanks for bringing it up, btw. Now
I wonder if it's fair to think that all people in helping professions have a
little of the "mum" and "dad" in them. And further, if and or when that's a
bad thing, really. Because at the time you said it, I think you were a bit
annoyed with me. k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:27:07 -0800
>
>Yes, picture writing preceded separate icons in "written" language. But I
>wonder if people didn't talk together before they learned how to record
>it.
>Hieroglyphs were early forms of writing and each glyph had a conceptual
>meaning. Later, it would appear, that the need for greater clarity or
>specificity required "letters" of some sort to accomplish the required
>ends. After all, rock art and carving clay tablets took a lot of work, and
>there wasn't much room for making mistakes. I mean, typewriters in the
>pre-word processing era - for those of you who remember them - were a
>pain.
>You would type out a whole page and then your finger would slip and you
>would have to type the whole thing out again.
>
>So, yes, images are valuable but only for very general statements unless
>they are symbols that contain previously shared meanings, like a crucifix
>for example. And they remain ambiguous. The notorious dead cut in half
>dead woman's body has since become an icon for a Hollywood movie about the
>murder of that woman. This has taken some of the charge out of it, but
>that's only when it is seen in the context of the movie. So even pictures
>are context dependent. The rest is imagination.
>
>Thus endeth today's lesson
>
>don
>
>
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>I don't dream in words, and I have a theory that dream images indicate
>>the body's natural capacity to produce symbols for thought. Remember
>>Arnheim's "Visual Thinking"? And so-called "rock art", and teepee
>>decorations? They aren't "decorations". They are language. I have
>>books of them down in storage. k
>>
>>
>>>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:43:00 -0800
>>>
>>>
>>>On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Don Lay wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and should be
>>>>applied to language.
>>>
>>>This is a topic that I think calls for a lot more inquiry. I would say
>>>that TAS in the sense that
>>>you use it here applies primarily to language. But are there forms of
>>>thought that don't depend
>>>on words or combinations of words? Is there such a thing as
>>>nonconceptual thought? I think
>>>so, but I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words.
>>>
>>>don
>>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 00:52:04 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 01:57:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <20061114.152841.1408.5.franis_franis@juno.com>
<AE25C2F5-2798-4AC8-9756-A5EB3A4350FB@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <018d01c70847$ea2c23d0$b178480c@HOME>
The images aren't about communicating Don, they're about understanding thought as a system. That's how it works before (and maybe under?) the words. Those imaginings that Franis was describing is her own system of thoughts that the words represent to her. So to my way of thinking, if you really want to look at thought as a system then our private imaginings and memories are a necessary ingredient to look at. Learning how to talk about them and describe them to each other can be very helpful.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Franis Engel wrote:
concepts are the relationships that are communicated...see more images
below in the context of the questions...
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
writes:
Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me.
image of light traveling along a wire, and running into a roadblock
What would a mental image that
precedes words look like?
an empty outline of a silouette of me, positioned underneath a newspaper
of words.
For instance, what would my sentence below
look like? What would a construct of memories look like if they were
about abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?
don
Well, my symbols tend to give an experience toward the "things," which
are transformed into being impossible things. Such as:
coats are hanging on a rack; when you walk up the rack and push into the
coats to see what they look like, you find there are the memories of the
people who wore the coats flickering across their cloth patterns, like a
coat held up in the way of a movie projector.
...so a movie of the experience of searching through a file of memories,
like searching through an outdoor closet of free things to try on...
Franis
So, yeah, we could send each other little movies and I could use the rest of my waking hours watching them and then making my own
but words are more efficient. And, for that matter, how easy is would it be to interpret the meanings of a movie of a bunch of coats in a closet?
don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/689b80f7/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 01:10:15 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:15:18 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <018d01c70847$ea2c23d0$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F16C760D3E0AE14032D0CBEA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Nice amplification, Susan. I hadn't even thought of that, but that's at the
bottom of the problem that readymade images from Google reflect typecasting
cultural assumptions. k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:52:04 -0700
>
>The images aren't about communicating Don, they're about understanding
>thought as a system. That's how it works before (and maybe under?) the
>words. Those imaginings that Franis was describing is her own system of
>thoughts that the words represent to her. So to my way of thinking, if you
>really want to look at thought as a system then our private imaginings and
>memories are a necessary ingredient to look at. Learning how to talk about
>them and describe them to each other can be very helpful.
>
>Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Franis Engel wrote:
>
>
> concepts are the relationships that are communicated...see more images
>
> below in the context of the questions...
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>
> writes:
>
> Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me.
>
>
>
>
> image of light traveling along a wire, and running into a roadblock
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What would a mental image that
>
>
>
>
> precedes words look like?
>
>
>
>
> an empty outline of a silouette of me, positioned underneath a
>newspaper
>
> of words.
>
>
>
>
> For instance, what would my sentence below
>
>
>
>
> look like? What would a construct of memories look like if they were
>
>
>
>
> about abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> Well, my symbols tend to give an experience toward the "things," which
>
> are transformed into being impossible things. Such as:
>
> coats are hanging on a rack; when you walk up the rack and push into
>the
>
> coats to see what they look like, you find there are the memories of
>the
>
> people who wore the coats flickering across their cloth patterns, like
>a
>
> coat held up in the way of a movie projector.
>
>
>
>
> ...so a movie of the experience of searching through a file of
>memories,
>
> like searching through an outdoor closet of free things to try on...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Franis
>
> So, yeah, we could send each other little movies and I could use the
>rest of my waking hours watching them and then making my own
>
> but words are more efficient. And, for that matter, how easy is would it
>be to interpret the meanings of a movie of a bunch of coats in a closet?
>
>
> don
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 01:17:10 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:22:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <BAY22-F16C760D3E0AE14032D0CBEA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <019701c7084b$68156330$b178480c@HOME>
You'll find this is a subject I have been trying to talk about with this
group for a very long time and keep hitting a brick wall (particularly with
Don F.). The course I took in NLP was all about how to look at thoughts
that are not words and perceive their system and create changes by changing
the thoughts that are not words. Dream groups do the same thing. They help
us to look at our thoughts that are not words and see the association to
meaning and words. To my way of thinking for anyone who seriously wants to
look at thought as a system this is where you begin.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
> Nice amplification, Susan. I hadn't even thought of that, but that's at
> the bottom of the problem that readymade images from Google reflect
> typecasting cultural assumptions. k
>
>
>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:52:04 -0700
>>
>>The images aren't about communicating Don, they're about understanding
>>thought as a system. That's how it works before (and maybe under?) the
>>words. Those imaginings that Franis was describing is her own system of
>>thoughts that the words represent to her. So to my way of thinking, if
>>you really want to look at thought as a system then our private imaginings
>>and memories are a necessary ingredient to look at. Learning how to talk
>>about them and describe them to each other can be very helpful.
>>
>>Susan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: donald factor
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Franis Engel wrote:
>>
>>
>> concepts are the relationships that are communicated...see more
>> images
>>
>> below in the context of the questions...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>
>> writes:
>>
>> Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> image of light traveling along a wire, and running into a roadblock
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What would a mental image that
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> precedes words look like?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> an empty outline of a silouette of me, positioned underneath a
>> newspaper
>>
>> of words.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For instance, what would my sentence below
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> look like? What would a construct of memories look like if they
>> were
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> about abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, my symbols tend to give an experience toward the "things,"
>> which
>>
>> are transformed into being impossible things. Such as:
>>
>> coats are hanging on a rack; when you walk up the rack and push into
>> the
>>
>> coats to see what they look like, you find there are the memories of
>> the
>>
>> people who wore the coats flickering across their cloth patterns,
>> like a
>>
>> coat held up in the way of a movie projector.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...so a movie of the experience of searching through a file of
>> memories,
>>
>> like searching through an outdoor closet of free things to try on...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Franis
>>
>> So, yeah, we could send each other little movies and I could use the
>> rest of my waking hours watching them and then making my own
>>
>> but words are more efficient. And, for that matter, how easy is would
>> it be to interpret the meanings of a movie of a bunch of coats in a
>> closet?
>>
>>
>> don
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more.then map the best
> route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 01:18:16 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:23:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Clipping posts
References: <BAY22-F16C760D3E0AE14032D0CBEA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <019a01c7084b$8cc245e0$b178480c@HOME>
And I've been forgetting to clip my posts also. Sorry about that. It seems
like I remember it just about the time I hit the send button.
Susan
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 01:21:33 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:26:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <019701c7084b$68156330$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2469A42E6A7CB5EC6B7C8AA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Well, I'll be happy to dialog with you, and anyone else who wants to give it
a try. Sometimes it takes setting an example to get the ball really moving.
Images of a certain size are allowed. It'll be a little crude to start
with because I've just begun, but watching the process of thought was
something Bohm was about. And those who don't want to deal with it can hit
the delete button. Nobody has to play "mum" for them. k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:17:10 -0700
>
>You'll find this is a subject I have been trying to talk about with this
>group for a very long time and keep hitting a brick wall (particularly with
>Don F.). The course I took in NLP was all about how to look at thoughts
>that are not words and perceive their system and create changes by changing
>the thoughts that are not words. Dream groups do the same thing. They
>help us to look at our thoughts that are not words and see the association
>to meaning and words. To my way of thinking for anyone who seriously wants
>to look at thought as a system this is where you begin.
>
>Susan
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>
>
>>Nice amplification, Susan. I hadn't even thought of that, but that's at
>>the bottom of the problem that readymade images from Google reflect
>>typecasting cultural assumptions. k
>>
>>
>>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:52:04 -0700
>>>
>>>The images aren't about communicating Don, they're about understanding
>>>thought as a system. That's how it works before (and maybe under?) the
>>>words. Those imaginings that Franis was describing is her own system of
>>>thoughts that the words represent to her. So to my way of thinking, if
>>>you really want to look at thought as a system then our private
>>>imaginings and memories are a necessary ingredient to look at. Learning
>>>how to talk about them and describe them to each other can be very
>>>helpful.
>>>
>>>Susan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: donald factor
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Franis Engel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> concepts are the relationships that are communicated...see more
>>>images
>>>
>>> below in the context of the questions...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>> Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> image of light traveling along a wire, and running into a roadblock
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What would a mental image that
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> precedes words look like?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> an empty outline of a silouette of me, positioned underneath a
>>>newspaper
>>>
>>> of words.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance, what would my sentence below
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> look like? What would a construct of memories look like if they
>>>were
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> about abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?
>>>
>>> don
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, my symbols tend to give an experience toward the "things,"
>>>which
>>>
>>> are transformed into being impossible things. Such as:
>>>
>>> coats are hanging on a rack; when you walk up the rack and push into
>>>the
>>>
>>> coats to see what they look like, you find there are the memories of
>>>the
>>>
>>> people who wore the coats flickering across their cloth patterns,
>>>like a
>>>
>>> coat held up in the way of a movie projector.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ...so a movie of the experience of searching through a file of
>>>memories,
>>>
>>> like searching through an outdoor closet of free things to try on...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Franis
>>>
>>> So, yeah, we could send each other little movies and I could use the
>>>rest of my waking hours watching them and then making my own
>>>
>>> but words are more efficient. And, for that matter, how easy is would
>>>it be to interpret the meanings of a movie of a bunch of coats in a
>>>closet?
>>>
>>>
>>> don
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more.then map the best
>>route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Nov 15 01:26:40 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:35:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] no endless quotes
Message-ID: <20061114.162641.1408.8.franis_franis@juno.com>
the trick is to not use the "quote" feature when you reply. You need to
configure it in the email options portion of your hotmail account.
As you are reading the post, just highlight what you want to reply to,
and on the keyboard hit: control "c" which is copy to clipboard.This
holds what you copied into you temp clipboard on the computer. (only one
thing at at a time, because it erases what you copied before.)
Then you hit 'reply' to the email and select 'do not quote post' and then
when the reply opens with the right email at the top, you keyboard
control "v" for pasting what you just copied into the post. Otherwise
you can just highlight and hit backspace to make what ever you want to
edit go away.
Then - no long quotes! - Franis
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:38:17 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
writes:
> This has two info's at the bottom. I have removed them from this
> reply and just left the post that you responded to. Si just scroll
> down and see what is directly relevant to your reply. If it has been
>
> copied before by you or someone else and then scrub it. If you have
>
> some reason to want to keep whole threads together you might do well
>
> to copy them onto a text file and keep them in a separate folder
> That's what I sometimes do.. As for number of KBs, just so long as
> the post is less than 100 the post will go through. Often it is just
>
> laziness. I have often been guilty of that and have had posts
> refused
> for the same reason.
> don
> >>
> >> On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oops, this is a really long post. Should it have been
> shortened? k
> >>>
> >> Yes, it has three info's at the end nor to mention copies of
> >> earlier messages that the
> >> recipients already have in their inboxes.
> >> don
> >
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 01:32:58 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:38:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <BAY22-F2469A42E6A7CB5EC6B7C8AA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <01a301c7084d$9a578740$b178480c@HOME>
To my way of thinking, we don't need images to do this at all. What we need
to do is to learn how to recognize the thoughts that our words represent to
us and describe that to each other. This is easily done through the use of
story. If you want to see one of my early attempts at this within this
group then read the post on my web site about making tea. This was the
story I wrote to show the thoughts that the word nurturing represented to me
for a big part of my life and it is the story that I think many people who
grew up with a similar background to mine have for the word nurturing. I
used a format for writing that story that is used by dream groups and I
describe that format in the post.
http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/tea.htm
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>
> Well, I'll be happy to dialog with you, and anyone else who wants to give
> it a try. Sometimes it takes setting an example to get the ball really
> moving. Images of a certain size are allowed. It'll be a little crude to
> start with because I've just begun, but watching the process of thought
> was something Bohm was about. And those who don't want to deal with it can
> hit the delete button. Nobody has to play "mum" for them. k
>
>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:17:10 -0700
>>
>>You'll find this is a subject I have been trying to talk about with this
>>group for a very long time and keep hitting a brick wall (particularly
>>with Don F.). The course I took in NLP was all about how to look at
>>thoughts that are not words and perceive their system and create changes
>>by changing the thoughts that are not words. Dream groups do the same
>>thing. They help us to look at our thoughts that are not words and see
>>the association to meaning and words. To my way of thinking for anyone
>>who seriously wants to look at thought as a system this is where you
>>begin.
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 01:38:07 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:43:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
Message-ID: <BAY22-F21B8DDC8DEB8B223E69593A5EA0@phx.gbl>
less than 100 kbs
but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in the 100kb
size. How can I measure the total kbs?
More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 01:40:53 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:45:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <20061114.153648.1408.7.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F20D0F6E0854229E6A4B239A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Franis, I'd love that! Those of you who have been here have such a
different, broader perspective that newbies like me. And my perspective
changes as I read what has gone before me. Thanks so much. k
>From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:36:46 -0800
>
>I still have some from '05 and '04 and pre...I guess I could convert them
>to a file and send that to you, k. - Franis
>
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:30:53 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>writes:
> > I don't know if they still exist. After we closed down and started a
> >
> > new list William blocked any access to them. Only later when some of
> >
> > us wanted them, they were re-opened for list-member use. But the
> > older ones might have been lost. I have some of the earlier ones but
> >
> > they are not at all complete and are organised in a way that I can
> > only use them when I want to look up a particular word or phrase.
> >
> > But William may know more
> >
> > don
> > On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> >
> > > It was a privilege to read last year's posts. So interesting, the
> >
> > > same topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by
> >
> > > some of the same people. There were some particularly beautiful
> > ones.
> > >
> > > What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don? I gather
> > BD
> > > has been around since 1992 or 3. k
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 01:43:32 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:48:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <BAY22-F2469A42E6A7CB5EC6B7C8AA5EA0@phx.gbl>
<01a301c7084d$9a578740$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <01b001c7084f$14567f00$b178480c@HOME>
And by the way Kathy, this discussion on making tea was one that Peter took
part in (but only a very small part).
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:32 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
> To my way of thinking, we don't need images to do this at all. What we
> need to do is to learn how to recognize the thoughts that our words
> represent to us and describe that to each other. This is easily done
> through the use of story. If you want to see one of my early attempts at
> this within this group then read the post on my web site about making tea.
> This was the story I wrote to show the thoughts that the word nurturing
> represented to me for a big part of my life and it is the story that I
> think many people who grew up with a similar background to mine have for
> the word nurturing. I used a format for writing that story that is used
> by dream groups and I describe that format in the post.
>
> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/tea.htm
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>
>
>>
>> Well, I'll be happy to dialog with you, and anyone else who wants to give
>> it a try. Sometimes it takes setting an example to get the ball really
>> moving. Images of a certain size are allowed. It'll be a little crude to
>> start with because I've just begun, but watching the process of thought
>> was something Bohm was about. And those who don't want to deal with it
>> can hit the delete button. Nobody has to play "mum" for them. k
>>
>>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:17:10 -0700
>>>
>>>You'll find this is a subject I have been trying to talk about with this
>>>group for a very long time and keep hitting a brick wall (particularly
>>>with Don F.). The course I took in NLP was all about how to look at
>>>thoughts that are not words and perceive their system and create changes
>>>by changing the thoughts that are not words. Dream groups do the same
>>>thing. They help us to look at our thoughts that are not words and see
>>>the association to meaning and words. To my way of thinking for anyone
>>>who seriously wants to look at thought as a system this is where you
>>>begin.
>>>
>>>Susan
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Nov 15 01:39:15 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:49:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
Message-ID: <20061114.163917.1408.9.franis_franis@juno.com>
no, no - I didn't suggest using the images to communicate with. I would
never use my private images for others, because they wouldn't get it.
That's the point of having a language, so you can use it to share what
you mean.
That's what people often mistake with metaphor - they think that metaphor
will communicate, but it doesn't, it gives an experience. What you think
about the experience is your own meaning that you assign to it. Each
person assigns a different meaning. A bunch of people will all share an
experience, and you'll have as many meanings assigned after it happens,
even though the exact same thing happened to everyone.
Besides, you even got the wrong idea what the image was. The movies were
woven into the cloth of the coats from experiences of the people who wore
them; so when you put on the coats, you got the experience that the
people had when they wore the coats. So you could be inside how they
assigned the meaning, impossibly.
Franis
> > Franis
> So, yeah, we could send each other little movies and I could use the
>
> rest of my waking hours watching them and then making my own
> but words are more efficient. And, for that matter, how easy is
> would
> it be to interpret the meanings of a movie of a bunch of coats in a
>
> closet?
>
> don
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:43:17 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
writes:
>
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Franis Engel wrote:
>
> > concepts are the relationships that are communicated...see more
> images
> > below in the context of the questions...
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800 donald factor
> <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> > writes:
> >> Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me.
> >
> > image of light traveling along a wire, and running into a
> roadblock
> >
> >
> > What would a mental image that
> >>
> >> precedes words look like?
> >
> > an empty outline of a silouette of me, positioned underneath a
> > newspaper
> > of words.
> >
> > For instance, what would my sentence below
> >>
> >> look like? What would a construct of memories look like if they
> were
> >>
> >> about abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?
> >>> don
> >
> > Well, my symbols tend to give an experience toward the "things,"
> which
> > are transformed into being impossible things. Such as:
> > coats are hanging on a rack; when you walk up the rack and push
> > into the
> > coats to see what they look like, you find there are the memories
>
> > of the
> > people who wore the coats flickering across their cloth patterns,
>
> > like a
> > coat held up in the way of a movie projector.
> >
> > ...so a movie of the experience of searching through a file of
> > memories,
> > like searching through an outdoor closet of free things to try
> on...
> >
> >
> > Franis
> So, yeah, we could send each other little movies and I could use the
>
> rest of my waking hours watching them and then making my own
> but words are more efficient. And, for that matter, how easy is
> would
> it be to interpret the meanings of a movie of a bunch of coats in a
>
> closet?
>
> don
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 01:53:43 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 02:58:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <20061114.163917.1408.9.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <01b701c70850$8093e350$b178480c@HOME>
Cool metaphor Franis. I'm going to have to remember that one.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
> no, no - I didn't suggest using the images to communicate with. I would
> never use my private images for others, because they wouldn't get it.
> That's the point of having a language, so you can use it to share what
> you mean.
>
> That's what people often mistake with metaphor - they think that metaphor
> will communicate, but it doesn't, it gives an experience. What you think
> about the experience is your own meaning that you assign to it. Each
> person assigns a different meaning. A bunch of people will all share an
> experience, and you'll have as many meanings assigned after it happens,
> even though the exact same thing happened to everyone.
>
> Besides, you even got the wrong idea what the image was. The movies were
> woven into the cloth of the coats from experiences of the people who wore
> them; so when you put on the coats, you got the experience that the
> people had when they wore the coats. So you could be inside how they
> assigned the meaning, impossibly.
> Franis
>
>> > Franis
>> So, yeah, we could send each other little movies and I could use the
>>
>> rest of my waking hours watching them and then making my own
>> but words are more efficient. And, for that matter, how easy is
>> would
>> it be to interpret the meanings of a movie of a bunch of coats in a
>>
>> closet?
>>
>> don
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:43:17 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> writes:
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Franis Engel wrote:
>>
>> > concepts are the relationships that are communicated...see more
>> images
>> > below in the context of the questions...
>> >
>> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800 donald factor
>> <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> > writes:
>> >> Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me.
>> >
>> > image of light traveling along a wire, and running into a
>> roadblock
>> >
>> >
>> > What would a mental image that
>> >>
>> >> precedes words look like?
>> >
>> > an empty outline of a silouette of me, positioned underneath a
>> > newspaper
>> > of words.
>> >
>> > For instance, what would my sentence below
>> >>
>> >> look like? What would a construct of memories look like if they
>> were
>> >>
>> >> about abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?
>> >>> don
>> >
>> > Well, my symbols tend to give an experience toward the "things,"
>> which
>> > are transformed into being impossible things. Such as:
>> > coats are hanging on a rack; when you walk up the rack and push
>> > into the
>> > coats to see what they look like, you find there are the memories
>>
>> > of the
>> > people who wore the coats flickering across their cloth patterns,
>>
>> > like a
>> > coat held up in the way of a movie projector.
>> >
>> > ...so a movie of the experience of searching through a file of
>> > memories,
>> > like searching through an outdoor closet of free things to try
>> on...
>> >
>> >
>> > Franis
>> So, yeah, we could send each other little movies and I could use the
>>
>> rest of my waking hours watching them and then making my own
>> but words are more efficient. And, for that matter, how easy is
>> would
>> it be to interpret the meanings of a movie of a bunch of coats in a
>>
>> closet?
>>
>> don
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 02:08:47 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 03:13:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <01b001c7084f$14567f00$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F249F1AAD0A7A23C75E93AAA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Susan, the truths you got at are so right on! This is similar to myths to
live by - except replace the damaging myths with good ones. Very important
to stop the perpetration of violence handed down in child rearing, and other
experiences that go in the garbage bags we carry on our shoulders. I just
don't think the point is "need". In language, we can make word pictures.
But sometimes emotions and thoughts are too big to be put into words. I
don't think one replaces the other. I think they're complimentary.
I had no idea you'd been with the group so long. Did you find Peter to be
difficult?
I did think the opening discourse between the two was less alive than your
working through of it. It was interesting to watch my mind relax and go
with the flow as you progressed. Thanks for posting this. BTW, one of your
posts in the archive was one that really touched my heart. k
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:43:32 -0700
>
>And by the way Kathy, this discussion on making tea was one that Peter took
>part in (but only a very small part).
>
>Susan
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan Clemons"
><Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:32 PM
>Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>
>
>>To my way of thinking, we don't need images to do this at all. What we
>>need to do is to learn how to recognize the thoughts that our words
>>represent to us and describe that to each other. This is easily done
>>through the use of story. If you want to see one of my early attempts at
>>this within this group then read the post on my web site about making tea.
>>This was the story I wrote to show the thoughts that the word nurturing
>>represented to me for a big part of my life and it is the story that I
>>think many people who grew up with a similar background to mine have for
>>the word nurturing. I used a format for writing that story that is used
>>by dream groups and I describe that format in the post.
>>
>>http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/tea.htm
>>
>>Susan
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:21 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Well, I'll be happy to dialog with you, and anyone else who wants to give
>>>it a try. Sometimes it takes setting an example to get the ball really
>>>moving. Images of a certain size are allowed. It'll be a little crude to
>>>start with because I've just begun, but watching the process of thought
>>>was something Bohm was about. And those who don't want to deal with it
>>>can hit the delete button. Nobody has to play "mum" for them. k
>>>
>>>>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>>>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:17:10 -0700
>>>>
>>>>You'll find this is a subject I have been trying to talk about with this
>>>>group for a very long time and keep hitting a brick wall (particularly
>>>>with Don F.). The course I took in NLP was all about how to look at
>>>>thoughts that are not words and perceive their system and create changes
>>>>by changing the thoughts that are not words. Dream groups do the same
>>>>thing. They help us to look at our thoughts that are not words and see
>>>>the association to meaning and words. To my way of thinking for anyone
>>>>who seriously wants to look at thought as a system this is where you
>>>>begin.
>>>>
>>>>Susan
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From donlay at gte.net Wed Nov 15 02:16:39 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Nov 16 03:22:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D070A@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <008701c70853$d6b655d0$fc1b153f@DL01>
that has meaning -- d
High D. Say Hi to M for me.
Yes ... just what is the meaning? Could it mean something like ... whatever is, is -- and whatever is SAID, LANGUAGED, is something very different? -- don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothy Stulberg
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:48 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
that has meaning--measuring experience alters what is measured--or with other words, describing experience alters (adds to) experience. d
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Don Lay
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:36 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words. -- don
Yes. It seems convenient at times to ignore that no matter what actually is, talking about seems to change it just as measuring an electron with an electron alters what is measured.
It really seems helpful to view words as measures of experience such that we say measuring experience alters what is measured.
Thoughts? dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Don Lay wrote:
Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and should be applied to language.
This is a topic that I think calls for a lot more inquiry. I would say that TAS in the sense that
you use it here applies primarily to language. But are there forms of thought that don't depend
on words or combinations of words? Is there such a thing as nonconceptual thought? I think
so, but I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words.
don
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/4ebe2dec/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 02:23:47 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 03:28:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <018d01c70847$ea2c23d0$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2126B6528838591B793483A5EA0@phx.gbl>
What would a mental image that precedes words look like? an empty outline of
a silouette of me, positioned underneath a newspaper of words.
K: Don, that's pretty good!
>From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:52:04 -0700
>
>The images aren't about communicating Don, they're about understanding
>thought as a system. That's how it works before (and maybe under?) the
>words. Those imaginings that Franis was describing is her own system of
>thoughts that the words represent to her. So to my way of thinking, if you
>really want to look at thought as a system then our private imaginings and
>memories are a necessary ingredient to look at. Learning how to talk about
>them and describe them to each other can be very helpful.
>
>Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Franis Engel wrote:
>
>
> concepts are the relationships that are communicated...see more images
>
> below in the context of the questions...
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:41 -0800 donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>
> writes:
>
> Maybe, but it doesn't compute for me.
>
>
>
>
> image of light traveling along a wire, and running into a roadblock
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What would a mental image that
>
>
>
>
> precedes words look like?
>
>
>
>
> an empty outline of a silouette of me, positioned underneath a
>newspaper
>
> of words.
>
>
>
>
> For instance, what would my sentence below
>
>
>
>
> look like? What would a construct of memories look like if they were
>
>
>
>
> about abstract ideas rather than place, people or things?
>
> don
>
>
>
>
> Well, my symbols tend to give an experience toward the "things," which
>
> are transformed into being impossible things. Such as:
>
> coats are hanging on a rack; when you walk up the rack and push into
>the
>
> coats to see what they look like, you find there are the memories of
>the
>
> people who wore the coats flickering across their cloth patterns, like
>a
>
> coat held up in the way of a movie projector.
>
>
>
>
> ...so a movie of the experience of searching through a file of
>memories,
>
> like searching through an outdoor closet of free things to try on...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Franis
>
> So, yeah, we could send each other little movies and I could use the
>rest of my waking hours watching them and then making my own
>
> but words are more efficient. And, for that matter, how easy is would it
>be to interpret the meanings of a movie of a bunch of coats in a closet?
>
>
> don
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 02:26:21 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 03:31:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <01a301c7084d$9a578740$b178480c@HOME>
References: <BAY22-F2469A42E6A7CB5EC6B7C8AA5EA0@phx.gbl>
<01a301c7084d$9a578740$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <8DC6048B-6DC8-4D4F-AD59-719E4C2B3C07@dc.rr.com>
I have nothing against images, but as has been said many times before
and not only by me, images are not the problem. nor is making music
or dancing or singing together. Talking together is. Especially when
it is about subjects that are important to us. Governments,
parliaments, congresses, boards of directors, families, and so on,
are the means by which decisions get made that effect all of our
lives all over the world and in every culture. And we humans seem
pretty incompetent when it comes to this. There are entire industries
devoted to getting people to communicate better. Katherine has first
hand experience of some of them. So far as I can see, it isn't
language itself that is the problem but rather, its the way we use it
or the way we understand it. When Bohm used the example of sticking
with an angry feeling until you recognise the thought that underlies
the emotion. The thought will unfold as words. Once those words are
heard/noticed then the anger dissolves because the underlying thought
is usually not relevant to the actual event that made you angry,
That's the theory anyway.
So, it could be that exchanging images is a distraction. Of course,
there may be times when an image is pertinent and says something
better than it can be said in words. I use images every once in a
while. I have a small collection of such images that I have used from
time to time. My only problem with images is the nuisance of trying
to shrink them down to an allowable size.
don
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/appledouble-------------- next part --------------
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 02:28:09 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 03:33:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F21B8DDC8DEB8B223E69593A5EA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F21B8DDC8DEB8B223E69593A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <9504472E-F59F-445A-B293-74ED32FAB521@dc.rr.com>
my Apple mail ap tells me in a little note at the bottom left hand
corner. I only just noticed it. Usually I have to take the picture
and using a graphics app like Photoshop or Graphic Converter fiddle
with it until I get it down to size.
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> less than 100 kbs
>
> but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in the
> 100kb size. How can I measure the total kbs?
>
> More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
> then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 02:30:11 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 03:35:14 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
In-Reply-To: <20061114.152841.1408.6.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F19762174A90C54C74AA90A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Yeah, guess that would mean that (Morgan) k is even more teacherly. She's
awfully persistent. ;o)
K: Franis, image me chuckling at recognizing myself! Actually, I'm going
to think about the 2 ways of being persistent. Never occurred to me before.
k
>From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:28:40 -0800
>
>Yeah, guess that would mean that (Morgan) k is even more teacherly. She's
>awfully persistent. ;o)
>I used to think that I wasn't persistent, then I realized I have the kind
>of persistence that keeps circling back around, rather than the kind that
>keeps pushing and repeating.
>- Franis
>
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:43:49 -0500 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Rodger__Hmm, maybe I'm just too old but I have never had an
> > impression that
> > Susan or Franis used their diction to teach me something -- in
> > dialogue.
> >
> > Yes, they tend to express perspectives with some passion and
> > enthusiasm, or
> > even sometimes explain themselves with zeal. But if I am ever too
> > dumb or
> > stubborn to actually understand what they hope to share, it seems
> > they are
> > always very quick to let the -lesson- GO. Which I think is very
> > UN-teacherly of them. _R
> > .
> > .
> > From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > .
> > What if the way you want to come across in the way you mean to
> > communicate
> > isn't "teacherly"? Franis
> > .
> > .=
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 02:30:23 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 03:35:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F20D0F6E0854229E6A4B239A5EA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F20D0F6E0854229E6A4B239A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <371BFA3F-390E-4743-BCB4-154D60A15168@dc.rr.com>
K, this is what the end of this post looked like.
On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> Franis, I'd love that! Those of you who have been here have such a
> different, broader perspective that newbies like me. And my
> perspective changes as I read what has gone before me. Thanks so
> much. k
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day
trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?
href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 02:34:29 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 03:39:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <20061114.163917.1408.9.franis_franis@juno.com>
References: <20061114.163917.1408.9.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <F1C82D85-B382-45B1-BE7E-25243F8E3251@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Franis Engel wrote:
> Besides, you even got the wrong idea what the image was. The movies
> were
> woven into the cloth of the coats from experiences of the people
> who wore
> them; so when you put on the coats, you got the experience that the
> people had when they wore the coats. So you could be inside how they
> assigned the meaning, impossibly.
> Franis
>
Yeah, that's nice. Good writing, good literary style. And your
explanation is also dialogical.
Because it tells me what you meant in a way that I can share
something of the experience.
What do I mean by dialogical? I mean, that it also asks, tacitly, for
a response, so here it is.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/b3886086/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 02:40:07 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 03:45:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <D96314F1-DDD0-49D5-8B1A-2522DE4D9F8C@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F244AEBBA4C6D014D330E71A5EA0@phx.gbl>
After we closed down and started a new list William blocked any access to
them.
K: William, here comes "Persistent K"! I love history, geneology,
understanding how things today stand on the shoulders of their forebears.
It's like time travel, mind-opening for me. I did the same thing for my
Dalcroze research. The entire era and how Dalcroze reflected it was
enormously englightening. I would love to do the same thing for Bohm. He
is as dear to me as Dalcroze, his life spans the same time frame as
Dalcroze, and they shared the same goals. Would you consider giving list
members access to them?
And Don, I don't mind how they are organized. It's the content that counts.
If you have some kind of project in mind, perhaps I can be of some kind of
assistance as I read them.
I would really appreciate that. k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:30:53 -0800
>
>I don't know if they still exist. After we closed down and started a new
>list William blocked any access to them. Only later when some of us wanted
>them, they were re-opened for list-member use. But the older ones might
>have been lost. I have some of the earlier ones but they are not at all
>complete and are organised in a way that I can only use them when I want
>to look up a particular word or phrase.
>
>But William may know more
>
>don
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>It was a privilege to read last year's posts. So interesting, the same
>>topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by some of the
>>same people. There were some particularly beautiful ones.
>>
>>What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don? I gather BD has
>>been around since 1992 or 3. k
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 02:49:00 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 03:54:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <371BFA3F-390E-4743-BCB4-154D60A15168@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F2006F9AE52AEF397F2092EA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Don, I'm drawing a blank. Is that good or bad? It makes sense to me.
Don't get it. k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:30:23 -0800
>
>K, this is what the end of this post looked like.
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>Franis, I'd love that! Those of you who have been here have such a
>>different, broader perspective that newbies like me. And my perspective
>>changes as I read what has gone before me. Thanks so much. k
>
>> > info:
>> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>> >
>> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > dialogue facilitator:
>> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > Administrator of the mailing list:
>> > admin@david-bohm.net
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?
>href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 02:55:12 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 04:00:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F2006F9AE52AEF397F2092EA5EA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F2006F9AE52AEF397F2092EA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <357692CA-D94F-42E7-88A6-2EC8AD61E31D@dc.rr.com>
> Don, I'm drawing a blank. Is that good or bad? It makes sense to
> me. Don't get it. k
Scroll down, It's bad. One more time and its detention for you.
You will have to write,
>>> info:
>>> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> >
>>> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>> >
>>> > dialogue facilitator:
>>> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
100 times.
don
>>>
On Nov 14, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>
>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:30:23 -0800
>>
>> K, this is what the end of this post looked like.
>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>> Franis, I'd love that! Those of you who have been here have such
>>> a different, broader perspective that newbies like me. And my
>>> perspective changes as I read what has gone before me. Thanks
>>> so much. k
>>
>>> > info:
>>> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>> >
>>> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>> >
>>> > dialogue facilitator:
>>> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>> >
>>> > Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> > admin@david-bohm.net
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-
>> day trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/
>> direct/01/? href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/
> hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 02:56:36 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 04:01:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <9504472E-F59F-445A-B293-74ED32FAB521@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F82447375B903578B590DBA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Hotmail isn't so sophisticated. Actually, it's a real pain. Every 2
seconds, it thinks I'm a spammer, and makes me type in 8 letters to prove
I'm not. And I have no real options on it. I've got Photoshop, and don't
know how to use it. One of these days, I'll be silent from the list long
enough to figure it out!
Thanks, k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:28:09 -0800
>
>my Apple mail ap tells me in a little note at the bottom left hand corner.
>I only just noticed it. Usually I have to take the picture and using a
>graphics app like Photoshop or Graphic Converter fiddle with it until I
>get it down to size.
>
>don
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>less than 100 kbs
>>
>>but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in the 100kb
>>size. How can I measure the total kbs?
>>
>>More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
>>then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 03:12:27 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 04:17:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] oh dear!
Message-ID: <BAY22-F250F4D2556A45228BB59BDA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Scroll down, It's bad. One more time and its detention for you.
You will have to write,
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator: facilitator@david-bohm.net
100 times.
don
Better? (urge to hug DonF)
_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
From tubakari at yahoo.com Wed Nov 15 03:26:04 2006
From: tubakari at yahoo.com (Karilen Mays)
Date: Thu Nov 16 04:31:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <20061115022604.99651.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
your post is cracking me up because i know what you mean. thanks for writing this exactly like this don!
first of all taking posts personally no matter if it is intended or not can teach us much. it can be about something "good" or "bad" too. so if we have a strong to reaction to something you said or something i thought you said, we can stay with the energy behind the reaction and somehow hold it and explore it. that is the juiciness.
and then there is this whole impersonal v personal. even if we think we are having a personal conversation maybe that is even impersonal on a larger level. my mind just blew apart when i read this and then i laughed.
what is natural to some people and unusual to others also intrigues me. i wonder if a lot of my life is like that. and why things are unusual or normal in the first place. i guess that categorization and recognition -- normal or unusual -- comes from our rationl abilities: statistics, etc. why cant everything just be fascinating? sometimes it is...
and yeah i was pretty much assuming that everything i read is a proposal for further inquiry, but thanks for expressing that.
anyone else?
kari
----- Original Message ----
From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:04:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
It seems to me that this sort of misunderstanding - that is, taking
posts personally when that wasn't what was intended - has not been
unusual. So maybe what we are doing here is having an impersonal
conversation with everybody. And although to me this seems quite
natural to me it may be that's because I've been doing it for a long
time, or maybe it is more unusual than I thought. Actually, this also
might refer to the "teacherly" thing. If I want to get a bit
teacherly I can make clear that, like Bohm used to do, it is just a
proposal for further inquiry, or something like that. What do you
think? Anybody?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/afd6ceab/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 03:33:21 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 04:38:27 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <8DC6048B-6DC8-4D4F-AD59-719E4C2B3C07@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F18669423FA163C168BD500A5EA0@phx.gbl>
When Bohm used the example of sticking with an angry feeling until you
recognise the thought that underlies the emotion. The thought will unfold
as words.
K: That's just it. I've carried the image of me sitting on that sofa,
holding the picture of Christ for 64 years. It opened up to me only when
Kris started playing images with me, and it opened as a mind picture - the
whole livingroom scene plus the emotions simultaneously. And in this case,
the thought and the image were so relevent they've directed my behavior all
that time. I was only able to recognize and integrate the whole thing as a
result of images.
I don't think we should abandon images for words. I wouldn't give up my
Shakespeare, nor would i give up my Leonardo. When we dialog, we use both
or either. Mostly both
But - I was having trouble with Navajo (6 years ago), asked the teacher, and
much to my dismay, he grabbed a piece of chalk and drew a picture. I didn't
understand a word! k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:26:21 -0800
>
>I have nothing against images, but as has been said many times before and
>not only by me, images are not the problem. nor is making music or dancing
>or singing together. Talking together is. Especially when it is about
>subjects that are important to us. Governments, parliaments, congresses,
>boards of directors, families, and so on, are the means by which decisions
>get made that effect all of our lives all over the world and in every
>culture. And we humans seem pretty incompetent when it comes to this.
>There are entire industries devoted to getting people to communicate
>better. Katherine has first hand experience of some of them. So far as I
>can see, it isn't language itself that is the problem but rather, its the
>way we use it or the way we understand it. When Bohm used the example of
>sticking with an angry feeling until you recognise the thought that
>underlies the emotion. The thought will unfold as words. Once those words
>are heard/noticed then the anger dissolves because the underlying thought
>is usually not relevant to the actual event that made you angry, That's
>the theory anyway.
>
>So, it could be that exchanging images is a distraction. Of course, there
>may be times when an image is pertinent and says something better than it
>can be said in words. I use images every once in a while. I have a small
>collection of such images that I have used from time to time. My only
>problem with images is the nuisance of trying to shrink them down to an
>allowable size.
>
>don
><< peanutsdialog.pict >>
><< peanutsdialog.pict >>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From frantisekplessl at yahoo.com Wed Nov 15 03:48:22 2006
From: frantisekplessl at yahoo.com (Mr. Frantisek Plessl)
Date: Thu Nov 16 04:53:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <8DC6048B-6DC8-4D4F-AD59-719E4C2B3C07@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20061115024823.94721.qmail@web62402.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
From: Don
(short part paste)
When Bohm used the example of sticking with an angry
feeling until you recognize the thought that underlies
the emotion. The thought will unfold as words. Once
those words are heard/noticed then the anger dissolves
because the underlying thought is usually not relevant
to the actual event that made you angry.
That's the theory anyway.
Fanda
I would only ad to your statement that when one is
going through anger there is a little chance to be
rational. This anger is a very powerful emotion, and
it takes hold of the totality of once being. It is
therefore later when one can be preoccupied with many
escapes and rationalize it. One would then ask rather
question if anger is inevitable then there is little
for one to do, and if it is not inevitable then
perhaps there is a time for total new insight into
this mechanism of anger itself.
This anger needs some feedback so do speak in the form
of image-memory-thought. What it would be like for the
mind not to know anger? It is an either conditioned
reflex or natural response of the body and mind.
For the sake of an argument I would say anger could be
look at from different point of understanding. One
would be healthy and the other unhealthy in the form
of sustain anger. Short anger and sustain anger.
The world is full of anger on an individual,
collective, national and global level. It has been
like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
which points to many things beyond thought itself.
Fanda Plessl
e-mail: frantisekplessl@yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 03:48:58 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 04:54:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F82447375B903578B590DBA5EA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F82447375B903578B590DBA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <A0CDC9E1-7729-4392-A241-67F2B2B8CF9D@dc.rr.com>
I haven't used hotmail for years. Is it webmail? Even if you read it
on the web there is an alternative. You can set up your e-mail
software. It cmes with Windows and is called outlook or outlook
express or if you have a Mac you can have mail. And set up your
hotmail account to give you the controls that you need. PIck any
neighborhood kid older than 6 but not older than 40 and he or she
can very likely do it for you. Then you can even send pictures if yo
like.
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> Hotmail isn't so sophisticated. Actually, it's a real pain. Every
> 2 seconds, it thinks I'm a spammer, and makes me type in 8 letters
> to prove I'm not. And I have no real options on it. I've got
> Photoshop, and don't know how to use it. One of these days, I'll
> be silent from the list long enough to figure it out!
>
> Thanks, k
>
>
>> From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:28:09 -0800
>>
>> my Apple mail ap tells me in a little note at the bottom left
>> hand corner. I only just noticed it. Usually I have to take the
>> picture and using a graphics app like Photoshop or Graphic
>> Converter fiddle with it until I get it down to size.
>>
>> don
>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>> less than 100 kbs
>>>
>>> but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in
>>> the 100kb size. How can I measure the total kbs?
>>>
>>> More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
>>> then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
> then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 03:55:11 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 05:00:18 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <20061115024823.94721.qmail@web62402.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <20061115024823.94721.qmail@web62402.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8293F76E-0259-45A2-9FDE-6D45424507A4@dc.rr.com>
On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
>
> The world is full of anger on an individual,
> collective, national and global level. It has been
> like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
> looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
> somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
> something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
> which points to many things beyond thought itself.
If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans
have been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about
it, it is weird. A whole species has spent millennnia in a state of
anger! Of course, it is often repressed, but it is there just waiting
to get out, or so it seems. What is it?
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/d6a9d191/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Wed Nov 15 02:57:38 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Thu Nov 16 05:02:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <01a301c7084d$9a578740$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C17FD032.8026%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
It's a wonderful story, Susan, and a wonderful example. I've been involved
in one dream group or another for many years & never thought of that in
terms of dialogue, but we do function that way, learning to suspend our
emotional reactions to dream images and sometimes to each other in order to
explore all the meanings there for each of us. I particularly like our
practice (at least in theory) of prefacing every comment with "If that were
my dream . . ." It helps us be aware of our projections and assumptions.
Lynne
On 11/14/06 6:32 PM, "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> To my way of thinking, we don't need images to do this at all. What we need
> to do is to learn how to recognize the thoughts that our words represent to
> us and describe that to each other. This is easily done through the use of
> story. If you want to see one of my early attempts at this within this
> group then read the post on my web site about making tea. This was the
> story I wrote to show the thoughts that the word nurturing represented to me
> for a big part of my life and it is the story that I think many people who
> grew up with a similar background to mine have for the word nurturing. I
> used a format for writing that story that is used by dream groups and I
> describe that format in the post.
>
> http://naturallythriving.home.att.net/tea.htm
>
> Susan
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 04:20:51 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 05:26:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <A0CDC9E1-7729-4392-A241-67F2B2B8CF9D@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F51F94AD9CDE7221EAB36EA5EA0@phx.gbl>
Hotmail is webmail, and I'm Mac. My rcn account is on Entourage and I have
to type in the Hotmail url every time I open it. And when i try to send
images, it shuts me down and asks me to type in 8 wierd looking letters
because it thinks I'm a professional spammer!
Thanks. I'll look for that kid!
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:48:58 -0800
>
>I haven't used hotmail for years. Is it webmail? Even if you read it on
>the web there is an alternative. You can set up your e-mail software. It
>cmes with Windows and is called outlook or outlook express or if you have
>a Mac you can have mail. And set up your hotmail account to give you the
>controls that you need. PIck any neighborhood kid older than 6 but not
>older than 40 and he or she can very likely do it for you. Then you can
>even send pictures if yo like.
>don
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>Hotmail isn't so sophisticated. Actually, it's a real pain. Every 2
>>seconds, it thinks I'm a spammer, and makes me type in 8 letters to prove
>>I'm not. And I have no real options on it. I've got Photoshop, and
>>don't know how to use it. One of these days, I'll be silent from the
>>list long enough to figure it out!
>>
>>Thanks, k
>>
>>
>>>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:28:09 -0800
>>>
>>>my Apple mail ap tells me in a little note at the bottom left hand
>>>corner. I only just noticed it. Usually I have to take the picture and
>>>using a graphics app like Photoshop or Graphic Converter fiddle with it
>>>until I get it down to size.
>>>
>>>don
>>>On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>>
>>>>less than 100 kbs
>>>>
>>>>but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in the
>>>>100kb size. How can I measure the total kbs?
>>>>
>>>>More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
>>>>then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
>>then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Wed Nov 15 03:24:31 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Thu Nov 16 05:29:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <8293F76E-0259-45A2-9FDE-6D45424507A4@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C17FD67F.802C%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Good question. Where does the anger start? My grandson spent a good 30
minutes this afternoon screaming out of control. We don?t yet know if this
was in response to pain in his gums, since he is now teething, or if he may
have an ear infection. At any rate, babies do experience pain (coming out
of the birth canal can?t feel too great!) and they react not only with cries
of distress, but with rage. I know a therapist who states that anger is a
secondary emotion ? generally in response to pain (he was referring to
emotional pain). Physical pain is often unavoidable (unless we?re
inflicting it on each other) due to our bodies? vulnerability. Emotional
pain also starts early in life, but is more often caused by cultural
attitudes. This would have to be greater pain, because it feels personal,
and so would create much greater anger or rage. It?s also much more
difficult to release (how many books have been written about forgiving that
flu germ that caused you so much agony?)
Lynne
On 11/14/06 8:55 PM, "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
>>
>> The world is full of anger on an individual,
>>
>> collective, national and global level. It has been
>>
>> like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
>>
>> looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
>>
>> somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
>>
>> something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
>>
>> which points to many things beyond thought itself.
>>
> If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans have been
> so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about it, it is weird. A
> whole species has spent millennnia in a state of anger! Of course, it is often
> repressed, but it is there just waiting to get out, or so it seems. What is
> it?
>
> don
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/d29abd0c/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Nov 15 03:03:00 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Nov 16 05:40:15 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
Message-ID: <20061114.192948.356.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
I use a tiny program called "Irfanview" to reduce the size of pics, and
also to do everything I need for correcting unbalanced color in pics for
everything I need for my website. All the information about size is easy
to learn/get to. just search "Irfanview" and be sure to download the
"plugins" also, because there is a "sharpen" feature that is really
handy. - Franis
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:38:07 -0600 "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
writes:
> less than 100 kbs
>
> but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in the
> 100kb
> size. How can I measure the total kbs?
>
> More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the
> best
> route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 05:20:30 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 06:25:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <20061114.192948.356.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
References: <20061114.192948.356.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <1EA51EB8-84D1-4C44-9A0C-3242E3ADFC2C@dc.rr.com>
But is it mac compatible? I've never heard of i.
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Franis Engel wrote:
> I use a tiny program called "Irfanview" to reduce the size of pics,
> and
> also to do everything I need for correcting unbalanced color in
> pics for
> everything I need for my website. All the information about size is
> easy
> to learn/get to. just search "Irfanview" and be sure to download the
> "plugins" also, because there is a "sharpen" feature that is really
> handy. - Franis
>
>
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 04:49:24 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 06:27:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
Message-ID: <20061114.232146.2144.64.ae.dropper@juno.com>
It was a privilege to read last year's posts. So interesting, the same
topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by some of the
same people. There were some particularly beautiful ones.
What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don? I gather BD has
been
around since 1992 or 3. k (k)
k, I have a few saved from '97. Here's one or two..
>From "William van den Heuvel" <heuvel@muc.de>
Date: 29 Nov 97 18:25:47 +0200
X-Status: Read
>Dear William,
> I joined the dialogue list several days ago, and out of about 20
>messages I have sent, only about 2 got through. I've tried every address
>I can think of. You seem responsive so I am appealing to you for help. I
>am not only new to the List, I am new to e-mail, and even new to the
>computer. The only thing I am not new to is Bohm dialogue (if one can
>ever really be not new to that!) . I have read and enjoyed the web
pieces
>that you wrote, which somebody gave me a copy of.
>
>It is interesting to see how very frustrating it is when so many of my
>messages get returned! It would be an appropriate irony if this was an
>initiation to the dialogue list!
>
>All I need to know (and I need to know it clearly), is what I should
type
>in the To: Box, to get this mail to you all.
>
>Thanks so much, Pat ae.dropper@juno.com
>
Hi Pat,
You should have:
bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
in the TO: box.
Usually, the computer does this for you automatically after you press the
"Reply" button (or menu), which should be somewhere in your email
program.
This is what I normally do (replying). However, if you do type the
address
into the TO box yourself then make sure it is EXACTLY as written above.
Especially take note of the UNDERSCORE between "bohm" and"dialogue": For
instance, if you accidently type a hyphen (instead of an underscore) then
your message will be returned with an error message saying "no such
address", or "no such domain", or something like that.
If you continue to have difficulties, please, try to send me a copy of
what
didn't work, together with a copy of the error message.
Meanwhile, you can send me your stuff and I'll put it on the list for
you.
Regards
William
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 03:20:59 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 06:27:57 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Message-ID: <20061114.232146.2144.60.ae.dropper@juno.com>
This reminds me of a phenomenon that can happen in dialogue circles. Long
story short, all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to
the
group and all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually]
have little to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just
sit there hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door.
Years back, some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers
Anonymous."
Sending, not "drafting," fully aware of probable? irrelevance.
(pat)
The first time I read this statement of Pat?s my thought was: There is so
much prejudice and discrimination in this statement that I don?t even
want to respond to it. But since there have been more than one post
supporting it and it?s come up in this conversation I?ll respond. It
seems to me that you can?t get more fragmented than this kind of response
and behavior. Truthfully, I was shocked when I read this statement on a
Dialogue group and coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long
as Pat. To me it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don?t like the
way they are in the world and we don?t like the way they play. We?re
against going to war with them or trying to change them and since they
don?t seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules (change
themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards) we?ll just go
off and form our own little group and leave them out of it. That?ll show
them! (Susan)
Wondering about what was so "shocking" about this experience of mine.
Reading it over I think I see how you read it. I might have better said
"We" instead of "You" in the "You all just sit there" sentence. I think
you were reading ME as the "non-teacherly" type in the anecdote. No, that
would not be me. I am teacherly all the way and have indeed ended up in
circles where we just could not find any problems to "work on." Maybe
"long story short" does not come across very well. I really did "shorten"
this one. The long version[s], even tho formidable to write, are really
very sweet. I promise.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/fb45ef8f/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 03:39:41 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 06:27:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
Message-ID: <20061114.232146.2144.61.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I think I understand what you meant, because you kept it short and didnt
over-elaborate. (Stephen)
I am working on a "Living Will" for someone. I have been advised
to say as little as possible because "the more you say, the
more there is that is available for [a plethora of]
interpretation."
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/61cce44e/attachment.html
From oenthomas at gmail.com Wed Nov 15 05:25:47 2006
From: oenthomas at gmail.com (Owen Thomas)
Date: Thu Nov 16 06:31:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] List
In-Reply-To: <964473B3-933C-433A-ACB9-5C17D53C24D8@david-bohm.net>
References: <964473B3-933C-433A-ACB9-5C17D53C24D8@david-bohm.net>
Message-ID: <1dde854d0611142025g69e97f21u8dc7accb6b765886@mail.gmail.com>
This list is too busy and scattered for me.
PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME.
On 11/13/06, facilitator <facilitator@david-bohm.net> wrote:
>
> If I ignore the fact that there are a few of us who have more than
> one e-mail address and that there are a few people who have "no mail"
> checked which means that they don't want to receive any posts, we
> have hit the hundred mark today. Actually, there are probably about
> 94 or 95 of us. But 100 sounds pretty landmarkish.
>
> facilitator
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
--
We are connected
Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/6e122539/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 05:32:20 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 06:37:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <20061114.232146.2144.64.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F7F5B2B6E98A2B456249D7A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Thanks, Pat k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:49:24 -0500
>
>It was a privilege to read last year's posts. So interesting, the same
>topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by some of the
>same people. There were some particularly beautiful ones.
>
>What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don? I gather BD has
>been
>around since 1992 or 3. k (k)
>
>k, I have a few saved from '97. Here's one or two..
>
> >From "William van den Heuvel" <heuvel@muc.de>
>Date: 29 Nov 97 18:25:47 +0200
>X-Status: Read
>
> >Dear William,
> > I joined the dialogue list several days ago, and out of about 20
> >messages I have sent, only about 2 got through. I've tried every address
> >I can think of. You seem responsive so I am appealing to you for help. I
> >am not only new to the List, I am new to e-mail, and even new to the
> >computer. The only thing I am not new to is Bohm dialogue (if one can
> >ever really be not new to that!) . I have read and enjoyed the web
>pieces
> >that you wrote, which somebody gave me a copy of.
> >
> >It is interesting to see how very frustrating it is when so many of my
> >messages get returned! It would be an appropriate irony if this was an
> >initiation to the dialogue list!
> >
> >All I need to know (and I need to know it clearly), is what I should
>type
> >in the To: Box, to get this mail to you all.
> >
> >Thanks so much, Pat ae.dropper@juno.com
> >
>
>Hi Pat,
>
>You should have:
>
>bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
>in the TO: box.
>
>Usually, the computer does this for you automatically after you press the
>"Reply" button (or menu), which should be somewhere in your email
>program.
>This is what I normally do (replying). However, if you do type the
>address
>into the TO box yourself then make sure it is EXACTLY as written above.
>Especially take note of the UNDERSCORE between "bohm" and"dialogue": For
>instance, if you accidently type a hyphen (instead of an underscore) then
>your message will be returned with an error message saying "no such
>address", or "no such domain", or something like that.
>
>If you continue to have difficulties, please, try to send me a copy of
>what
>didn't work, together with a copy of the error message.
>
>Meanwhile, you can send me your stuff and I'll put it on the list for
>you.
>
>Regards
>
>William
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 05:34:22 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 06:39:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <20061114.232146.2144.64.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F10602BDE2DC3A639C09B19A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Thanks, Pat k
You know, that's from this November. It's in the archives.
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:49:24 -0500
>
>It was a privilege to read last year's posts. So interesting, the same
>topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by some of the
>same people. There were some particularly beautiful ones.
>
>What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don? I gather BD has
>been
>around since 1992 or 3. k (k)
>
>k, I have a few saved from '97. Here's one or two..
>
> >From "William van den Heuvel" <heuvel@muc.de>
>Date: 29 Nov 97 18:25:47 +0200
>X-Status: Read
>
> >Dear William,
> > I joined the dialogue list several days ago, and out of about 20
> >messages I have sent, only about 2 got through. I've tried every address
> >I can think of. You seem responsive so I am appealing to you for help. I
> >am not only new to the List, I am new to e-mail, and even new to the
> >computer. The only thing I am not new to is Bohm dialogue (if one can
> >ever really be not new to that!) . I have read and enjoyed the web
>pieces
> >that you wrote, which somebody gave me a copy of.
> >
> >It is interesting to see how very frustrating it is when so many of my
> >messages get returned! It would be an appropriate irony if this was an
> >initiation to the dialogue list!
> >
> >All I need to know (and I need to know it clearly), is what I should
>type
> >in the To: Box, to get this mail to you all.
> >
> >Thanks so much, Pat ae.dropper@juno.com
> >
>
>Hi Pat,
>
>You should have:
>
>bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
>in the TO: box.
>
>Usually, the computer does this for you automatically after you press the
>"Reply" button (or menu), which should be somewhere in your email
>program.
>This is what I normally do (replying). However, if you do type the
>address
>into the TO box yourself then make sure it is EXACTLY as written above.
>Especially take note of the UNDERSCORE between "bohm" and"dialogue": For
>instance, if you accidently type a hyphen (instead of an underscore) then
>your message will be returned with an error message saying "no such
>address", or "no such domain", or something like that.
>
>If you continue to have difficulties, please, try to send me a copy of
>what
>didn't work, together with a copy of the error message.
>
>Meanwhile, you can send me your stuff and I'll put it on the list for
>you.
>
>Regards
>
>William
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 05:35:18 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 06:40:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <20061114.232146.2144.64.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F182FAE8805DB8A64AD49A1A5EA0@phx.gbl>
No - guess I've been at it too long. Time to sleep. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:49:24 -0500
>
>It was a privilege to read last year's posts. So interesting, the same
>topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by some of the
>same people. There were some particularly beautiful ones.
>
>What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don? I gather BD has
>been
>around since 1992 or 3. k (k)
>
>k, I have a few saved from '97. Here's one or two..
>
> >From "William van den Heuvel" <heuvel@muc.de>
>Date: 29 Nov 97 18:25:47 +0200
>X-Status: Read
>
> >Dear William,
> > I joined the dialogue list several days ago, and out of about 20
> >messages I have sent, only about 2 got through. I've tried every address
> >I can think of. You seem responsive so I am appealing to you for help. I
> >am not only new to the List, I am new to e-mail, and even new to the
> >computer. The only thing I am not new to is Bohm dialogue (if one can
> >ever really be not new to that!) . I have read and enjoyed the web
>pieces
> >that you wrote, which somebody gave me a copy of.
> >
> >It is interesting to see how very frustrating it is when so many of my
> >messages get returned! It would be an appropriate irony if this was an
> >initiation to the dialogue list!
> >
> >All I need to know (and I need to know it clearly), is what I should
>type
> >in the To: Box, to get this mail to you all.
> >
> >Thanks so much, Pat ae.dropper@juno.com
> >
>
>Hi Pat,
>
>You should have:
>
>bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
>in the TO: box.
>
>Usually, the computer does this for you automatically after you press the
>"Reply" button (or menu), which should be somewhere in your email
>program.
>This is what I normally do (replying). However, if you do type the
>address
>into the TO box yourself then make sure it is EXACTLY as written above.
>Especially take note of the UNDERSCORE between "bohm" and"dialogue": For
>instance, if you accidently type a hyphen (instead of an underscore) then
>your message will be returned with an error message saying "no such
>address", or "no such domain", or something like that.
>
>If you continue to have difficulties, please, try to send me a copy of
>what
>didn't work, together with a copy of the error message.
>
>Meanwhile, you can send me your stuff and I'll put it on the list for
>you.
>
>Regards
>
>William
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 05:44:52 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 06:56:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Message-ID: <20061114.235030.2144.66.ae.dropper@juno.com>
On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
The world is full of anger on an individual,
collective, national and global level. It has been
like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
which points to many things beyond thought itself.
If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans have
been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about it, it is
weird. A whole species has spent millennnia in a state of anger! Of
course, it is often repressed, but it is there just waiting to get out,
or so it seems. What is it?
don
Look for the common feature about all [sustained] anger,
the common thought. This [collective, common] thought, worded, says: "I
have
good reason to be angry." (And then thought will begin to itemize the
"good reasons"
but the general, collective thought is always the same).
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/bda4e019/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Nov 15 04:32:53 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Nov 16 07:05:41 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
Message-ID: <20061114.205558.356.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
there are probably more than two - or three ways of being persistent. -
Franis
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:30:11 -0600 "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
writes:
> Yeah, guess that would mean that (Morgan) k is even more teacherly.
> She's
> awfully persistent. ;o)
> K: Franis, image me chuckling at recognizing myself! Actually, I'm
> going
> to think about the 2 ways of being persistent. Never occurred to me
> before.
> k
>
>
> >From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
> >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:28:40 -0800
> >
> >Yeah, guess that would mean that (Morgan) k is even more teacherly.
> She's
> >awfully persistent. ;o)
> >I used to think that I wasn't persistent, then I realized I have
> the kind
> >of persistence that keeps circling back around, rather than the
> kind that
> >keeps pushing and repeating.
> >- Franis
> >
> >On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:43:49 -0500 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rodger__Hmm, maybe I'm just too old but I have never had an
> > > impression that
> > > Susan or Franis used their diction to teach me something -- in
> > > dialogue.
> > >
> > > Yes, they tend to express perspectives with some passion and
> > > enthusiasm, or
> > > even sometimes explain themselves with zeal. But if I am ever
> too
> > > dumb or
> > > stubborn to actually understand what they hope to share, it
> seems
> > > they are
> > > always very quick to let the -lesson- GO. Which I think is very
> > > UN-teacherly of them. _R
> > > .
> > > .
> > > From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
> > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > .
> > > What if the way you want to come across in the way you mean to
> > > communicate
> > > isn't "teacherly"? Franis
> > > .
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Nov 15 06:18:58 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Nov 16 07:28:34 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Owen
Message-ID: <20061114.211859.356.3.franis_franis@juno.com>
Hey Owen, you have a forum that you wanted us to use for dialog - can you
imagine how much trouble that would be? - I'll miss you, but I'll see you
there at that forum. - Franis
This is for Owen:
" How many forum posters does it take to change a lightbulb?"
1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been
changed
# 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the
light bulb could have been changed differently
# 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
# 1 to move it to the Lighting section
# 2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section
# 7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light
bulbs
# 5 to flame the spell checkers
# 3 to correct spelling/grammar flames
# 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6
to condemn those 6
# 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is
"lamp"
# 15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light
bulb" is perfectly correct
# 19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take
this discussion to a lightbulb forum
# 11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light
bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
# 36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to
buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this
technique and what brands are faulty
# 7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
# 4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the
corrected URL's
# 13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including
all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
# 5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversy
# 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
# 13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions
about light bulbs"
# 1 forum moderator to delete the entire lightbulb thread.
# 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and
start it all over again
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:25:47 -1200 "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com>
writes:
> This list is too busy and scattered for me.
> PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME.
>
>> --
> We are connected
>
> Owen
From stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com Wed Nov 15 07:50:27 2006
From: stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com (STEPHEN DEVLIN)
Date: Thu Nov 16 08:55:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <005b01c7082c$9054ac80$da56153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <20061115065027.10613.qmail@web86511.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
But there are other ways to measure electrons without changing the electron. in fact the electron doesn't change (if you're referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle) it's the velocity (direction and speed) that changes, not the electron. Physicists have just announced a new way to measure the spin of an electron without changing the spin, who knows what'll be next.
Don Lay <donlay@gte.net> wrote: I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words. -- don
Yes. It seems convenient at times to ignore that no matter what actually is, talking about seems to change it just as measuring an electron with an electron alters what is measured.
It really seems helpful to view words as measures of experience such that we say measuring experience alters what is measured.
Thoughts? dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Don Lay wrote:
Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in TAS can and should be applied to language.
This is a topic that I think calls for a lot more inquiry. I would say that TAS in the sense that
you use it here applies primarily to language. But are there forms of thought that don't depend
on words or combinations of words? Is there such a thing as nonconceptual thought? I think
so, but I don't know how to expand on this, since I have to use words.
don
---------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/f65df5b8/attachment.html
From stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com Wed Nov 15 08:07:02 2006
From: stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com (STEPHEN DEVLIN)
Date: Thu Nov 16 09:12:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <20061114.232146.2144.61.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20061115070702.76845.qmail@web86504.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
I think one of the worst things we learn in school/university is to write 10,000 words when maybe only a few are necessary.The more you write the more chance you have of obscuring what you intended to say. I think Lynne wrote the post I was responding to (hard to tell when posts get chopped off) and to my understanding she was trying to communicate an explanation of something that is pre-thought, when you start talking about those areas less is better and its down to the experience of the listener to 'complete the synapse' and get it. It leaves a lot of people out of an audience but thats a realisation that very few people will get what you intend to say any way.
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I think I understand what you meant, because you kept it short and didnt over-elaborate. (Stephen)
I am working on a "Living Will" for someone. I have been advised
to say as little as possible because "the more you say, the
more there is that is available for [a plethora of]
interpretation."
pat
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/e48e39c5/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Wed Nov 15 08:17:39 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Thu Nov 16 09:22:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
References: <BAY22-F244AEBBA4C6D014D330E71A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <455ABF13.000001.04204@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Morgan Jett
K: William, here comes "Persistent K"! I love history, geneology,
understanding how things today stand on the shoulders of their forebears.
It's like time travel, mind-opening for me. I did the same thing for my
Dalcroze research. The entire era and how Dalcroze reflected it was
enormously englightening. I would love to do the same thing for Bohm. He
is as dear to me as Dalcroze, his life spans the same time frame as
Dalcroze, and they shared the same goals. Would you consider giving list
members access to them?
William: sorry, I don't have any archives. They are deleted and gone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/235b1495/attachment.html
From stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com Wed Nov 15 08:20:33 2006
From: stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com (STEPHEN DEVLIN)
Date: Thu Nov 16 09:25:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <9504472E-F59F-445A-B293-74ED32FAB521@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20061115072033.56810.qmail@web86505.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
You dont need to post the pic, just upload it to photobucket and send a link to its location.
donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote: my Apple mail ap tells me in a little note at the bottom left hand
corner. I only just noticed it. Usually I have to take the picture
and using a graphics app like Photoshop or Graphic Converter fiddle
with it until I get it down to size.
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> less than 100 kbs
>
> but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in the
> 100kb size. How can I measure the total kbs?
>
> More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
> then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/26639c92/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 08:38:58 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 09:44:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <20061114.235030.2144.66.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061114.235030.2144.66.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <94DD248C-0CB6-4FFB-BE9C-A68675BC2C8E@dc.rr.com>
But why doesn't say , I have every reason to be happy?
Why anger?
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 8:44 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
>
>>
>> The world is full of anger on an individual,
>> collective, national and global level. It has been
>> like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
>> looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
>> somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
>> something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
>> which points to many things beyond thought itself.
>
> If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that
> humans have been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and
> think about it, it is weird. A whole species has spent millennnia
> in a state of anger! Of course, it is often repressed, but it is
> there just waiting to get out, or so it seems. What is it?
>
> don
>
> Look for the common feature about all [sustained] anger,
> the common thought. This [collective, common] thought, worded,
> says: "I have
> good reason to be angry." (And then thought will begin to itemize
> the "good reasons"
> but the general, collective thought is always the same).
>
> pat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061114/5f7e8c9a/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 12:23:03 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 13:28:13 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <94DD248C-0CB6-4FFB-BE9C-A68675BC2C8E@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F10F4A179C571DC60DD8613A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Morning Don -
You may have more reason than many to be happy. Where did the phrase "man's
inhumanity to man" come from? We all have the right to happiness. That's
even in the constitution - "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" - but why was it necessary to put it in the constitution? k
>From: donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:38:58 -0800
>
>But why doesn't say , I have every reason to be happy?
>Why anger?
>don
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 8:44 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>>
>>On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The world is full of anger on an individual,
>>>collective, national and global level. It has been
>>>like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
>>>looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
>>>somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
>>>something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
>>>which points to many things beyond thought itself.
>>
>>If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans have
>>been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about it, it is
>>weird. A whole species has spent millennnia in a state of anger! Of
>>course, it is often repressed, but it is there just waiting to get out,
>>or so it seems. What is it?
>>
>>don
>>
>>Look for the common feature about all [sustained] anger,
>>the common thought. This [collective, common] thought, worded, says: "I
>>have
>>good reason to be angry." (And then thought will begin to itemize the
>>"good reasons"
>>but the general, collective thought is always the same).
>>
>>pat
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 12:25:57 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 13:31:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <20061115072033.56810.qmail@web86505.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1D6DFBC26ECCE6571E127A5EA0@phx.gbl>
I'll check out Photobucket, but as for copying and pasting the URL, I worked
on that last night. The URLs in the address are longer than a post! I
finally gave up and went to sleep. Any further help would be most
gratefully received. k
>From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:20:33 +0000 (GMT)
>
>You dont need to post the pic, just upload it to photobucket and send a
>link to its location.
>
>donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote: my Apple mail ap tells me in a
>little note at the bottom left hand
>corner. I only just noticed it. Usually I have to take the picture
>and using a graphics app like Photoshop or Graphic Converter fiddle
>with it until I get it down to size.
>
>don
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
> > less than 100 kbs
> >
> > but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in the
> > 100kb size. How can I measure the total kbs?
> >
> > More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
> > then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 12:27:47 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 13:32:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
In-Reply-To: <455ABF13.000001.04204@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F11730BF7DA914FF726063BA5EA0@phx.gbl>
K: Aw-w-w-w-w-w ( the sound of disappointment). Thanks for replying. k
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:17:39 +0100 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>
>From: Morgan Jett
>K: William, here comes "Persistent K"! I love history, geneology,
>understanding how things today stand on the shoulders of their forebears.
>It's like time travel, mind-opening for me. I did the same thing for my
>Dalcroze research. The entire era and how Dalcroze reflected it was
>enormously englightening. I would love to do the same thing for Bohm. He
>is as dear to me as Dalcroze, his life spans the same time frame as
>Dalcroze, and they shared the same goals. Would you consider giving list
>members access to them?
>
>William: sorry, I don't have any archives. They are deleted and gone
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Wed Nov 15 12:38:04 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Thu Nov 16 13:43:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5B6@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
If you have a url longer than a post you are either exaggerating (shame
on you :-) )or doing something wrong, once a url is copied and pasted
into a post the viewer only has to click on it (however long it is) to
see the picture. There are other sites to show pics, google should have
some links.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: 15 November 2006 11:26
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
I'll check out Photobucket, but as for copying and pasting the URL, I
worked
on that last night. The URLs in the address are longer than a post! I
finally gave up and went to sleep. Any further help would be most
gratefully received. k
>From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:20:33 +0000 (GMT)
>
>You dont need to post the pic, just upload it to photobucket and send a
>link to its location.
>
>donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote: my Apple mail ap tells me in a
>little note at the bottom left hand
>corner. I only just noticed it. Usually I have to take the picture
>and using a graphics app like Photoshop or Graphic Converter fiddle
>with it until I get it down to size.
>
>don
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
> > less than 100 kbs
> >
> > but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in the
> > 100kb size. How can I measure the total kbs?
> >
> > More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
> > then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
****************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
****************************************************
This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their consequences.
****************************************************
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 12:49:58 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 13:55:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5B6@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F322E117ABC3796B596FBCA5EA0@phx.gbl>
My images were from Google. Here is one of the shorter ones I copied and
pasted:
<http://us.f550.mail.yahoo.com/ym/dpughphoto.com/images/rooster%20puerto%20...>
One of them had a URL 3x this size. k
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:38:04 -0000
>
>If you have a url longer than a post you are either exaggerating (shame
>on you :-) )or doing something wrong, once a url is copied and pasted
>into a post the viewer only has to click on it (however long it is) to
>see the picture. There are other sites to show pics, google should have
>some links.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 15 November 2006 11:26
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>
>
>I'll check out Photobucket, but as for copying and pasting the URL, I
>worked
>on that last night. The URLs in the address are longer than a post! I
>finally gave up and went to sleep. Any further help would be most
>gratefully received. k
>
>
> >From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:20:33 +0000 (GMT)
> >
> >You dont need to post the pic, just upload it to photobucket and send a
> >link to its location.
> >
> >donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote: my Apple mail ap tells me in a
> >little note at the bottom left hand
> >corner. I only just noticed it. Usually I have to take the picture
> >and using a graphics app like Photoshop or Graphic Converter fiddle
> >with it until I get it down to size.
> >
> >don
> >On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> >
> > > less than 100 kbs
> > >
> > > but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in the
> > > 100kb size. How can I measure the total kbs?
> > >
> > > More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
> > > then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > info:
> > > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > > dialogue facilitator:
> > > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > > admin@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
>https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>****************************************************
>Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
>****************************************************
>This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the
>person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
>and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or
>other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
>persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
>you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately
>and delete the material from your computer.
>
>E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and
>unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for
>any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
>consequences.
>****************************************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 12:55:14 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 14:00:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Owen
In-Reply-To: <20061114.211859.356.3.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F171A511317F52C0D1D9078A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Interesting ideas to think about! k
>From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Owen
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:18:58 -0800
>
>Hey Owen, you have a forum that you wanted us to use for dialog - can you
>imagine how much trouble that would be? - I'll miss you, but I'll see you
>there at that forum. - Franis
>
>This is for Owen:
>" How many forum posters does it take to change a lightbulb?"
>
>1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been
>changed
># 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the
>light bulb could have been changed differently
># 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
># 1 to move it to the Lighting section
># 2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section
># 7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light
>bulbs
># 5 to flame the spell checkers
># 3 to correct spelling/grammar flames
># 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6
>to condemn those 6
># 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is
>"lamp"
># 15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light
>bulb" is perfectly correct
># 19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take
>this discussion to a lightbulb forum
># 11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light
>bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
># 36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to
>buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this
>technique and what brands are faulty
># 7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
># 4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the
>corrected URL's
># 13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including
>all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
># 5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they
>cannot handle the light bulb controversy
># 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
># 13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions
>about light bulbs"
># 1 forum moderator to delete the entire lightbulb thread.
># 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and
>start it all over again
>
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:25:47 -1200 "Owen Thomas" <oenthomas@gmail.com>
>writes:
> > This list is too busy and scattered for me.
> > PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME.
> >
> >> --
> > We are connected
> >
> > Owen
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 13:04:13 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 14:09:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] first one
Message-ID: <BAY22-F12CD9012AAEBA997A36867A5EA0@phx.gbl>
got it, Franis, Thanks.
I've got 200 posts to go through. I'll let you know when I find the 2nd
one. k
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 13:12:54 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 14:18:05 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <20061114.235030.2144.66.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F201FCE17F440525242A982A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Pat - thanks. An excellent reason for working through the manifestations of
anger as the surface on our microcosm-list. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:44:52 -0500
>
>
>
>On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
>
>
>
>
>The world is full of anger on an individual,
>collective, national and global level. It has been
>like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
>looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
>somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
>something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
>which points to many things beyond thought itself.
>
>
>If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans have
>been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about it, it is
>weird. A whole species has spent millennnia in a state of anger! Of
>course, it is often repressed, but it is there just waiting to get out,
>or so it seems. What is it?
>
>
>don
>
>Look for the common feature about all [sustained] anger,
>the common thought. This [collective, common] thought, worded, says: "I
>have
>good reason to be angry." (And then thought will begin to itemize the
>"good reasons"
>but the general, collective thought is always the same).
>
>pat
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 15 13:15:10 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Thu Nov 16 14:20:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <39C6B575-F8F0-43C9-9004-5761BE4B0230@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C180B54E.3AFF%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Don, Susan and anybody else interested!
What does it mean taking a post 'personally'?
Is there an implicit criticism if it is said that somebody has taken a post
'personally'?
When is a reply somebody makes - taking a post personally or not?
Who decides?
One thing I have learnt from this discussion group is many posts are not
addressed to anybody ... When I first joined it seemed many posts were like
this. Recently there have been more that are addressed to somebody ...
Perhaps I have thought that if there is a Hi Gill or Gill at the start of a
post that at least something of that post was addressed to me!
I guess I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen as a rich
resource and an opening into the more universal or the implicate.
I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads to a lack
of care for each other ...
Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone?
Gill
on 14/11/06 19:04, donald factor at dfactor@dc.rr.com wrote:
> It seems to me that this sort of misunderstanding - that is, taking
> posts personally when that wasn't what was intended - has not been
> unusual. So maybe what we are doing here is having an impersonal
> conversation with everybody. And although to me this seems quite
> natural to me it may be that's because I've been doing it for a long
> time, or maybe it is more unusual than I thought. Actually, this also
> might refer to the "teacherly" thing. If I want to get a bit
> teacherly I can make clear that, like Bohm used to do, it is just a
> proposal for further inquiry, or something like that. What do you
> think? Anybody?
>
> don
>
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel
>> that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel
>> something similar.
>>
>> Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my
>> point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I
>> don't think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone
>> else "get my point" or with the expectations that they would take
>> anyone anywhere in particular. I simply wrote them to the group as
>> a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk about what I felt
>> was important. It's my understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is
>> that people have difficulty talking about what's important to them.
>> And that seems to be what's happening with us. You seem to have
>> something that's important to you that you want to talk about and
>> you wrote a post about that. I responded to your post with what I
>> felt was important to me.
>>
>> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first
>> post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps
>> the expectations that some people would respond to you in a
>> particular way that had meaning for you. But when I responded with
>> what was important to me, I didn't respond in the way you were
>> hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your
>> posts to me are about. The idea that what's important to me doesn't
>> seem to meet up with what's important to you.
>>
>> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own
>> explorations and people's responses to me and how easy it is to
>> just pass it back as ... Its just the way you interpret what I
>> wrote ...
>>
>> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly
>> wasn't clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what
>> you meant. I did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning
>> but I don't remember you saying anything close to the last part of
>> this sentence. And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each
>> other several times this morning to see if I missed something or
>> could see something new. I still don't see you saying that. As far
>> as I'm concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote.
>> And you don't seem to think that's a satisfying answer. I think
>> it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. And no, I don't think
>> giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People very often don't
>> seem to be able to accept that the way they have interpreted
>> someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you see
>> something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look
>> at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just
>> don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
>>
>> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish
>> others and at other times authority can be more facilitative of
>> self and others The authority I sensed in your email did not feel
>> like that of 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the
>> way I did.
>>
>> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be
>> used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we
>> are all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is
>> no one in a higher or lower position. We are all our own
>> authorities and we each have to take responsibility for ourselves
>> and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that I don't
>> take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my
>> posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my
>> feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
>>
>> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...
>>
>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>> group and
>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
>>> little
>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>> there
>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>> back,
>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>
>> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought
>> was: There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this
>> statement that I don't even want to respond to it. But since there
>> have been more than one post supporting it and it's come up in this
>> conversation I'll respond. It seems to me that you can't get more
>> fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I
>> was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and
>> coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me
>> it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the way they
>> are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're against
>> going to war with them or trying to change them and since they
>> don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules
>> (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)
>> we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out
>> of it. That'll show them!
>>
>> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters
>> Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the
>> fact that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even
>> preacherly. I've learned that it comes from growing up in a family
>> of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I
>> do think it's important to have other ways to communicate and I do
>> strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also
>> know that at this point in time it's not something I can completely
>> eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not even sure I
>> want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have
>> learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more
>> understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have
>> this style. It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a
>> problem when we remain within that culture. It only becomes a
>> problem when we try to communicate with a different culture. And I
>> find that I have just as many problems with your style of
>> communicating as you seem to have with mine. That's one of the
>> reasons I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
>>
>> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>> saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and
>> what to do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I
>> don't have a problem.
>>
>> Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you
>> have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and
>> you want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to
>> you. My response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for
>> your feelings or your interpretations. What I am willing to do is
>> to talk to you about this as much as you want and to tell you what
>> I'm thinking and feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
>>
>>
>> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>>
>> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement
>> implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want
>> Gill?
>>
>> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what
>> I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>> matters to you. I respect and often like people who are
>> spontaneous, challenging and not afraid of emotions.
>>
>> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's
>> helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own
>> thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>>> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that
>>> you are
>>> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>>>
>>> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and
>>> people's
>>> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its
>>> just the
>>> way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>>
>>> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and
>>> at other
>>> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The
>>> authority I
>>> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
>>> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what
>>> Pat said in
>>> one of her recent mails ...
>>>
>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>>> group and
>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually]
>>>> have little
>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>>> there
>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>> back,
>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>>
>>> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>>> saying 'you
>>> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do.
>>> What I have
>>> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.
>>> Could we
>>> just talk together as two people'.
>>>
>>> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I
>>> have been
>>> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>>
>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>>> matters to you.
>>> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging
>>> and not
>>> afraid of emotions.
>>>
>>> Gill
>>>
>>>
>>> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,
>>>> including me)
>>>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?
>>>> Personally I think
>>>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I
>>>> try to look
>>>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>>>> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as
>>>> enabling and
>>>> empowering, not diminishing.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's
>>>> been my
>>>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is
>>>> quite often
>>>> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take
>>>> inquiry to
>>>> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I
>>>> suppose the
>>>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us
>>>> have equal
>>>> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or
>>>> less of an
>>>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or
>>>> experience. As Don
>>>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something
>>>> brand new, a
>>>> frontier.
>>>>
>>>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as
>>>> though there's
>>>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though
>>>> there is
>>>> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>>>> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal
>>>> status here
>>>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each
>>>> other to my
>>>> way of thinking.
>>>>
>>>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we
>>>> are all equal
>>>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>>>> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to
>>>> say. My
>>>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
>>>> equally.
>>>>
>>>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit
>>>> you in
>>>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being
>>>> defensive. Perhaps
>>>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being
>>>> someone who
>>>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of
>>>> lack and
>>>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being
>>>> defensive? Of
>>>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into
>>>> a defensive
>>>> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have
>>>> rejoined the
>>>> group would fall into that category yet.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions,
>>>> not just
>>>> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts
>>>> also. I try
>>>> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's
>>>> caring,
>>>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm
>>>> aware that
>>>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch
>>>> for that, to
>>>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them
>>>> against
>>>> someone.
>>>>
>>>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft"
>>>> posts. I
>>>> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that
>>>> is, and I
>>>> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there
>>>> are enough
>>>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a
>>>> little balance
>>>> in the area of soft/firm?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on
>>>> reading your
>>>> post.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 13:15:30 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 14:20:41 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
In-Reply-To: <20061114.205558.356.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F235DC99BD375C5E88AC3D7A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Franis - I know you're busy, but when you get a chance, would you elaborate?
I'd love to be able to recognize them. Thanks, k
>From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:32:53 -0800
>
>there are probably more than two - or three ways of being persistent. -
>Franis
>
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:30:11 -0600 "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>writes:
> > Yeah, guess that would mean that (Morgan) k is even more teacherly.
> > She's
> > awfully persistent. ;o)
> > K: Franis, image me chuckling at recognizing myself! Actually, I'm
> > going
> > to think about the 2 ways of being persistent. Never occurred to me
> > before.
> > k
> >
> >
> > >From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
> > >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:28:40 -0800
> > >
> > >Yeah, guess that would mean that (Morgan) k is even more teacherly.
> > She's
> > >awfully persistent. ;o)
> > >I used to think that I wasn't persistent, then I realized I have
> > the kind
> > >of persistence that keeps circling back around, rather than the
> > kind that
> > >keeps pushing and repeating.
> > >- Franis
> > >
> > >On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:43:49 -0500 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
> > writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rodger__Hmm, maybe I'm just too old but I have never had an
> > > > impression that
> > > > Susan or Franis used their diction to teach me something -- in
> > > > dialogue.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, they tend to express perspectives with some passion and
> > > > enthusiasm, or
> > > > even sometimes explain themselves with zeal. But if I am ever
> > too
> > > > dumb or
> > > > stubborn to actually understand what they hope to share, it
> > seems
> > > > they are
> > > > always very quick to let the -lesson- GO. Which I think is very
> > > > UN-teacherly of them. _R
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] teacherly
> > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > .
> > > > What if the way you want to come across in the way you mean to
> > > > communicate
> > > > isn't "teacherly"? Franis
> > > > .
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 15 13:21:56 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Thu Nov 16 14:27:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <FE8347C0-97E1-4AC7-A43C-EE06ED7006A7@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C180B6E4.3B01%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Don, I like what you say here. I sometimes need to be reminded to lie back
and giggle ...
... Its a fine mixture ... Alertness, letting go and sensing the opening, or
riding the wave ... Or some sort of metaphor!...
Gill
on 14/11/06 18:32, donald factor at dfactor@dc.rr.com wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:17 AM, Gill Wyatt wrote:
>
>> What do I say and how do I behave when ?Everything is connected by the same
>> force that sets them apart??
>
> My first flush of response to this is to say, Just lie back, giggle and give
> in. And in a sense, on reflection, its got to be something like that. Maybe
> alertness or awareness is what its about - or attention. This sort of approach
> might feel risky since we - most of us haven't got very good yet in trusting
> the process - but it seems like its the only approach that might work,
> assuming that we want to test the proposal that everyting is connected by the
> same force that sets them apart.
>
> Anyway, them's my sentiments at the moment. Even if while writing the above, I
> had a sudden moment of dejavue, which I am now pondering.
>
> don
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/67b046f2/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 15 13:27:52 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Thu Nov 16 14:33:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <E25C7417-6D13-4989-9BFC-18C7C900C7AD@mu6.com>
Message-ID: <C180B848.3B03%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Dirk,
I?m interested .. A lot ... But I don?t have the physics or the maths to
follow what looked like to be fascinating info there. Is there something
that you have written that is easier to understand.
Is the implicate the ?everything? here?
?Everything is connected by the same force that sets them apart??
Gill
on 14/11/06 18:37, Dirk Laureyssens at dirk@mu6.com wrote:
>
> On 14 Nov 2006, at 17:57, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> How does one live in this world? What shift is required in order to live
>> authentically within this paradoxical universe? What do I say and how do I
>> behave when ?Everything is connected by the same force that sets them apart??
>> -- Gill
> Dirk:? We can design models which are pure causal and can explain the
> interconnectivity. However for that we have to drop the Quantum approach.
> Isn't Quantum poor? Statistics can never represent reality.? Quantum is the
> confirmation that knowledge is not ready to grasp the real (implicate) system,
> are Quantum is "believing" in magic! ;-).?
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Is the universe actually paradoxical -- or is it unknown just what it
>> actually?is??? Maybe when we see that para and?doxa indicate beside?and
>> opinion, we see that the infinite universe is not?subject?to those opinions
>> expressed in finite language.?
> Dirk: indeed unknown for most.?
> My personal logic view: <http://www.mu6.com/holon_creation.html>. That is to
> me the implicate background. Since all comes from a single system, everything
> is a sub-set of the original system, and logically all sub-sets are connected.
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> One of the hardest things to accept, it seems, is that language is faulty,
>> that it often?"tells us" what is untrue while not inferring that it is "just
>> telling us what actually is".? Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in
> Dirk: Indeed language can be interpreted in some many ways. Therefor I prefer
> images.
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> TAS can and should be applied to language.?
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Thoughts?? --? Don L
>>
>> ?
>>
>> ~~
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Cancel the above "NOT?"??????
>>
>> ?
>>
> The "paradox" thing is the limit of careful, honest, logical inquiry
>
> regarding a thought. Paradox is about thought, opinion. It is
>
> opinion's end, its logical conclusion. It is the function of
>
> thought is all its beauty and fullness. It is the BEST that thought
>
> has to give us. When going with a paradox, the next 'step' is not linear.
>
> It cannot be. Paradox is an opening. The actual linear progression of
>
> 'inquiry to paradox' is progression to an "Opening." Paradox literally
>
> means "Beyond thought." And this speaks to the question of "How do I
>
> behave?" One does not know [behavior] an instant in advance because behavior
>
> now is not "based on thought" (not that behavior does not make use of thought
>
> but this is qualitatively different from its being based on thought).
>
> Behavior is [known to be] based on 'everything', based on 'what is'.
>
> ?
>
> pat
>
> ?
>
> ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/ca0e6f0f/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 13:38:55 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 14:44:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <C180B54E.3AFF%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F23AF28132C160C26871C4A5EA0@phx.gbl>
What does it mean taking a post 'personally'?
Here's my example:
In a post on 11 14, one of our group ended his post with these words:
The same cannot be said for Zoe...and neither for its supporters. 11 14
He has called Zoe an "it". He has also called Zoe's supporters an "it".
Everybody knows I am Zoe's friend, and that at her request, I'm trying to
mediate a solution to her being booted "on suspicion". To me, his remark is
insulting - flaming. I am very angry about that. But, in Bohm's precepts,
that needs to be explored. At the moment, I have more important things to
do, but as soon as I have taken care of other priorities, I will definitely
invite that person offline, express my feelings, and say "back off". For
now, I'm simply using my power to push the delete button. k
>From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:15:10 +0000
>
>Don, Susan and anybody else interested!
>
>What does it mean taking a post 'personally'?
>Is there an implicit criticism if it is said that somebody has taken a post
>'personally'?
>When is a reply somebody makes - taking a post personally or not?
>Who decides?
>
>One thing I have learnt from this discussion group is many posts are not
>addressed to anybody ... When I first joined it seemed many posts were like
>this. Recently there have been more that are addressed to somebody ...
>Perhaps I have thought that if there is a Hi Gill or Gill at the start of a
>post that at least something of that post was addressed to me!
>
>I guess I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen as a rich
>resource and an opening into the more universal or the implicate.
>
>I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads to a lack
>of care for each other ...
>
>Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone?
>
>Gill
>
>
>on 14/11/06 19:04, donald factor at dfactor@dc.rr.com wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that this sort of misunderstanding - that is, taking
> > posts personally when that wasn't what was intended - has not been
> > unusual. So maybe what we are doing here is having an impersonal
> > conversation with everybody. And although to me this seems quite
> > natural to me it may be that's because I've been doing it for a long
> > time, or maybe it is more unusual than I thought. Actually, this also
> > might refer to the "teacherly" thing. If I want to get a bit
> > teacherly I can make clear that, like Bohm used to do, it is just a
> > proposal for further inquiry, or something like that. What do you
> > think? Anybody?
> >
> > don
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> >
> >> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel
> >> that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel
> >> something similar.
> >>
> >> Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my
> >> point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I
> >> don't think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone
> >> else "get my point" or with the expectations that they would take
> >> anyone anywhere in particular. I simply wrote them to the group as
> >> a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk about what I felt
> >> was important. It's my understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is
> >> that people have difficulty talking about what's important to them.
> >> And that seems to be what's happening with us. You seem to have
> >> something that's important to you that you want to talk about and
> >> you wrote a post about that. I responded to your post with what I
> >> felt was important to me.
> >>
> >> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first
> >> post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps
> >> the expectations that some people would respond to you in a
> >> particular way that had meaning for you. But when I responded with
> >> what was important to me, I didn't respond in the way you were
> >> hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your
> >> posts to me are about. The idea that what's important to me doesn't
> >> seem to meet up with what's important to you.
> >>
> >> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own
> >> explorations and people's responses to me and how easy it is to
> >> just pass it back as ... Its just the way you interpret what I
> >> wrote ...
> >>
> >> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly
> >> wasn't clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what
> >> you meant. I did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning
> >> but I don't remember you saying anything close to the last part of
> >> this sentence. And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each
> >> other several times this morning to see if I missed something or
> >> could see something new. I still don't see you saying that. As far
> >> as I'm concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote.
> >> And you don't seem to think that's a satisfying answer. I think
> >> it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. And no, I don't think
> >> giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People very often don't
> >> seem to be able to accept that the way they have interpreted
> >> someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you see
> >> something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look
> >> at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just
> >> don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
> >>
> >> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish
> >> others and at other times authority can be more facilitative of
> >> self and others The authority I sensed in your email did not feel
> >> like that of 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the
> >> way I did.
> >>
> >> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be
> >> used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we
> >> are all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is
> >> no one in a higher or lower position. We are all our own
> >> authorities and we each have to take responsibility for ourselves
> >> and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that I don't
> >> take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my
> >> posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my
> >> feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
> >>
> >> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...
> >>
> >>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
> >>> group and
> >>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
> >>> little
> >>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
> >>> there
> >>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
> >>> back,
> >>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
> >>
> >> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought
> >> was: There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this
> >> statement that I don't even want to respond to it. But since there
> >> have been more than one post supporting it and it's come up in this
> >> conversation I'll respond. It seems to me that you can't get more
> >> fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I
> >> was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and
> >> coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me
> >> it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the way they
> >> are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're against
> >> going to war with them or trying to change them and since they
> >> don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules
> >> (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)
> >> we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out
> >> of it. That'll show them!
> >>
> >> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters
> >> Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the
> >> fact that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even
> >> preacherly. I've learned that it comes from growing up in a family
> >> of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I
> >> do think it's important to have other ways to communicate and I do
> >> strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also
> >> know that at this point in time it's not something I can completely
> >> eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not even sure I
> >> want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have
> >> learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more
> >> understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have
> >> this style. It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a
> >> problem when we remain within that culture. It only becomes a
> >> problem when we try to communicate with a different culture. And I
> >> find that I have just as many problems with your style of
> >> communicating as you seem to have with mine. That's one of the
> >> reasons I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
> >>
> >> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
> >> saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and
> >> what to do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I
> >> don't have a problem.
> >>
> >> Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you
> >> have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and
> >> you want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to
> >> you. My response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for
> >> your feelings or your interpretations. What I am willing to do is
> >> to talk to you about this as much as you want and to tell you what
> >> I'm thinking and feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
> >>
> >> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement
> >> implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want
> >> Gill?
> >>
> >> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what
> >> I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
> >> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
> >> matters to you. I respect and often like people who are
> >> spontaneous, challenging and not afraid of emotions.
> >>
> >> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's
> >> helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own
> >> thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> >> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> >>
> >>
> >>> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that
> >>> you are
> >>> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
> >>>
> >>> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and
> >>> people's
> >>> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its
> >>> just the
> >>> way you interpret what I wrote ...
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and
> >>> at other
> >>> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The
> >>> authority I
> >>> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
> >>> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what
> >>> Pat said in
> >>> one of her recent mails ...
> >>>
> >>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
> >>>> group and
> >>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually]
> >>>> have little
> >>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
> >>>> there
> >>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
> >>>> back,
> >>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
> >>>
> >>> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
> >>> saying 'you
> >>> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do.
> >>> What I have
> >>> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.
> >>> Could we
> >>> just talk together as two people'.
> >>>
> >>> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I
> >>> have been
> >>> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
> >>>
> >>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
> >>> matters to you.
> >>> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging
> >>> and not
> >>> afraid of emotions.
> >>>
> >>> Gill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,
> >>>> including me)
> >>>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?
> >>>> Personally I think
> >>>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I
> >>>> try to look
> >>>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
> >>>> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as
> >>>> enabling and
> >>>> empowering, not diminishing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's
> >>>> been my
> >>>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is
> >>>> quite often
> >>>> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take
> >>>> inquiry to
> >>>> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I
> >>>> suppose the
> >>>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us
> >>>> have equal
> >>>> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or
> >>>> less of an
> >>>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or
> >>>> experience. As Don
> >>>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something
> >>>> brand new, a
> >>>> frontier.
> >>>>
> >>>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as
> >>>> though there's
> >>>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though
> >>>> there is
> >>>> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
> >>>> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal
> >>>> status here
> >>>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each
> >>>> other to my
> >>>> way of thinking.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we
> >>>> are all equal
> >>>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
> >>>> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to
> >>>> say. My
> >>>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
> >>>> equally.
> >>>>
> >>>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit
> >>>> you in
> >>>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being
> >>>> defensive. Perhaps
> >>>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being
> >>>> someone who
> >>>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of
> >>>> lack and
> >>>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being
> >>>> defensive? Of
> >>>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into
> >>>> a defensive
> >>>> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have
> >>>> rejoined the
> >>>> group would fall into that category yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions,
> >>>> not just
> >>>> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts
> >>>> also. I try
> >>>> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's
> >>>> caring,
> >>>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm
> >>>> aware that
> >>>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch
> >>>> for that, to
> >>>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them
> >>>> against
> >>>> someone.
> >>>>
> >>>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft"
> >>>> posts. I
> >>>> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that
> >>>> is, and I
> >>>> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there
> >>>> are enough
> >>>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a
> >>>> little balance
> >>>> in the area of soft/firm?
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on
> >>>> reading your
> >>>> post.
> >>>>
> >>>> Susan
> >>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> info:
> >> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >>
> >> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> dialogue facilitator:
> >> facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> Administrator of the mailing list:
> >> admin@david-bohm.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 13:42:46 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 14:48:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <C180B848.3B03%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F105DD93EDD237BBD836FB6A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Dirk - I'm interested, too. Thanks for the link to your website. It's on
my "To Do" list. k
>From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:27:52 +0000
>
>Dirk,
>
>I¹m interested .. A lot ... But I don¹t have the physics or the maths to
>follow what looked like to be fascinating info there. Is there something
>that you have written that is easier to understand.
>
>Is the implicate the Œeverything¹ here?
> ŒEverything is connected by the same force that sets them apart¹?
>
>Gill
>
>
>on 14/11/06 18:37, Dirk Laureyssens at dirk@mu6.com wrote:
>
> >
> > On 14 Nov 2006, at 17:57, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How does one live in this world? What shift is required in order to
>live
> >> authentically within this paradoxical universe? What do I say and how
>do I
> >> behave when ŒEverything is connected by the same force that sets them
>apart¹?
> >> -- Gill
> > Dirk: We can design models which are pure causal and can explain the
> > interconnectivity. However for that we have to drop the Quantum
>approach.
> > Isn't Quantum poor? Statistics can never represent reality. Quantum is
>the
> > confirmation that knowledge is not ready to grasp the real (implicate)
>system,
> > are Quantum is "believing" in magic! ;-).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is the universe actually paradoxical -- or is it unknown just what it
> >> actually is? Maybe when we see that para and doxa indicate beside and
> >> opinion, we see that the infinite universe is not subject to those
>opinions
> >> expressed in finite language.
> > Dirk: indeed unknown for most.
> > My personal logic view: <http://www.mu6.com/holon_creation.html>. That
>is to
> > me the implicate background. Since all comes from a single system,
>everything
> > is a sub-set of the original system, and logically all sub-sets are
>connected.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> One of the hardest things to accept, it seems, is that language is
>faulty,
> >> that it often "tells us" what is untrue while not inferring that it is
>"just
> >> telling us what actually is". Seems to me what Bohm says of thought in
> > Dirk: Indeed language can be interpreted in some many ways. Therefor I
>prefer
> > images.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> TAS can and should be applied to language.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts? -- Don L
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ~~
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cancel the above "NOT?"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > The "paradox" thing is the limit of careful, honest, logical inquiry
> >
> > regarding a thought. Paradox is about thought, opinion. It is
> >
> > opinion's end, its logical conclusion. It is the function of
> >
> > thought is all its beauty and fullness. It is the BEST that thought
> >
> > has to give us. When going with a paradox, the next 'step' is not
>linear.
> >
> > It cannot be. Paradox is an opening. The actual linear progression of
> >
> > 'inquiry to paradox' is progression to an "Opening." Paradox literally
> >
> > means "Beyond thought." And this speaks to the question of "How do I
> >
> > behave?" One does not know [behavior] an instant in advance because
>behavior
> >
> > now is not "based on thought" (not that behavior does not make use of
>thought
> >
> > but this is qualitatively different from its being based on thought).
> >
> > Behavior is [known to be] based on 'everything', based on 'what is'.
> >
> >
> >
> > pat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 13:48:22 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 14:53:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <C17FD67F.802C%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F19056CBB27E89B67601166A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Lynne - If you figure that one out, please share the conclusions. My
youngest son was that way from the day he was born. He still is. You have
me wondering whether his birth was traumatic. I didn't have cesarian. k
>From: Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:24:31 -0600
>
>Good question. Where does the anger start? My grandson spent a good 30
>minutes this afternoon screaming out of control. We don¹t yet know if this
>was in response to pain in his gums, since he is now teething, or if he may
>have an ear infection. At any rate, babies do experience pain (coming out
>of the birth canal can¹t feel too great!) and they react not only with
>cries
>of distress, but with rage. I know a therapist who states that anger is a
>secondary emotion generally in response to pain (he was referring to
>emotional pain). Physical pain is often unavoidable (unless we¹re
>inflicting it on each other) due to our bodies¹ vulnerability. Emotional
>pain also starts early in life, but is more often caused by cultural
>attitudes. This would have to be greater pain, because it feels personal,
>and so would create much greater anger or rage. It¹s also much more
>difficult to release (how many books have been written about forgiving that
>flu germ that caused you so much agony?)
>
>Lynne
>
>On 11/14/06 8:55 PM, "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
> >>
> >> The world is full of anger on an individual,
> >>
> >> collective, national and global level. It has been
> >>
> >> like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
> >>
> >> looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
> >>
> >> somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
> >>
> >> something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
> >>
> >> which points to many things beyond thought itself.
> >>
> > If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans
>have been
> > so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about it, it is
>weird. A
> > whole species has spent millennnia in a state of anger! Of course, it is
>often
> > repressed, but it is there just waiting to get out, or so it seems. What
>is
> > it?
> >
> > don
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From donlay at gte.net Wed Nov 15 14:00:07 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Thu Nov 16 15:05:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <C180B54E.3AFF%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001a01c708b6$018ee300$2845153f@DL01>
I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen as a rich resource
and an opening into the more universal or the implicate. -- Gill
Me too. -- don L
I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads to a lack
of care for each other ...
Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone? -- Gill
It makes sense to me! My understanding is that we can thank Christianity
for popularizing the IDEA personhood, that it applies to all humans.
In the early Christian world, everyone ..., even the conquered enemy, even
slaves -- even women -- were accorded personhood by the early Christians.
Maybe this is the greatness of the idea of personhood, perhaps the greatness
of Christianity. Maybe the greatness of Rome relates to the NOTION of
personhood.
William said something very interesting re the personal being recently, but
I cannot find the post. Anyone have it?
William, could you please repost your ideas re the idea of personal being
and evolution? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> Don, Susan and anybody else interested!
>
> What does it mean taking a post 'personally'?
> Is there an implicit criticism if it is said that somebody has taken a
> post
> 'personally'?
> When is a reply somebody makes - taking a post personally or not?
> Who decides?
>
> One thing I have learnt from this discussion group is many posts are not
> addressed to anybody ... When I first joined it seemed many posts were
> like
> this. Recently there have been more that are addressed to somebody ...
> Perhaps I have thought that if there is a Hi Gill or Gill at the start of
> a
> post that at least something of that post was addressed to me!
>
> I guess I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen as a rich
> resource and an opening into the more universal or the implicate.
>
> I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads to a lack
> of care for each other ...
>
> Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone?
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 14/11/06 19:04, donald factor at dfactor@dc.rr.com wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that this sort of misunderstanding - that is, taking
>> posts personally when that wasn't what was intended - has not been
>> unusual. So maybe what we are doing here is having an impersonal
>> conversation with everybody. And although to me this seems quite
>> natural to me it may be that's because I've been doing it for a long
>> time, or maybe it is more unusual than I thought. Actually, this also
>> might refer to the "teacherly" thing. If I want to get a bit
>> teacherly I can make clear that, like Bohm used to do, it is just a
>> proposal for further inquiry, or something like that. What do you
>> think? Anybody?
>>
>> don
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel
>>> that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel
>>> something similar.
>>>
>>> Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my
>>> point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I
>>> don't think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone
>>> else "get my point" or with the expectations that they would take
>>> anyone anywhere in particular. I simply wrote them to the group as
>>> a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk about what I felt
>>> was important. It's my understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is
>>> that people have difficulty talking about what's important to them.
>>> And that seems to be what's happening with us. You seem to have
>>> something that's important to you that you want to talk about and
>>> you wrote a post about that. I responded to your post with what I
>>> felt was important to me.
>>>
>>> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first
>>> post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps
>>> the expectations that some people would respond to you in a
>>> particular way that had meaning for you. But when I responded with
>>> what was important to me, I didn't respond in the way you were
>>> hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your
>>> posts to me are about. The idea that what's important to me doesn't
>>> seem to meet up with what's important to you.
>>>
>>> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own
>>> explorations and people's responses to me and how easy it is to
>>> just pass it back as ... Its just the way you interpret what I
>>> wrote ...
>>>
>>> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly
>>> wasn't clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what
>>> you meant. I did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning
>>> but I don't remember you saying anything close to the last part of
>>> this sentence. And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each
>>> other several times this morning to see if I missed something or
>>> could see something new. I still don't see you saying that. As far
>>> as I'm concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote.
>>> And you don't seem to think that's a satisfying answer. I think
>>> it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. And no, I don't think
>>> giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People very often don't
>>> seem to be able to accept that the way they have interpreted
>>> someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you see
>>> something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look
>>> at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just
>>> don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
>>>
>>> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish
>>> others and at other times authority can be more facilitative of
>>> self and others The authority I sensed in your email did not feel
>>> like that of 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the
>>> way I did.
>>>
>>> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be
>>> used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we
>>> are all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is
>>> no one in a higher or lower position. We are all our own
>>> authorities and we each have to take responsibility for ourselves
>>> and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that I don't
>>> take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my
>>> posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my
>>> feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
>>>
>>> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...
>>>
>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>>> group and
>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
>>>> little
>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>>> there
>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>> back,
>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>>
>>> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought
>>> was: There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this
>>> statement that I don't even want to respond to it. But since there
>>> have been more than one post supporting it and it's come up in this
>>> conversation I'll respond. It seems to me that you can't get more
>>> fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I
>>> was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and
>>> coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me
>>> it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the way they
>>> are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're against
>>> going to war with them or trying to change them and since they
>>> don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules
>>> (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)
>>> we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out
>>> of it. That'll show them!
>>>
>>> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters
>>> Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the
>>> fact that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even
>>> preacherly. I've learned that it comes from growing up in a family
>>> of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I
>>> do think it's important to have other ways to communicate and I do
>>> strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also
>>> know that at this point in time it's not something I can completely
>>> eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not even sure I
>>> want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have
>>> learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more
>>> understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have
>>> this style. It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a
>>> problem when we remain within that culture. It only becomes a
>>> problem when we try to communicate with a different culture. And I
>>> find that I have just as many problems with your style of
>>> communicating as you seem to have with mine. That's one of the
>>> reasons I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
>>>
>>> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>>> saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and
>>> what to do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I
>>> don't have a problem.
>>>
>>> Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you
>>> have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and
>>> you want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to
>>> you. My response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for
>>> your feelings or your interpretations. What I am willing to do is
>>> to talk to you about this as much as you want and to tell you what
>>> I'm thinking and feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>>>
>>> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement
>>> implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want
>>> Gill?
>>>
>>> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what
>>> I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>>> matters to you. I respect and often like people who are
>>> spontaneous, challenging and not afraid of emotions.
>>>
>>> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's
>>> helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own
>>> thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>
>>>
>>>> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that
>>>> you are
>>>> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>>>>
>>>> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and
>>>> people's
>>>> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its
>>>> just the
>>>> way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and
>>>> at other
>>>> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The
>>>> authority I
>>>> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
>>>> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what
>>>> Pat said in
>>>> one of her recent mails ...
>>>>
>>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>>>> group and
>>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually]
>>>>> have little
>>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>>>> there
>>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>>> back,
>>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>>>
>>>> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>>>> saying 'you
>>>> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do.
>>>> What I have
>>>> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.
>>>> Could we
>>>> just talk together as two people'.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I
>>>> have been
>>>> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>>>
>>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>>>> matters to you.
>>>> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging
>>>> and not
>>>> afraid of emotions.
>>>>
>>>> Gill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,
>>>>> including me)
>>>>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?
>>>>> Personally I think
>>>>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I
>>>>> try to look
>>>>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>>>>> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as
>>>>> enabling and
>>>>> empowering, not diminishing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's
>>>>> been my
>>>>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is
>>>>> quite often
>>>>> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take
>>>>> inquiry to
>>>>> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I
>>>>> suppose the
>>>>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us
>>>>> have equal
>>>>> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or
>>>>> less of an
>>>>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or
>>>>> experience. As Don
>>>>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something
>>>>> brand new, a
>>>>> frontier.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as
>>>>> though there's
>>>>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though
>>>>> there is
>>>>> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>>>>> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal
>>>>> status here
>>>>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each
>>>>> other to my
>>>>> way of thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we
>>>>> are all equal
>>>>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>>>>> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to
>>>>> say. My
>>>>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
>>>>> equally.
>>>>>
>>>>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit
>>>>> you in
>>>>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being
>>>>> defensive. Perhaps
>>>>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being
>>>>> someone who
>>>>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of
>>>>> lack and
>>>>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being
>>>>> defensive? Of
>>>>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into
>>>>> a defensive
>>>>> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have
>>>>> rejoined the
>>>>> group would fall into that category yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions,
>>>>> not just
>>>>> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts
>>>>> also. I try
>>>>> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's
>>>>> caring,
>>>>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm
>>>>> aware that
>>>>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch
>>>>> for that, to
>>>>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them
>>>>> against
>>>>> someone.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft"
>>>>> posts. I
>>>>> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that
>>>>> is, and I
>>>>> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there
>>>>> are enough
>>>>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a
>>>>> little balance
>>>>> in the area of soft/firm?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on
>>>>> reading your
>>>>> post.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Wed Nov 15 14:07:22 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 15:13:02 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
In-Reply-To: <20061116110005.7771B24D79@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFA81991D7.8CD85DDF-ON85257227.00443F36-85257227.00481633@dialogos.com>
Rodger __To start with, YES, imagery is instrumental for direct
communication with any child/baby, not to mention children of different
cultures/ languages than ourself.
Next, it is imagery & vocal tones, not words, that will make communication
possible with animals in the wild -- if/when such needs arise.
As for imagery in dialogue, it is about as new as comic books or art. And
there are some extremely philosophical, abstract and adult graphic comics
to be found.
I get the impression that some people on this list have begun to discover
the RUSH to the senses and imagination that imagery can provide. And they
mistake that RUSH for
a thing that might be comparable to diction, or replace specificity, or
somehow sidestep the need to share coherent verbal expression, from our
highest levels of awareness._R
.
.
From: "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Dream groups do the same thing. They help us to look at our thoughts that
are not words and see the association to
meaning and words. Susan
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/2f0b1c5c/attachment.html
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 15 14:07:49 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Thu Nov 16 15:14:38 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <007201c70816$3bdd2580$b178480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C180C1A5.3B05%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Susan,
I?m understanding our differences I think and coming to respect my stance
and yours.
For me when I talk about ?understanding my points? I?m referring to simply
understanding what I say ... Its interesting ... You pick up on the word
?point? and it becomes ?get my point? whereas for me what was most
important was ?understanding?. Are these the same? Perhaps it doesn?t
matter.
But yes for me Its about talking (well writing here!!) and listening and it
does seem important to understand what has been written ... Doesn?t dialogue
occur from this close listening to each other and taking off the
assumptions? ... Do we not need understanding ... And I would go further,
from my stance in life I value empathy highly. To truly understand the other
and be understood is such a gift. Mmm I?m re-reading my post before sending
and I?m realising that there is more here ... I think I look for ?warmth? or
maybe simply some ?sense of recognition? as well. I obviously don?t expect
to find it but I think there might have been something of this here.
And I know that I do feel disappointed when that doesn?t occur. So yes I
think I wanted to feel a warm understanding from you and of course I
haven?t. Yet I do feel I have met an alive, interesting and vibrant woman.
I don?t think what we have been discussing is ?simply my way of
interpreting? it seems to me that what we have been discussing is the
meeting between ?my way of interpreting? AND ?your way of interpreting?.
I?ve appreciated spending this time rediscovering the effect of my way of
interpreting, the assumptions that are a part of who I am. I think you have
also been saying that you have similarly been affirming who you are and what
matters to you ... Is that not ?your way of interpreting?? ...
I can see what you mean by the ?us and them? in what Pat quoted. Yet I have
witnessed this sort of process in so many groups. There are the ?helpers? or
?teachers? and those that need ?help? or ?teaching?. Over the years I have
played both roles of this duality (maybe at the same time ... :-) !!). I
know many of us don?t want to recreate that culture here but that sort of
culture is embedded in the very air that we breath.
I do understand and agree when you say you are not responsible for my
feelings and my interpretations ... Yet when we live in an interconnected
universe and we need to take responsibility for our part for the state of
the world on the grand scale and what we manifest in our personal lives on
the smaller scale, I think it is so much more complex than what your
statement infers.
Um ... I?m getting to enjoy this!
Gill
on 14/11/06 17:56, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that you
> are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>
> Susan: Truthfully, I?m not sure I feel the need for you to "get my point" or
> that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I don?t think I wrote any
> of my posts as way to try to have someone else "get my point" or with the
> expectations that they would take anyone anywhere in particular. I simply
> wrote them to the group as a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk
> about what I felt was important. It?s my understanding that one of Bohm?s
> ideas is that people have difficulty talking about what?s important to them.
> And that seems to be what?s happening with us. You seem to have something
> that?s important to you that you want to talk about and you wrote a post about
> that. I responded to your post with what I felt was important to me.
>
> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first post that I
> responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps the expectations that
> some people would respond to you in a particular way that had meaning for you.
> But when I responded with what was important to me, I didn?t respond in the
> way you were hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your
> posts to me are about. The idea that what?s important to me doesn?t seem to
> meet up with what?s important to you.
>
> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and
> people's responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its
> just the way you interpret what I wrote ...
>
> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly wasn?t clear to
> me. I?m glad it?s finally clear to me that?s what you meant. I did clearly
> hear you say that you are open to learning but I don?t remember you saying
> anything close to the last part of this sentence. And I?ve gone back and read
> all of our posts to each other several times this morning to see if I missed
> something or could see something new. I still don?t see you saying that. As
> far as I?m concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote. And you
> don?t seem to think that?s a satisfying answer. I think it?s a perfectly good
> and satisfying answer. And no, I don?t think giving that kind of answer is
> easy at all. People very often don?t seem to be able to accept that the way
> they have interpreted someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that
> you see something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look at
> and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just don?t see it.
> Although I?m very willing to talk about it.
>
> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and at
> other times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The
> authority I sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it
> had I wouldn't have responded in the way I did.
>
> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be used. To me,
> authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we are all equal
> authorities to my way of thinking means that there is no one in a higher or
> lower position. We are all our own authorities and we each have to take
> responsibility for ourselves and our own feelings and responses. It means to
> me that I don?t take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of
> my posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don?t assign responsibility for my
> feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
>
> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...
>
>> > all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group and
>> > all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have little
>> > to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
>> > hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
>> > some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>
> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat?s my thought was: There is
> so much prejudice and discrimination in this statement that I don?t even want
> to respond to it. But since there have been more than one post supporting it
> and it?s come up in this conversation I?ll respond. It seems to me that you
> can?t get more fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully,
> I was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and coming from
> someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me it REEKS of the idea of
> "us and them". We don?t like the way they are in the world and we don?t like
> the way they play. We?re against going to war with them or trying to change
> them and since they don?t seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our
> rules (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards) we?ll
> just go off and form our own little group and leave them out of it. That?ll
> show them!
>
> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters Dialogue of any
> kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the fact that I sometimes come
> across as being teacherly or even preacherly. I?ve learned that it comes from
> growing up in a family of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me.
> And, yes, I do think it?s important to have other ways to communicate and I do
> strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also know that at
> this point in time it?s not something I can completely eradicate from my
> writing or communications and I?m not even sure I want to at this point in
> time. One of the main things I have learned from exploring my feelings about
> it is to have far more understanding and tolerance for my family and other
> people who have this style. It comes from the culture we grow up in and is
> not a problem when we remain within that culture. It only becomes a problem
> when we try to communicate with a different culture. And I find that I have
> just as many problems with your style of communicating as you seem to have
> with mine. That's one of the reasons I'm so willing to continue this
> conversation.
>
> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are saying
> 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do. What I
> have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.
>
> Susan: My sense of what?s going here Gill is that you?re saying you have a
> problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and you want me to
> fix your problem by changing the way I respond to you. My response to you
> is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for your feelings or your
> interpretations. What I am willing to do is to talk to you about this as much
> as you want and to tell you what I'm thinking and feeling as openly and
> honestly as possible.
>
> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>
> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement implies to me
> that you want more. What is this more that you want Gill?
>
> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I have
> been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters to you.
> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging and not
> afraid of emotions.
>
> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It?s helped me to
> find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own thinking. Thank you, and
> the respect is mutual.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk <mailto:earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> >
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org <mailto:bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> >
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>> > Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that you are
>> > quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>> >
>> > I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and people's
>> > responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its just the
>> > way you interpret what I wrote ...
>> >
>> > Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and at other
>> > times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The authority I
>> > sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
>> > wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what Pat said
>> in
>> > one of her recent mails ...
>> >
>>> >> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group and
>>> >> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have little
>>> >> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
>>> >> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
>>> >> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>> >
>> > My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are saying 'you
>> > have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do. What I have
>> > been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem. Could we
>> > just talk together as two people'.
>> >
>> > Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I have been
>> > trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>> >
>> > I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters to
>> you.
>> > I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging and not
>> > afraid of emotions.
>> >
>> > Gill
>> >
>> >
>> > on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>> <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>>> >> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone, including
>>> me)
>>> >> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing? Personally I
>>> think
>>> >> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I try to
>>> look
>>> >> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>>> >> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as enabling
>>> and
>>> >> empowering, not diminishing.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's been my
>>> >> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite
>>> often
>>> >> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take inquiry to
>>> >> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I suppose the
>>> >> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us have
>>> equal
>>> >> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or less of
an
>>> >> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or experience. As
>>> Don
>>> >> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something brand new, a
>>> >> frontier.
>>> >>
>>> >> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as though
>>> there's
>>> >> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though there is
>>> >> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>>> >> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal status
>>> here
>>> >> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each other to my
>>> >> way of thinking.
>>> >>
>>> >> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we are all
>>> equal
>>> >> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>>> >> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to say.
My
>>> >> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
>>> equally.
>>> >>
>>> >> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit you in
>>> >> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being defensive.
>>> Perhaps
>>> >> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being someone who
>>> >> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of lack
>>> and
>>> >> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being defensive? Of
>>> >> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into a
>>> defensive
>>> >> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have rejoined the
>>> >> group would fall into that category yet.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions, not just
>>> >> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts also. I
>>> try
>>> >> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's caring,
>>> >> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm aware that
>>> >> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch for that,
to
>>> >> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them against
>>> >> someone.
>>> >>
>>> >> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft" posts. I
>>> >> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that is, and
I
>>> >> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there are
>>> enough
>>> >> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a little
>>> balance
>>> >> in the area of soft/firm?
>>> >>
>>> >> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on reading >>>
your
>>> >> post.
>>> >>
>>> >> Susan
>>> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/9f23133f/attachment.html
From Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Wed Nov 15 14:10:28 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Thu Nov 16 15:16:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B3B36FEB@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
And it doesn't matter how long the url is as if its copied and pasted
correctly all you need to do is click on the underlined url, so it can
be as long as you like.
One question I have is why anyone is worried about the length of a url??
No one worries about their posts being too many sentences long. There
are a lot of email services 9free ones) that have several gigs of
storage.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: 15 November 2006 11:50
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
My images were from Google. Here is one of the shorter ones I copied
and
pasted:
<http://us.f550.mail.yahoo.com/ym/dpughphoto.com/images/rooster%20puerto
%20...>
One of them had a URL 3x this size. k
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:38:04 -0000
>
>If you have a url longer than a post you are either exaggerating (shame
>on you :-) )or doing something wrong, once a url is copied and pasted
>into a post the viewer only has to click on it (however long it is)
to
>see the picture. There are other sites to show pics, google should have
>some links.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 15 November 2006 11:26
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>
>
>I'll check out Photobucket, but as for copying and pasting the URL, I
>worked on that last night. The URLs in the address are longer than a
>post! I finally gave up and went to sleep. Any further help would be
>most
>gratefully received. k
>
>
> >From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:20:33 +0000 (GMT)
> >
> >You dont need to post the pic, just upload it to photobucket and send
> >a link to its location.
> >
> >donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote: my Apple mail ap tells me in
> >a little note at the bottom left hand corner. I only just noticed it.
> >Usually I have to take the picture and using a graphics app like
> >Photoshop or Graphic Converter fiddle with it until I get it down to
> >size.
> >
> >don
> >On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> >
> > > less than 100 kbs
> > >
> > > but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in
> > > the 100kb size. How can I measure the total kbs?
> > >
> > > More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more then map
> > > the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > info:
> > > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > > dialogue facilitator:
> > > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > > admin@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
>https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>****************************************************
>Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
>****************************************************
>This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the
>person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
>and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or
>other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by
>persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
If
>you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
immediately
>and delete the material from your computer.
>
>E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and
>unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability
for
>any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
>consequences.
>****************************************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 14:33:02 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Thu Nov 16 15:38:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B3B36FEB@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F5666C90B572A4BD386199A5EA0@phx.gbl>
Stephen, I'm worried because we have been given rules about the size of
posts, and it must include any images. I don't want to violate rules,
particularly since I am trying to mediate Zoe's reinstatement on the list.
Are you actually saying that the length of the URL doesn't count in terms of
post size? Maybe that's my confusion. k
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:10:28 -0000
>
>And it doesn't matter how long the url is as if its copied and pasted
>correctly all you need to do is click on the underlined url, so it can
>be as long as you like.
>
>One question I have is why anyone is worried about the length of a url??
>No one worries about their posts being too many sentences long. There
>are a lot of email services 9free ones) that have several gigs of
>storage.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 15 November 2006 11:50
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>
>
>My images were from Google. Here is one of the shorter ones I copied
>and
>pasted:
><http://us.f550.mail.yahoo.com/ym/dpughphoto.com/images/rooster%20puerto
>%20...>
>
>One of them had a URL 3x this size. k
>
>
> >From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:38:04 -0000
> >
> >If you have a url longer than a post you are either exaggerating (shame
>
> >on you :-) )or doing something wrong, once a url is copied and pasted
> >into a post the viewer only has to click on it (however long it is)
>to
> >see the picture. There are other sites to show pics, google should have
>
> >some links.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> >[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
> >Sent: 15 November 2006 11:26
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> >
> >
> >I'll check out Photobucket, but as for copying and pasting the URL, I
> >worked on that last night. The URLs in the address are longer than a
> >post! I finally gave up and went to sleep. Any further help would be
> >most
> >gratefully received. k
> >
> >
> > >From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> > >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:20:33 +0000 (GMT)
> > >
> > >You dont need to post the pic, just upload it to photobucket and send
>
> > >a link to its location.
> > >
> > >donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote: my Apple mail ap tells me in
>
> > >a little note at the bottom left hand corner. I only just noticed it.
>
> > >Usually I have to take the picture and using a graphics app like
> > >Photoshop or Graphic Converter fiddle with it until I get it down to
> > >size.
> > >
> > >don
> > >On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> > >
> > > > less than 100 kbs
> > > >
> > > > but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in
> > > > the 100kb size. How can I measure the total kbs?
> > > >
> > > > More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more then map
> > > > the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > info:
> > > > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > > >
> > > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> > > >
> > > > dialogue facilitator:
> > > > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> > > >
> > > > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > > > admin@david-bohm.net
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >info:
> > >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >dialogue facilitator:
> > >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >Administrator of the mailing list:
> > >admin@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >info:
> > >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >dialogue facilitator:
> > >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >Administrator of the mailing list:
> > >admin@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
> >https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >****************************************************
> >Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
> >****************************************************
> >This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the
> >person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> >and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or
> >other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
>information by
> >persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
>If
> >you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
>immediately
> >and delete the material from your computer.
> >
> >E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and
> >unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability
>for
> >any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
> >consequences.
> >****************************************************
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
>Microsoft Office Live
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 06:25:35 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 16:15:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
Message-ID: <20061115.090814.2144.68.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Thanks, Pat k
Here's another.
>From "William van den Heuvel" <heuvel@muc.de>
Sat, 13 Dec 1997 10:04:15 -0500 (EST)
X-Status: Replied
Pat:
>... the terms Bohm uses are so packed with insight, the
>thought of being able to actually USE some of those terms seems like a
>long forgotten dream. Some people think of Bohm as a physicist, some
>think of him as a philosopher, I think of him as a word-smith. I find
>his use of language in handling subtle information unsurpassed anywhere.
>Someone said of Plato "Here is the arrival of accuracy and intelligence.
>He shall be as a god to me who can rightly divide and define." This
>makes me think of Bohm.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. Very inspiring...
>I once tried to compile a glossary of Bohm's key terms...*Coherence and
>Incoherence*. The ideas of Coherence and Incoherence are
>not too hard to grasp at first glance. Coherence implies clarity and
>Incoherence implies confusion. But Bohm breaks Incoherence down into
>Primary and Secondary, and talks about how Primary Incoherence is not a
>problem, but that the moment when one begins to feel anxious about the
>Incoherence (the lack of clarity), Secondary Incoherence has begun, and
>THAT is a problem. At this point anxiety can just continue to build on
>itself with Tertiary Incoherence and on and on. A person can get very
>very confused if Primary Incoherence is feared, if a person thinks
>there is something wrong with it.
Where you on this list when I submitted that stuff about the runaway
"virtual loop"? That was the same idea.
>*Necessity and Contingency* are another couple of his favorites. He
talks
>about how every thought is either a thought of Necessity or a thought of
>Contingency. And these constantly rearrange themselves according to
>circumstances. And then there is the thought of Absolute Necessity which
>is stronger than the survival instinct, and will not yield for anything.
This is also what was behind my recent stuff about "truth and reality"
(implying Necessity) versus "fuzziology" (implying Contingency). Same
thing
in different words.
>Now one might ask "why do all these concepts matter?" When one is
sitting
>in a dialogue circle, paying attention to the process of thought more
>than the content, one realizes that "the process" is a very slippery
>thing to observe. We seem to be compelled by the content. Well, what
Bohm
>does is come up with terms that indicate the contents of the process of
>thought, and suddenly one is able to grasp process by means to these
>"handles."
Yes, these concepts are pointers that point to the process of thought
itself instead of some other content. The pointers turns the process of
thought into a self-reflective awareness, thus enabling the process of
thought to become part of the content of thought thereby enabling us to
think about it and talk about it, which is important to communicate the
insight.
>...It operates the same as new awareness operates in general. For
>instance, many many years ago, I bought a Volkswagen. Suddenly I was
>seeing Volkswagens everywhere. I haden't noticed them before.
Yes, once you've seen it, you also see that it has always been there. And
that makes you wonder why you haven't seen it before. What else haven't
we
seen yet? It would appear, perception depends on conception. By
developing
new concepts we develop new perceptions.
>...Bohm in his
>genius, has painted a coherent picture of how thought operates as a
>system. He has demystified the thought process.
Not only the thought system but also the whole system of perception,
which
is even more fascinating than only the thought system.
> ...And when we sit in a
>dialogue circle, where the people are prepared for dialogue, we can be
>paying attention to how thought is operating rather than how other
people
>are operating. This alone could change everything.
I would say, when you pay attention to how your own thought operates then
you are also paying attention to how thought operates in other people:
It's
the same process. Normally, I don't like quoting other people but in this
case it may be appropriate to quote J. Krishnamurti who often said "I am
the world" (meaning the world of thought).
William
From Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Wed Nov 15 15:31:14 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Thu Nov 16 16:36:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5BA@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Well I've never seen a url so big that it couldn't fit quite comfortably
in a regular email. If we have that much trouble here over size of posts
containingf a URL then something drastic needs to be done because it
never used to be this bad.
I don't have a problem with mail size, however large they are. I have a
problem with abusive and childish posts, but those are usually brief.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: 15 November 2006 13:33
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
Stephen, I'm worried because we have been given rules about the size of
posts, and it must include any images. I don't want to violate rules,
particularly since I am trying to mediate Zoe's reinstatement on the
list. Are you actually saying that the length of the URL doesn't count
in terms of
post size? Maybe that's my confusion. k
>From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:10:28 -0000
>
>And it doesn't matter how long the url is as if its copied and pasted
>correctly all you need to do is click on the underlined url, so it can
>be as long as you like.
>
>One question I have is why anyone is worried about the length of a
>url?? No one worries about their posts being too many sentences long.
>There are a lot of email services 9free ones) that have several gigs of
>storage.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
>[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
>Sent: 15 November 2006 11:50
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
>
>
>My images were from Google. Here is one of the shorter ones I copied
>and
>pasted:
><http://us.f550.mail.yahoo.com/ym/dpughphoto.com/images/rooster%20puert
>o
>%20...>
>
>One of them had a URL 3x this size. k
>
>
> >From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:38:04 -0000
> >
> >If you have a url longer than a post you are either exaggerating
> >(shame
>
> >on you :-) )or doing something wrong, once a url is copied and pasted
> >into a post the viewer only has to click on it (however long it is)
>to
> >see the picture. There are other sites to show pics, google should
> >have
>
> >some links.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> >[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan
> >Jett
> >Sent: 15 November 2006 11:26
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> >
> >
> >I'll check out Photobucket, but as for copying and pasting the URL, I
> >worked on that last night. The URLs in the address are longer than a
> >post! I finally gave up and went to sleep. Any further help would
> >be most
> >gratefully received. k
> >
> >
> > >From: STEPHEN DEVLIN <stephen.devlin3@btinternet.com>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> > >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:20:33 +0000 (GMT)
> > >
> > >You dont need to post the pic, just upload it to photobucket and
> > >send
>
> > >a link to its location.
> > >
> > >donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote: my Apple mail ap tells me
> > >in
>
> > >a little note at the bottom left hand corner. I only just noticed
> > >it.
>
> > >Usually I have to take the picture and using a graphics app like
> > >Photoshop or Graphic Converter fiddle with it until I get it down
> > >to size.
> > >
> > >don
> > >On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Morgan Jett wrote:
> > >
> > > > less than 100 kbs
> > > >
> > > > but if I use an image, or image plus words, that has to fall in
> > > > the 100kb size. How can I measure the total kbs?
> > > >
> > > > More cyberspace dialog pioneering! But isn't it great? k
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > > _
> > > > Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more then map
> > > > the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > info:
> > > > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > > >
> > > > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> > > >
> > > > dialogue facilitator:
> > > > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> > > >
> > > > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > > > admin@david-bohm.net
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >info:
> > >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >dialogue facilitator:
> > >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >Administrator of the mailing list:
> > >admin@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >info:
> > >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >dialogue facilitator:
> > >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >Administrator of the mailing list:
> > >admin@david-bohm.net
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
> >https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >****************************************************
> >Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
> >****************************************************
> >This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for
> >the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> >confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution,
> >disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
> >this
>information by
> >persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
>If
> >you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
>immediately
> >and delete the material from your computer.
> >
> >E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses
> >and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept
> >liability
>for
> >any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their
> >consequences.
> >****************************************************
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >info:
> >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> >dialogue facilitator:
> >facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> >Administrator of the mailing list:
> >admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
>Microsoft Office Live
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 15 15:33:26 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Thu Nov 16 16:39:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <001a01c708b6$018ee300$2845153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <C180D5B6.3B1F%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Thanks Don, good to not feel alone ... and William if you could resend I'd
appreciate.
Gill
on 15/11/06 13:00, Don Lay at donlay@gte.net wrote:
> I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen as a rich resource
> and an opening into the more universal or the implicate. -- Gill
>
> Me too. -- don L
>
> I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads to a lack
> of care for each other ...
> Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone? -- Gill
>
> It makes sense to me! My understanding is that we can thank Christianity
> for popularizing the IDEA personhood, that it applies to all humans.
>
> In the early Christian world, everyone ..., even the conquered enemy, even
> slaves -- even women -- were accorded personhood by the early Christians.
> Maybe this is the greatness of the idea of personhood, perhaps the greatness
> of Christianity. Maybe the greatness of Rome relates to the NOTION of
> personhood.
>
> William said something very interesting re the personal being recently, but
> I cannot find the post. Anyone have it?
>
> William, could you please repost your ideas re the idea of personal being
> and evolution? -- Don L
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>> Don, Susan and anybody else interested!
>>
>> What does it mean taking a post 'personally'?
>> Is there an implicit criticism if it is said that somebody has taken a
>> post
>> 'personally'?
>> When is a reply somebody makes - taking a post personally or not?
>> Who decides?
>>
>> One thing I have learnt from this discussion group is many posts are not
>> addressed to anybody ... When I first joined it seemed many posts were
>> like
>> this. Recently there have been more that are addressed to somebody ...
>> Perhaps I have thought that if there is a Hi Gill or Gill at the start of
>> a
>> post that at least something of that post was addressed to me!
>>
>> I guess I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen as a rich
>> resource and an opening into the more universal or the implicate.
>>
>> I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads to a lack
>> of care for each other ...
>>
>> Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone?
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> on 14/11/06 19:04, donald factor at dfactor@dc.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that this sort of misunderstanding - that is, taking
>>> posts personally when that wasn't what was intended - has not been
>>> unusual. So maybe what we are doing here is having an impersonal
>>> conversation with everybody. And although to me this seems quite
>>> natural to me it may be that's because I've been doing it for a long
>>> time, or maybe it is more unusual than I thought. Actually, this also
>>> might refer to the "teacherly" thing. If I want to get a bit
>>> teacherly I can make clear that, like Bohm used to do, it is just a
>>> proposal for further inquiry, or something like that. What do you
>>> think? Anybody?
>>>
>>> don
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel
>>>> that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel
>>>> something similar.
>>>>
>>>> Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my
>>>> point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I
>>>> don't think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone
>>>> else "get my point" or with the expectations that they would take
>>>> anyone anywhere in particular. I simply wrote them to the group as
>>>> a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk about what I felt
>>>> was important. It's my understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is
>>>> that people have difficulty talking about what's important to them.
>>>> And that seems to be what's happening with us. You seem to have
>>>> something that's important to you that you want to talk about and
>>>> you wrote a post about that. I responded to your post with what I
>>>> felt was important to me.
>>>>
>>>> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first
>>>> post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps
>>>> the expectations that some people would respond to you in a
>>>> particular way that had meaning for you. But when I responded with
>>>> what was important to me, I didn't respond in the way you were
>>>> hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your
>>>> posts to me are about. The idea that what's important to me doesn't
>>>> seem to meet up with what's important to you.
>>>>
>>>> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own
>>>> explorations and people's responses to me and how easy it is to
>>>> just pass it back as ... Its just the way you interpret what I
>>>> wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly
>>>> wasn't clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what
>>>> you meant. I did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning
>>>> but I don't remember you saying anything close to the last part of
>>>> this sentence. And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each
>>>> other several times this morning to see if I missed something or
>>>> could see something new. I still don't see you saying that. As far
>>>> as I'm concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote.
>>>> And you don't seem to think that's a satisfying answer. I think
>>>> it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. And no, I don't think
>>>> giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People very often don't
>>>> seem to be able to accept that the way they have interpreted
>>>> someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you see
>>>> something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look
>>>> at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just
>>>> don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
>>>>
>>>> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish
>>>> others and at other times authority can be more facilitative of
>>>> self and others The authority I sensed in your email did not feel
>>>> like that of 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the
>>>> way I did.
>>>>
>>>> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be
>>>> used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we
>>>> are all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is
>>>> no one in a higher or lower position. We are all our own
>>>> authorities and we each have to take responsibility for ourselves
>>>> and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that I don't
>>>> take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my
>>>> posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my
>>>> feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
>>>>
>>>> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...
>>>>
>>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>>>> group and
>>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
>>>>> little
>>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>>>> there
>>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>>> back,
>>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>>>
>>>> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought
>>>> was: There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this
>>>> statement that I don't even want to respond to it. But since there
>>>> have been more than one post supporting it and it's come up in this
>>>> conversation I'll respond. It seems to me that you can't get more
>>>> fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I
>>>> was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and
>>>> coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me
>>>> it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the way they
>>>> are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're against
>>>> going to war with them or trying to change them and since they
>>>> don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules
>>>> (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)
>>>> we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out
>>>> of it. That'll show them!
>>>>
>>>> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters
>>>> Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the
>>>> fact that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even
>>>> preacherly. I've learned that it comes from growing up in a family
>>>> of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I
>>>> do think it's important to have other ways to communicate and I do
>>>> strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also
>>>> know that at this point in time it's not something I can completely
>>>> eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not even sure I
>>>> want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have
>>>> learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more
>>>> understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have
>>>> this style. It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a
>>>> problem when we remain within that culture. It only becomes a
>>>> problem when we try to communicate with a different culture. And I
>>>> find that I have just as many problems with your style of
>>>> communicating as you seem to have with mine. That's one of the
>>>> reasons I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
>>>>
>>>> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>>>> saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and
>>>> what to do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I
>>>> don't have a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you
>>>> have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and
>>>> you want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to
>>>> you. My response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for
>>>> your feelings or your interpretations. What I am willing to do is
>>>> to talk to you about this as much as you want and to tell you what
>>>> I'm thinking and feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>>>>
>>>> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement
>>>> implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want
>>>> Gill?
>>>>
>>>> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what
>>>> I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>>>> matters to you. I respect and often like people who are
>>>> spontaneous, challenging and not afraid of emotions.
>>>>
>>>> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's
>>>> helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own
>>>> thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that
>>>>> you are
>>>>> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and
>>>>> people's
>>>>> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its
>>>>> just the
>>>>> way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and
>>>>> at other
>>>>> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The
>>>>> authority I
>>>>> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
>>>>> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what
>>>>> Pat said in
>>>>> one of her recent mails ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>>>>> group and
>>>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually]
>>>>>> have little
>>>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>>>> back,
>>>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>>>>
>>>>> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>>>>> saying 'you
>>>>> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do.
>>>>> What I have
>>>>> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.
>>>>> Could we
>>>>> just talk together as two people'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I
>>>>> have been
>>>>> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>>>>> matters to you.
>>>>> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging
>>>>> and not
>>>>> afraid of emotions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,
>>>>>> including me)
>>>>>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?
>>>>>> Personally I think
>>>>>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I
>>>>>> try to look
>>>>>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>>>>>> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as
>>>>>> enabling and
>>>>>> empowering, not diminishing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's
>>>>>> been my
>>>>>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is
>>>>>> quite often
>>>>>> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take
>>>>>> inquiry to
>>>>>> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I
>>>>>> suppose the
>>>>>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us
>>>>>> have equal
>>>>>> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or
>>>>>> less of an
>>>>>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or
>>>>>> experience. As Don
>>>>>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something
>>>>>> brand new, a
>>>>>> frontier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as
>>>>>> though there's
>>>>>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though
>>>>>> there is
>>>>>> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>>>>>> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal
>>>>>> status here
>>>>>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each
>>>>>> other to my
>>>>>> way of thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we
>>>>>> are all equal
>>>>>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>>>>>> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to
>>>>>> say. My
>>>>>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
>>>>>> equally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit
>>>>>> you in
>>>>>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being
>>>>>> defensive. Perhaps
>>>>>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being
>>>>>> someone who
>>>>>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of
>>>>>> lack and
>>>>>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being
>>>>>> defensive? Of
>>>>>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into
>>>>>> a defensive
>>>>>> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have
>>>>>> rejoined the
>>>>>> group would fall into that category yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions,
>>>>>> not just
>>>>>> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts
>>>>>> also. I try
>>>>>> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's
>>>>>> caring,
>>>>>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm
>>>>>> aware that
>>>>>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch
>>>>>> for that, to
>>>>>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> someone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft"
>>>>>> posts. I
>>>>>> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that
>>>>>> is, and I
>>>>>> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there
>>>>>> are enough
>>>>>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a
>>>>>> little balance
>>>>>> in the area of soft/firm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on
>>>>>> reading your
>>>>>> post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 15:52:07 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 17:08:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Second post
Message-ID: <20061115.100158.2144.74.ae.dropper@juno.com>
The thought occurs of the difference between talking about truth (for
instance) and speaking from truth, which, in a dialogue session can tend
to be short winded - but not necessarily so - there's no second guessing
the utterings of truth (where speaking about it, as a subject, can go on
and on).
And what you say about "completion of synapse" is well said because it is
indicative of dialogical function.
What is the basic element which differentiates between speaking with
someone where there is a more or less 'direct trajectory', and speaking
with someone where there is a 'laboring', and where complex 'worlds' of
transformation are traversed along the path between what leaves the
speakers mouth, and what enters the hearers ear?
pat
I think one of the worst things we learn in school/university is to write
10,000 words when maybe only a few are necessary.The more you write the
more chance you have of obscuring what you intended to say. I think Lynne
wrote the post I was responding to (hard to tell when posts get chopped
off) and to my understanding she was trying to communicate an explanation
of something that is pre-thought, when you start talking about those
areas less is better and its down to the experience of the listener to
'complete the synapse' and get it. It leaves a lot of people out of an
audience but thats a realisation that very few people will get what you
intend to say any way.
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I think I understand what you meant, because you kept it short and didnt
over-elaborate. (Stephen)
I am working on a "Living Will" for someone. I have been advised
to say as little as possible because "the more you say, the
more there is that is available for [a plethora of]
interpretation."
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/715ebadd/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 16:01:42 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 17:08:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Message-ID: <20061115.100158.2144.76.ae.dropper@juno.com>
One possibility: Compare the sensations.
Another possibility: Imagine the [quintessential anger]
thought "I have been done wrong" followed by the thought
"I have every reason to be happy." Does it compute?
pat
But why doesn't say , I have every reason to be happy?
Why anger?
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 8:44 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
The world is full of anger on an individual,
collective, national and global level. It has been
like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
which points to many things beyond thought itself.
If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans have
been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about it, it is
weird. A whole species has spent millennnia in a state of anger! Of
course, it is often repressed, but it is there just waiting to get out,
or so it seems. What is it?
don
Look for the common feature about all [sustained] anger,
the common thought. This [collective, common] thought, worded, says: "I
have
good reason to be angry." (And then thought will begin to itemize the
"good reasons" but the general, collective thought is always the same).
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/c3cc649f/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 15:27:15 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 17:08:58 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
Message-ID: <20061115.100158.2144.73.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Nov, 1997.
pat
Thanks, Pat k
You know, that's from this November. It's in the archives.
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] archives
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:49:24 -0500
>
>It was a privilege to read last year's posts. So interesting, the same
>topics we're dialoging now were being dialogued then, and by some of the
>same people. There were some particularly beautiful ones.
>
>What happened to the earlier archives, William or Don? I gather BD has
>been
>around since 1992 or 3. k (k)
>
>k, I have a few saved from '97. Here's one or two..
>
> >From "William van den Heuvel" <heuvel@muc.de>
>Date: 29 Nov 97 18:25:47 +0200
>X-Status: Read
>
> >Dear William,
> > I joined the dialogue list several days ago, and out of about 20
> >messages I have sent, only about 2 got through. I've tried every
address
> >I can think of. You seem responsive so I am appealing to you for help.
I
> >am not only new to the List, I am new to e-mail, and even new to the
> >computer. The only thing I am not new to is Bohm dialogue (if one can
> >ever really be not new to that!) . I have read and enjoyed the web
>pieces
> >that you wrote, which somebody gave me a copy of.
> >
> >It is interesting to see how very frustrating it is when so many of my
> >messages get returned! It would be an appropriate irony if this was an
> >initiation to the dialogue list!
> >
> >All I need to know (and I need to know it clearly), is what I should
>type
> >in the To: Box, to get this mail to you all.
> >
> >Thanks so much, Pat ae.dropper@juno.com
> >
>
>Hi Pat,
>
>You should have:
>
>bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
>
>in the TO: box.
>
>Usually, the computer does this for you automatically after you press
the
>"Reply" button (or menu), which should be somewhere in your email
>program.
>This is what I normally do (replying). However, if you do type the
>address
>into the TO box yourself then make sure it is EXACTLY as written above.
>Especially take note of the UNDERSCORE between "bohm" and"dialogue": For
>instance, if you accidently type a hyphen (instead of an underscore)
then
>your message will be returned with an error message saying "no such
>address", or "no such domain", or something like that.
>
>If you continue to have difficulties, please, try to send me a copy of
>what
>didn't work, together with a copy of the error message.
>
>Meanwhile, you can send me your stuff and I'll put it on the list for
>you.
>
>Regards
>
>William
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/1709aafe/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Wed Nov 15 16:03:53 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Thu Nov 16 17:16:00 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
Message-ID: <20061115.070527.1524.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
trim your post size by cutting down on what is quoted by using copy and
paste, rather than hitting "reply."
trim the size of a URL by using the free online service,
http://www.tinyurl.com
or you can learn about how they do it by studying here:
http://hacks.oreilly.com/pub/h/388
-Franis
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:33:02 -0600 "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
writes:
> Stephen, I'm worried because we have been given rules about the size
> of
> posts, and it must include any images. I don't want to violate
> rules,
> particularly since I am trying to mediate Zoe's reinstatement on the
> list.
> Are you actually saying that the length of the URL doesn't count in
> terms of
> post size? Maybe that's my confusion. k
>
>
>
> >From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:10:28 -0000
> >
> >And it doesn't matter how long the url is as if its copied and
> pasted
> >correctly all you need to do is click on the underlined url, so it
> can
> >be as long as you like.
> >
> >One question I have is why anyone is worried about the length of a
> url??
> >No one worries about their posts being too many sentences long.
> There
> >are a lot of email services 9free ones) that have several gigs of
> >storage.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> >[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan
> Jett
> >Sent: 15 November 2006 11:50
> >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> >
> >
> >My images were from Google. Here is one of the shorter ones I
> copied
> >and
> >pasted:
>
><http://us.f550.mail.yahoo.com/ym/dpughphoto.com/images/rooster%20puerto
> >%20...>
> >
> >One of them had a URL 3x this size. k
> >
> >
> > >From: "Steve Devlin" <Steve.Devlin@domino-uk.com>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> > >Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
> > >Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:38:04 -0000
> > >
> > >If you have a url longer than a post you are either exaggerating
> (shame
> >
> > >on you :-) )or doing something wrong, once a url is copied and
> pasted
> > >into a post the viewer only has to click on it (however long it
> is)
> >to
> > >see the picture. There are other sites to show pics, google
> should have
> >
> > >some links.
> > >
From Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Wed Nov 15 16:23:00 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Thu Nov 16 17:28:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5BB@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Just a thought, but you could be saying "you have every reason to be
happy" but be chronically depressed. Maybe comparing "i am happy"
sensations with "I am angry" sensations would shed more light. Plus are
we always consciously aware of being happy, I can't say i always am,
usually i'm much more caught up in the moment when I'm happy. I think.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
ae.dropper@juno.com
Sent: 15 November 2006 15:02
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
One possibility: Compare the sensations.
Another possibility: Imagine the [quintessential anger]
thought "I have been done wrong" followed by the thought
"I have every reason to be happy." Does it compute?
pat
But why doesn't say , I have every reason to be happy?
Why anger?
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 8:44 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
The world is full of anger on an individual,
collective, national and global level. It has
been
like this for millennia, and the future of
mankind
looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
something more then there is. I feel and I
thing,
which points to many things beyond thought
itself.
If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it
that humans have been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and
think about it, it is weird. A whole species has spent millennnia in a
state of anger! Of course, it is often repressed, but it is there just
waiting to get out, or so it seems. What is it?
don
Look for the common feature about all [sustained] anger,
the common thought. This [collective, common] thought,
worded, says: "I have
good reason to be angry." (And then thought will begin
to itemize the "good reasons" but the general, collective thought is
always the same).
pat
****************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
****************************************************
This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their consequences.
****************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/d185fd17/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 16:08:09 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 17:32:47 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] first one
Message-ID: <20061115.102609.2144.77.ae.dropper@juno.com>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 06:04:13 -0600 "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
writes:
> got it, Franis, Thanks.
>
> I've got 200 posts to go through. I'll let you know when I find the
> 2nd
> one. k
Great clipping k. But too much. Don't know to what you refer.
pat
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 16:27:30 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 17:32:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <C180C1A5.3B05%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <009601c708ca$9140d670$d478480c@HOME>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle wayHi Gill. Yes, I'm enjoying this conversation immensely and feel very grateful to have someone who is willing to stay with the process.
As I've said before, when I approach this subject I start with Bohm's idea of people being able to discuss what's important to them. I also think of the idea of personal responsibility. So, from there, I come to ideas about the feeling of warmth, connection, and understanding. In my exploration of my own thoughts and assumptions I've learned that for me, all of those ideas have a common connection with the idea of intimacy. So, I've discovered that when I'm looking for those things in my relationships with other people what's important to me is intimacy. And I came to the decision that if that's what's important to me and I'm going to walk my talk of taking personal responsibility then I'm the one who has to create the intimacy I'm looking for. I also came to the conclusion that, again, if I'm going to walk my talk, I can not decide for other people that intimacy "should" be what's important to them. It has to be ok with me for other things to be more important to them.
So, how to do that? I decided that for me, intimacy happens when I am able to be what I think of as "authentically me". For me, that involves being willing to spontaneously put myself out there as openly and honestly as possible. To allow myself to respond to things in a way that shows who I am in the moment warts and all. And it also means allowing others to have what ever response to me that feels right to them......and then staying with the process as long as they are willing, to see where that takes us. So I learned to let go of having any expectations of how others were going to respond to me.
In the process of trying this for some time here on this list and also on other lists that I belong to I have come to the tentative conclusion that perhaps the kind of understanding I used to look for may not be possible. But I've also discovered that it may not be as important as I used to think it was and I would say that at this point, I don't think it is a necessity. For me, what's happened is that my ideas of intimacy have changed. I now feel intimately connected to people in a very different way and with people that I never would have dreamed that I could have felt intimate with. And I'm not sure how to describe that so maybe I will have to leave that for another post when I've had more time to think about it.
Oh yes, I rarely feel disappointed with other people's response to me now although I do feel frustration at times and I welcome that feeling of frustration because I know that it's going to take me somewhere new and exciting.
And I would like to thank you for finally sharing what your perspectives are and for putting yourself out there. There is much more in your post that's worth exploring for me but I think this is enough for me for now.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Gill Wyatt
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
Hi Susan,
I'm understanding our differences I think and coming to respect my stance and yours.
For me when I talk about 'understanding my points' I'm referring to simply understanding what I say ... Its interesting ... You pick up on the word 'point' and it becomes 'get my point' whereas for me what was most important was 'understanding'. Are these the same? Perhaps it doesn't matter.
But yes for me Its about talking (well writing here!!) and listening and it does seem important to understand what has been written ... Doesn't dialogue occur from this close listening to each other and taking off the assumptions? ... Do we not need understanding ... And I would go further, from my stance in life I value empathy highly. To truly understand the other and be understood is such a gift. Mmm I'm re-reading my post before sending and I'm realising that there is more here ... I think I look for 'warmth' or maybe simply some 'sense of recognition' as well. I obviously don't expect to find it but I think there might have been something of this here.
And I know that I do feel disappointed when that doesn't occur. So yes I think I wanted to feel a warm understanding from you and of course I haven't. Yet I do feel I have met an alive, interesting and vibrant woman.
I don't think what we have been discussing is 'simply my way of interpreting' it seems to me that what we have been discussing is the meeting between 'my way of interpreting' AND 'your way of interpreting'. I've appreciated spending this time rediscovering the effect of my way of interpreting, the assumptions that are a part of who I am. I think you have also been saying that you have similarly been affirming who you are and what matters to you ... Is that not 'your way of interpreting'? ...
I can see what you mean by the 'us and them' in what Pat quoted. Yet I have witnessed this sort of process in so many groups. There are the 'helpers' or 'teachers' and those that need 'help' or 'teaching'. Over the years I have played both roles of this duality (maybe at the same time ... :-) !!). I know many of us don't want to recreate that culture here but that sort of culture is embedded in the very air that we breath.
I do understand and agree when you say you are not responsible for my feelings and my interpretations ... Yet when we live in an interconnected universe and we need to take responsibility for our part for the state of the world on the grand scale and what we manifest in our personal lives on the smaller scale, I think it is so much more complex than what your statement infers.
Um ... I'm getting to enjoy this!
Gill
on 14/11/06 17:56, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I don't think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone else "get my point" or with the expectations that they would take anyone anywhere in particular. I simply wrote them to the group as a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk about what I felt was important. It's my understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is that people have difficulty talking about what's important to them. And that seems to be what's happening with us. You seem to have something that's important to you that you want to talk about and you wrote a post about that. I responded to your post with what I felt was important to me.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps the expectations that some people would respond to you in a particular way that had meaning for you. But when I responded with what was important to me, I didn't respond in the way you were hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your posts to me are about. The idea that what's important to me doesn't seem to meet up with what's important to you.
Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and people's responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its just the way you interpret what I wrote ...
Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly wasn't clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what you meant. I did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning but I don't remember you saying anything close to the last part of this sentence. And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each other several times this morning to see if I missed something or could see something new. I still don't see you saying that. As far as I'm concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote. And you don't seem to think that's a satisfying answer. I think it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. And no, I don't think giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People very often don't seem to be able to accept that the way they have interpreted someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you see something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and at other times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The authority I sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the way I did.
Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we are all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is no one in a higher or lower position. We are all our own authorities and we each have to take responsibility for ourselves and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that I don't take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...
> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group and
> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have little
> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought was: There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this statement that I don't even want to respond to it. But since there have been more than one post supporting it and it's come up in this conversation I'll respond. It seems to me that you can't get more fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the way they are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're against going to war with them or trying to change them and since they don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards) we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out of it. That'll show them!
I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the fact that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even preacherly. I've learned that it comes from growing up in a family of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I do think it's important to have other ways to communicate and I do strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also know that at this point in time it's not something I can completely eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not even sure I want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have this style. It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a problem when we remain within that culture. It only becomes a problem when we try to communicate with a different culture. And I find that I have just as many problems with your style of communicating as you seem to have with mine. That's one of the reasons I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.
Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and you want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to you. My response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for your feelings or your interpretations. What I am willing to do is to talk to you about this as much as you want and to tell you what I'm thinking and feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want Gill?
Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters to you. I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging and not afraid of emotions.
Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk <mailto:earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> >
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org <mailto:bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org> >
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that you are
> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>
> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and people's
> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its just the
> way you interpret what I wrote ...
>
> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and at other
> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The authority I
> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what Pat said in
> one of her recent mails ...
>
>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group and
>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have little
>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>
> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are saying 'you
> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do. What I have
> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem. Could we
> just talk together as two people'.
>
> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I have been
> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>
> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters to you.
> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging and not
> afraid of emotions.
>
> Gill
>
>
> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone, including me)
>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing? Personally I think
>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I try to look
>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as enabling and
>> empowering, not diminishing.
>>
>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's been my
>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite often
>> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take inquiry to
>> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I suppose the
>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us have equal
>> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or less of an
>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or experience. As Don
>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something brand new, a
>> frontier.
>>
>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as though there's
>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though there is
>> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal status here
>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each other to my
>> way of thinking.
>>
>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we are all equal
>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to say. My
>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group equally.
>>
>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit you in
>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being defensive. Perhaps
>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being someone who
>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of lack and
>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being defensive? Of
>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into a defensive
>> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have rejoined the
>> group would fall into that category yet.
>>
>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions, not just
>> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts also. I try
>> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's caring,
>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm aware that
>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch for that, to
>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them against
>> someone.
>>
>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft" posts. I
>> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that is, and I
>> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there are enough
>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a little balance
>> in the area of soft/firm?
>>
>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on reading your
>> post.
>>
>> Susan
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/34ab54bb/attachment.html
From Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com Wed Nov 15 16:27:40 2006
From: Steve.Devlin at domino-uk.com (Steve Devlin)
Date: Thu Nov 16 17:32:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
Message-ID: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5BC@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
What is the need for url trimming? And does it reduce the Kb size of the
mail or is it the visibility of the url that is cut?
I hit reply and highlight unnecessary text and then hit delete, it's a
bit quicker than copy n
paste.
If we have to cut down on url lengths shouldn't we omit signatures and
all that kinda stuff.
All seems a tad ridiculous to me.
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
****************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
****************************************************
This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their consequences.
****************************************************
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 16:32:57 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 17:38:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5BB@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Message-ID: <00aa01c708cb$544834b0$d478480c@HOME>
MessageMy own explorations of anger and happiness (and emotions in general) have led me to the idea that I don't need a reason to be happy or angry. These are simply states that I can manifest any time I want without a reason. But we've been taught to believe through both religion and science that we "need" a reason to manifest these feelings and so we allow "reason" to rule rather than exploring our own power to create.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Devlin
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Just a thought, but you could be saying "you have every reason to be happy" but be chronically depressed. Maybe comparing "i am happy" sensations with "I am angry" sensations would shed more light. Plus are we always consciously aware of being happy, I can't say i always am, usually i'm much more caught up in the moment when I'm happy. I think.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of ae.dropper@juno.com
Sent: 15 November 2006 15:02
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
One possibility: Compare the sensations.
Another possibility: Imagine the [quintessential anger]
thought "I have been done wrong" followed by the thought
"I have every reason to be happy." Does it compute?
pat
But why doesn't say , I have every reason to be happy?
Why anger?
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 8:44 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
The world is full of anger on an individual,
collective, national and global level. It has been
like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
which points to many things beyond thought itself.
If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans have been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about it, it is weird. A whole species has spent millennnia in a state of anger! Of course, it is often repressed, but it is there just waiting to get out, or so it seems. What is it?
don
Look for the common feature about all [sustained] anger,
the common thought. This [collective, common] thought, worded, says: "I have
good reason to be angry." (And then thought will begin to itemize the "good reasons" but the general, collective thought is always the same).
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/2989e764/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 17:06:19 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 18:13:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Message-ID: <20061115.110625.2144.79.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Happiness without a reason would seem to be a natural state. ("Happiness"
that requires a thought for its initiation seems short-lived and to have
an inherent downside).
The sustained anger loop of which I speak, is not possible without its
initiating thoughts (not necessarily consciously "worded" thoughts,
although the representative words can be found).
When speaking of anger, it has proved necessary to distinguish between a
kind of immediate, spontaneous, natural, and necessary defense and
protection of "life and limb," and ... that "festering" thing where
there is a "thought/feel loop" that takes in no info or feedback from the
actual, and immediate situation, but just builds on itself, turning the
"immediate situation" into one that can get perceptually distorted beyond
belief.
This requires thought. Which is the good news.
Because awareness can come to these thoughts.
The general "good reason" and it's subsidiary "good reasons" [for such
anger]
can be noted (when the anger is at a low enough 'pitch'. People can check
out Don Lay's website to look at the "Homework" Bohm gave to people who
asked him how to begin to be aware of thought working as a system, using
the example of remembering, and stirring up low pitch anger).
pat
My own explorations of anger and happiness (and emotions in general) have
led me to the idea that I don't need a reason to be happy or angry.
These are simply states that I can manifest any time I want without a
reason. But we've been taught to believe through both religion and
science that we "need" a reason to manifest these feelings and so we
allow "reason" to rule rather than exploring our own power to create.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Devlin
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Just a thought, but you could be saying "you have every reason to be
happy" but be chronically depressed. Maybe comparing "i am happy"
sensations with "I am angry" sensations would shed more light. Plus are
we always consciously aware of being happy, I can't say i always am,
usually i'm much more caught up in the moment when I'm happy. I think.
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
ae.dropper@juno.com
Sent: 15 November 2006 15:02
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
One possibility: Compare the sensations.
Another possibility: Imagine the [quintessential anger]
thought "I have been done wrong" followed by the thought
"I have every reason to be happy." Does it compute?
pat
But why doesn't say , I have every reason to be happy?
Why anger?
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 8:44 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
The world is full of anger on an individual,
collective, national and global level. It has been
like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
which points to many things beyond thought itself.
If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans have
been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about it, it is
weird. A whole species has spent millennnia in a state of anger! Of
course, it is often repressed, but it is there just waiting to get out,
or so it seems. What is it?
don
Look for the common feature about all [sustained] anger,
the common thought. This [collective, common] thought, worded, says: "I
have
good reason to be angry." (And then thought will begin to itemize the
"good reasons" but the general, collective thought is always the same).
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/5165f7c9/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Wed Nov 15 17:27:28 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Thu Nov 16 18:35:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Message-ID: <20061115.112739.2144.81.ae.dropper@juno.com>
What I meant by "compare the sensations" needs to take place
during the actual sensation that follows the thought "I have good
reason to be angry." It is not a sensation that I would necessarily
call "good" but it does feel "good" in a way. There is a great and
growing percolation of self righteousness in it, that easily reaches
Alexandrian [The GREAT] proportions. It's the quintessential
ego sensation. ME Right!!! YOU WRONG!!!! type thing.
And as the "wrongnesses" are itemized in thought, the sensation
builds and builds. And then after its term, it can subside.
But then, those same thoughts, can build it up again pretty
rapidly - and of course, it can get WAAAAAAAAAAAAY
out of control. And it can be passed through generations
(these same thoughts, that build these same feelings and sensations),
and passed across "borders" - making new "borders" in its wake, etc..
Those same thoughts (the ones that can be noted as they arise
during a session of slightly simmering anger) have, in the above
example, become beliefs. Beliefs around which whole nations
are built.
We are nothing if not silly.
pat
One possibility: Compare the sensations.
Another possibility: Imagine the [quintessential anger]
thought "I have been done wrong" followed by the thought
"I have every reason to be happy." Does it compute?
pat
But why doesn't say , I have every reason to be happy?
Why anger?
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 8:44 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
The world is full of anger on an individual,
collective, national and global level. It has been
like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
which points to many things beyond thought itself.
If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans have
been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about it, it is
weird. A whole species has spent millennnia in a state of anger! Of
course, it is often repressed, but it is there just waiting to get out,
or so it seems. What is it?
don
Look for the common feature about all [sustained] anger,
the common thought. This [collective, common] thought, worded, says: "I
have
good reason to be angry." (And then thought will begin to itemize the
"good reasons" but the general, collective thought is always the same).
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/71453ca3/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 17:48:09 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 18:53:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <20061115.112739.2144.81.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00e101c708d5$d5e50200$d478480c@HOME>
I would say that there is one belief/assumption underlying this whole imaginary internal event that you are describing Pat, including the cultural event of how it gets passed from generation to generation. The belief is: it's necessary to be right to have this feeling. Or, another way to put it is that the need to be right is the "cause" of this feeling. Or you could go further and say....the "cause" of any feeling is not something external.
Once someone realizes that being right is not a cause of a feeling, or it's not necessary to be right to feel this way, then they can begin to realize that they have the power to feel the way they want to any time they want to.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
What I meant by "compare the sensations" needs to take place
during the actual sensation that follows the thought "I have good
reason to be angry." It is not a sensation that I would necessarily
call "good" but it does feel "good" in a way. There is a great and
growing percolation of self righteousness in it, that easily reaches
Alexandrian [The GREAT] proportions. It's the quintessential
ego sensation. ME Right!!! YOU WRONG!!!! type thing.
And as the "wrongnesses" are itemized in thought, the sensation
builds and builds. And then after its term, it can subside.
But then, those same thoughts, can build it up again pretty
rapidly - and of course, it can get WAAAAAAAAAAAAY
out of control. And it can be passed through generations
(these same thoughts, that build these same feelings and sensations),
and passed across "borders" - making new "borders" in its wake, etc..
Those same thoughts (the ones that can be noted as they arise
during a session of slightly simmering anger) have, in the above
example, become beliefs. Beliefs around which whole nations
are built.
We are nothing if not silly.
pat
One possibility: Compare the sensations.
Another possibility: Imagine the [quintessential anger]
thought "I have been done wrong" followed by the thought
"I have every reason to be happy." Does it compute?
pat
But why doesn't say , I have every reason to be happy?
Why anger?
don
On Nov 14, 2006, at 8:44 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Mr. Frantisek Plessl wrote:
The world is full of anger on an individual,
collective, national and global level. It has been
like this for millennia, and the future of mankind
looks grim. One must start somewhere, and this
somewhere maybe just maybe starts with notion of
something more then there is. I feel and I thing,
which points to many things beyond thought itself.
If you are correct here, and I think you are, what is it that humans have been so angry about for millennia? If you stop and think about it, it is weird. A whole species has spent millennnia in a state of anger! Of course, it is often repressed, but it is there just waiting to get out, or so it seems. What is it?
don
Look for the common feature about all [sustained] anger,
the common thought. This [collective, common] thought, worded, says: "I have
good reason to be angry." (And then thought will begin to itemize the "good reasons" but the general, collective thought is always the same).
pat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/491410db/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 19:37:02 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 20:42:22 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <001a01c708b6$018ee300$2845153f@DL01>
References: <C180B54E.3AFF%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
<001a01c708b6$018ee300$2845153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <B6A36460-A19B-4466-8C29-AD37AC6CB10E@dc.rr.com>
Interestingly the word KOINONIA was used by the early Christian
communities and it has been revived by contemporary Evangelical
groups. It meaning in these contexts a community of a sort that
didn't depend primarily on personal relationships but in a kind of
fellowship where all the members of the community were about the same
business. In other words, here, we don't really have to even know
each other beyond what each of us writes. But if what they write is,
- how can I say this? - dialogical. then there is this sense of
friendship or fellowship that does not depend on a personal
relationship beyond that. But this is not to say that personal
friendships don't, won't or shouldn't emerge, but simply that the
group here is the primary recipient of our considerations. So when I
have written, "don't take this personally" I mean it is a statement
for the whole group to consider. It is meant for whoever feels it
applies to them.
don
Don Lay wrote:
> I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen as a rich
> resource and an opening into the more universal or the implicate.
> -- Gill
>
> Me too. -- don L
>
> I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads to
> a lack of care for each other ...
> Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone? -- Gill
>
> It makes sense to me! My understanding is that we can thank
> Christianity for popularizing the IDEA personhood, that it applies
> to all humans.
>
> In the early Christian world, everyone ..., even the conquered
> enemy, even slaves -- even women -- were accorded personhood by the
> early Christians. Maybe this is the greatness of the idea of
> personhood, perhaps the greatness of Christianity. Maybe the
> greatness of Rome relates to the NOTION of personhood.
>
> William said something very interesting re the personal being
> recently, but I cannot find the post. Anyone have it?
>
> William, could you please repost your ideas re the idea of personal
> being and evolution? -- Don L
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gill Wyatt"
> <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>> Don, Susan and anybody else interested!
>>
>> What does it mean taking a post 'personally'?
>> Is there an implicit criticism if it is said that somebody has
>> taken a post
>> 'personally'?
>> When is a reply somebody makes - taking a post personally or not?
>> Who decides?
>>
>> One thing I have learnt from this discussion group is many posts
>> are not
>> addressed to anybody ... When I first joined it seemed many posts
>> were like
>> this. Recently there have been more that are addressed to
>> somebody ...
>> Perhaps I have thought that if there is a Hi Gill or Gill at the
>> start of a
>> post that at least something of that post was addressed to me!
>>
>> I guess I like to come from a place where 'the personal' is seen
>> as a rich
>> resource and an opening into the more universal or the implicate.
>>
>> I fear that the 'impersonal' has a lack of 'heart' that it leads
>> to a lack
>> of care for each other ...
>>
>> Does this make sense to anybody or am I very alone?
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> on 14/11/06 19:04, donald factor at dfactor@dc.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that this sort of misunderstanding - that is, taking
>>> posts personally when that wasn't what was intended - has not been
>>> unusual. So maybe what we are doing here is having an impersonal
>>> conversation with everybody. And although to me this seems quite
>>> natural to me it may be that's because I've been doing it for a long
>>> time, or maybe it is more unusual than I thought. Actually, this
>>> also
>>> might refer to the "teacherly" thing. If I want to get a bit
>>> teacherly I can make clear that, like Bohm used to do, it is just a
>>> proposal for further inquiry, or something like that. What do you
>>> think? Anybody?
>>>
>>> don
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel
>>>> that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel
>>>> something similar.
>>>>
>>>> Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my
>>>> point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I
>>>> don't think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone
>>>> else "get my point" or with the expectations that they would take
>>>> anyone anywhere in particular. I simply wrote them to the group as
>>>> a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk about what I felt
>>>> was important. It's my understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is
>>>> that people have difficulty talking about what's important to them.
>>>> And that seems to be what's happening with us. You seem to have
>>>> something that's important to you that you want to talk about and
>>>> you wrote a post about that. I responded to your post with what I
>>>> felt was important to me.
>>>>
>>>> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first
>>>> post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps
>>>> the expectations that some people would respond to you in a
>>>> particular way that had meaning for you. But when I responded with
>>>> what was important to me, I didn't respond in the way you were
>>>> hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your
>>>> posts to me are about. The idea that what's important to me doesn't
>>>> seem to meet up with what's important to you.
>>>>
>>>> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own
>>>> explorations and people's responses to me and how easy it is to
>>>> just pass it back as ... Its just the way you interpret what I
>>>> wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly
>>>> wasn't clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what
>>>> you meant. I did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning
>>>> but I don't remember you saying anything close to the last part of
>>>> this sentence. And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each
>>>> other several times this morning to see if I missed something or
>>>> could see something new. I still don't see you saying that. As far
>>>> as I'm concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote.
>>>> And you don't seem to think that's a satisfying answer. I think
>>>> it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. And no, I don't think
>>>> giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People very often don't
>>>> seem to be able to accept that the way they have interpreted
>>>> someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you see
>>>> something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look
>>>> at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just
>>>> don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
>>>>
>>>> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish
>>>> others and at other times authority can be more facilitative of
>>>> self and others The authority I sensed in your email did not feel
>>>> like that of 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the
>>>> way I did.
>>>>
>>>> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be
>>>> used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we
>>>> are all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is
>>>> no one in a higher or lower position. We are all our own
>>>> authorities and we each have to take responsibility for ourselves
>>>> and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that I don't
>>>> take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my
>>>> posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my
>>>> feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
>>>>
>>>> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent
>>>> mails ...
>>>>
>>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>>>> group and
>>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
>>>>> little
>>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>>>> there
>>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>>> back,
>>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers
>>>>> Anonymous."
>>>>
>>>> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought
>>>> was: There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this
>>>> statement that I don't even want to respond to it. But since there
>>>> have been more than one post supporting it and it's come up in this
>>>> conversation I'll respond. It seems to me that you can't get more
>>>> fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I
>>>> was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and
>>>> coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me
>>>> it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the way they
>>>> are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're against
>>>> going to war with them or trying to change them and since they
>>>> don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules
>>>> (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)
>>>> we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out
>>>> of it. That'll show them!
>>>>
>>>> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters
>>>> Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the
>>>> fact that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even
>>>> preacherly. I've learned that it comes from growing up in a family
>>>> of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I
>>>> do think it's important to have other ways to communicate and I do
>>>> strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also
>>>> know that at this point in time it's not something I can completely
>>>> eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not even sure I
>>>> want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have
>>>> learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more
>>>> understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have
>>>> this style. It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a
>>>> problem when we remain within that culture. It only becomes a
>>>> problem when we try to communicate with a different culture. And I
>>>> find that I have just as many problems with your style of
>>>> communicating as you seem to have with mine. That's one of the
>>>> reasons I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
>>>>
>>>> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>>>> saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and
>>>> what to do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I
>>>> don't have a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you
>>>> have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and
>>>> you want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to
>>>> you. My response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for
>>>> your feelings or your interpretations. What I am willing to do is
>>>> to talk to you about this as much as you want and to tell you what
>>>> I'm thinking and feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>>>>
>>>> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement
>>>> implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want
>>>> Gill?
>>>>
>>>> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what
>>>> I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting
>>>> somewhere ...
>>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>>>> matters to you. I respect and often like people who are
>>>> spontaneous, challenging and not afraid of emotions.
>>>>
>>>> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's
>>>> helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own
>>>> thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that
>>>>> you are
>>>>> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something
>>>>> similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and
>>>>> people's
>>>>> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its
>>>>> just the
>>>>> way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and
>>>>> at other
>>>>> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The
>>>>> authority I
>>>>> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it
>>>>> had I
>>>>> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what
>>>>> Pat said in
>>>>> one of her recent mails ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>>>>> group and
>>>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually]
>>>>>> have little
>>>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>>>> back,
>>>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers
>>>>>> Anonymous."
>>>>>
>>>>> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>>>>> saying 'you
>>>>> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do.
>>>>> What I have
>>>>> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.
>>>>> Could we
>>>>> just talk together as two people'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I
>>>>> have been
>>>>> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>>>>> matters to you.
>>>>> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging
>>>>> and not
>>>>> afraid of emotions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,
>>>>>> including me)
>>>>>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?
>>>>>> Personally I think
>>>>>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I
>>>>>> try to look
>>>>>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel
>>>>>> it's my
>>>>>> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as
>>>>>> enabling and
>>>>>> empowering, not diminishing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's
>>>>>> been my
>>>>>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is
>>>>>> quite often
>>>>>> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take
>>>>>> inquiry to
>>>>>> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I
>>>>>> suppose the
>>>>>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us
>>>>>> have equal
>>>>>> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or
>>>>>> less of an
>>>>>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or
>>>>>> experience. As Don
>>>>>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something
>>>>>> brand new, a
>>>>>> frontier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as
>>>>>> though there's
>>>>>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though
>>>>>> there is
>>>>>> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of
>>>>>> us are
>>>>>> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal
>>>>>> status here
>>>>>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each
>>>>>> other to my
>>>>>> way of thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we
>>>>>> are all equal
>>>>>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each
>>>>>> other I
>>>>>> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to
>>>>>> say. My
>>>>>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
>>>>>> equally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit
>>>>>> you in
>>>>>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being
>>>>>> defensive. Perhaps
>>>>>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being
>>>>>> someone who
>>>>>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of
>>>>>> lack and
>>>>>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being
>>>>>> defensive? Of
>>>>>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into
>>>>>> a defensive
>>>>>> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have
>>>>>> rejoined the
>>>>>> group would fall into that category yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions,
>>>>>> not just
>>>>>> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts
>>>>>> also. I try
>>>>>> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's
>>>>>> caring,
>>>>>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm
>>>>>> aware that
>>>>>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch
>>>>>> for that, to
>>>>>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> someone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft"
>>>>>> posts. I
>>>>>> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that
>>>>>> is, and I
>>>>>> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there
>>>>>> are enough
>>>>>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a
>>>>>> little balance
>>>>>> in the area of soft/firm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on
>>>>>> reading your
>>>>>> post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 19:44:21 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 20:49:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <009601c708ca$9140d670$d478480c@HOME>
References: <C180C1A5.3B05%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
<009601c708ca$9140d670$d478480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <1FE55014-E915-4F8E-8C2D-79E47DF26E4D@dc.rr.com>
What about impersonal intimacy? Sounds to me like something very
special.
don
On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle wayHi Gill.
> Yes, I'm enjoying this conversation immensely and feel very
> grateful to have someone who is willing to stay with the process.
>
> As I've said before, when I approach this subject I start with
> Bohm's idea of people being able to discuss what's important to
> them. I also think of the idea of personal responsibility. So,
> from there, I come to ideas about the feeling of warmth,
> connection, and understanding. In my exploration of my own
> thoughts and assumptions I've learned that for me, all of those
> ideas have a common connection with the idea of intimacy. So, I've
> discovered that when I'm looking for those things in my
> relationships with other people what's important to me is
> intimacy. And I came to the decision that if that's what's
> important to me and I'm going to walk my talk of taking personal
> responsibility then I'm the one who has to create the intimacy I'm
> looking for. I also came to the conclusion that, again, if I'm
> going to walk my talk, I can not decide for other people that
> intimacy "should" be what's important to them. It has to be ok
> with me for other things to be more important to them.
>
> So, how to do that? I decided that for me, intimacy happens when I
> am able to be what I think of as "authentically me". For me, that
> involves being willing to spontaneously put myself out there as
> openly and honestly as possible. To allow myself to respond to
> things in a way that shows who I am in the moment warts and all.
> And it also means allowing others to have what ever response to me
> that feels right to them......and then staying with the process as
> long as they are willing, to see where that takes us. So I learned
> to let go of having any expectations of how others were going to
> respond to me.
>
> In the process of trying this for some time here on this list and
> also on other lists that I belong to I have come to the tentative
> conclusion that perhaps the kind of understanding I used to look
> for may not be possible. But I've also discovered that it may not
> be as important as I used to think it was and I would say that at
> this point, I don't think it is a necessity. For me, what's
> happened is that my ideas of intimacy have changed. I now feel
> intimately connected to people in a very different way and with
> people that I never would have dreamed that I could have felt
> intimate with. And I'm not sure how to describe that so maybe I
> will have to leave that for another post when I've had more time to
> think about it.
>
> Oh yes, I rarely feel disappointed with other people's response to
> me now although I do feel frustration at times and I welcome that
> feeling of frustration because I know that it's going to take me
> somewhere new and exciting.
>
> And I would like to thank you for finally sharing what your
> perspectives are and for putting yourself out there. There is much
> more in your post that's worth exploring for me but I think this is
> enough for me for now.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gill Wyatt
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>
> Hi Susan,
>
> I'm understanding our differences I think and coming to respect
> my stance and yours.
>
> For me when I talk about 'understanding my points' I'm referring
> to simply understanding what I say ... Its interesting ... You pick
> up on the word 'point' and it becomes 'get my point' whereas for
> me what was most important was 'understanding'. Are these the same?
> Perhaps it doesn't matter.
>
> But yes for me Its about talking (well writing here!!) and
> listening and it does seem important to understand what has been
> written ... Doesn't dialogue occur from this close listening to
> each other and taking off the assumptions? ... Do we not need
> understanding ... And I would go further, from my stance in life I
> value empathy highly. To truly understand the other and be
> understood is such a gift. Mmm I'm re-reading my post before
> sending and I'm realising that there is more here ... I think I
> look for 'warmth' or maybe simply some 'sense of recognition' as
> well. I obviously don't expect to find it but I think there might
> have been something of this here.
>
> And I know that I do feel disappointed when that doesn't occur.
> So yes I think I wanted to feel a warm understanding from you and
> of course I haven't. Yet I do feel I have met an alive, interesting
> and vibrant woman.
>
> I don't think what we have been discussing is 'simply my way of
> interpreting' it seems to me that what we have been discussing is
> the meeting between 'my way of interpreting' AND 'your way of
> interpreting'. I've appreciated spending this time rediscovering
> the effect of my way of interpreting, the assumptions that are a
> part of who I am. I think you have also been saying that you have
> similarly been affirming who you are and what matters to you ... Is
> that not 'your way of interpreting'? ...
>
> I can see what you mean by the 'us and them' in what Pat quoted.
> Yet I have witnessed this sort of process in so many groups. There
> are the 'helpers' or 'teachers' and those that need 'help' or
> 'teaching'. Over the years I have played both roles of this duality
> (maybe at the same time ... :-) !!). I know many of us don't want
> to recreate that culture here but that sort of culture is embedded
> in the very air that we breath.
>
> I do understand and agree when you say you are not responsible
> for my feelings and my interpretations ... Yet when we live in an
> interconnected universe and we need to take responsibility for our
> part for the state of the world on the grand scale and what we
> manifest in our personal lives on the smaller scale, I think it is
> so much more complex than what your statement infers.
>
> Um ... I'm getting to enjoy this!
>
> Gill
>
> on 14/11/06 17:56, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> wrote:
>
>
> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't
> feel that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel
> something similar.
>
> Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get
> my point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I
> don't think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone
> else "get my point" or with the expectations that they would take
> anyone anywhere in particular. I simply wrote them to the group as
> a whole (and not just to you) as a way to talk about what I felt
> was important. It's my understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is
> that people have difficulty talking about what's important to them.
> And that seems to be what's happening with us. You seem to have
> something that's important to you that you want to talk about and
> you wrote a post about that. I responded to your post with what I
> felt was important to me.
>
> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the
> first post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and
> perhaps the expectations that some people would respond to you in a
> particular way that had meaning for you. But when I responded with
> what was important to me, I didn't respond in the way you were
> hoping I would. And ever since then that seems to be what your
> posts to me are about. The idea that what's important to me doesn't
> seem to meet up with what's important to you.
>
> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own
> explorations and people's responses to me and how easy it is to
> just pass it back as ... Its just the way you interpret what I
> wrote ...
>
> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly
> wasn't clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what
> you meant. I did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning
> but I don't remember you saying anything close to the last part of
> this sentence. And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each
> other several times this morning to see if I missed something or
> could see something new. I still don't see you saying that. As far
> as I'm concerned, it IS just the way you interpret what I wrote.
> And you don't seem to think that's a satisfying answer. I think
> it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer. And no, I don't think
> giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People very often don't
> seem to be able to accept that the way they have interpreted
> someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you see
> something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look
> at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just
> don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
>
> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish
> others and at other times authority can be more facilitative of
> self and others The authority I sensed in your email did not feel
> like that of 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the
> way I did.
>
> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be
> used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we
> are all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is
> no one in a higher or lower position. We are all our own
> authorities and we each have to take responsibility for ourselves
> and our own feelings and responses. It means to me that I don't
> take responsibility for your feelings and interpretations of my
> posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also don't assign responsibility for my
> feelings and interpretations to you (or anyone).
>
> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent
> mails ...
>
>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>> group and
>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
>> little
>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>> there
>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>> back,
>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>
> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought
> was: There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this
> statement that I don't even want to respond to it. But since there
> have been more than one post supporting it and it's come up in this
> conversation I'll respond. It seems to me that you can't get more
> fragmented than this kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I
> was shocked when I read this statement on a Dialogue group and
> coming from someone who has been in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me
> it REEKS of the idea of "us and them". We don't like the way they
> are in the world and we don't like the way they play. We're against
> going to war with them or trying to change them and since they
> don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our rules
> (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)
> we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out
> of it. That'll show them!
>
> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters
> Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the
> fact that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even
> preacherly. I've learned that it comes from growing up in a family
> of preachers and teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I
> do think it's important to have other ways to communicate and I do
> strive to watch for it and see when it is occurring. But I also
> know that at this point in time it's not something I can completely
> eradicate from my writing or communications and I'm not even sure I
> want to at this point in time. One of the main things I have
> learned from exploring my feelings about it is to have far more
> understanding and tolerance for my family and other people who have
> this style. It comes from the culture we grow up in and is not a
> problem when we remain within that culture. It only becomes a
> problem when we try to communicate with a different culture. And I
> find that I have just as many problems with your style of
> communicating as you seem to have with mine. That's one of the
> reasons I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
>
> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you
> are saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and
> what to do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I
> don't have a problem.
>
> Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying
> you have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing
> and you want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond
> to you. My response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible
> for your feelings or your interpretations. What I am willing to do
> is to talk to you about this as much as you want and to tell you
> what I'm thinking and feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
>
> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>
> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this
> statement implies to me that you want more. What is this more that
> you want Gill?
>
> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of
> what I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting
> somewhere ...
> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
> matters to you. I respect and often like people who are
> spontaneous, challenging and not afraid of emotions.
>
> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's
> helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own
> thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk
> <mailto:earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> >
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org <mailto:bohm_dialogue@david-
> bohm.org> >
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that
>> you are
>> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>>
>> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and
>> people's
>> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its
>> just the
>> way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>
>> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and
>> at other
>> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The
>> authority I
>> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
>> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what
>> Pat said in
>> one of her recent mails ...
>>
>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the
>>> group and
>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually]
>>> have little
>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit
>>> there
>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>> back,
>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>
>> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>> saying 'you
>> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do.
>> What I have
>> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem.
>> Could we
>> just talk together as two people'.
>>
>> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I
>> have been
>> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>
>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what
>> matters to you.
>> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging
>> and not
>> afraid of emotions.
>>
>> Gill
>>
>>
>> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>> <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,
>>> including me)
>>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing?
>>> Personally I think
>>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I
>>> try to look
>>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>>> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as
>>> enabling and
>>> empowering, not diminishing.
>>>
>>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's
>>> been my
>>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is
>>> quite often
>>> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take
>>> inquiry to
>>> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I
>>> suppose the
>>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us
>>> have equal
>>> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or
>>> less of an
>>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or
>>> experience. As Don
>>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something
>>> brand new, a
>>> frontier.
>>>
>>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as
>>> though there's
>>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though
>>> there is
>>> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>>> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal
>>> status here
>>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each
>>> other to my
>>> way of thinking.
>>>
>>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we
>>> are all equal
>>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>>> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to
>>> say. My
>>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
>>> equally.
>>>
>>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit
>>> you in
>>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being
>>> defensive. Perhaps
>>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being
>>> someone who
>>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of
>>> lack and
>>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being
>>> defensive? Of
>>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into
>>> a defensive
>>> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have
>>> rejoined the
>>> group would fall into that category yet.
>>>
>>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions,
>>> not just
>>> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts
>>> also. I try
>>> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's
>>> caring,
>>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm
>>> aware that
>>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch
>>> for that, to
>>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them
>>> against
>>> someone.
>>>
>>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft"
>>> posts. I
>>> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that
>>> is, and I
>>> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there
>>> are enough
>>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a
>>> little balance
>>> in the area of soft/firm?
>>>
>>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on
>>> reading your
>>> post.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 19:51:33 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 20:56:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5BC@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
References: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5BC@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
Message-ID: <40A2A611-7B87-49A3-BF9A-621161619FDA@dc.rr.com>
A lot of posts seem to me like filling up the garage with a lot of
junk that you just can, bear
to throw away. When I see posts that have many previous posts that we
have all already read,
plus many copies of the info signature at the end, it feels like the
sender hasn't really given enough
attention to what they are saying or doing. And there have been many
instances where posts have
been automatically rejected by the listserver for being over 100kb
and most of these conain only
text.
I tend to highlight the bits of a message that are relevant to my
reply and then hit reply.
This then only copies that bit and isn't so redundant.
On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Steve Devlin wrote:
> What is the need for url trimming? And does it reduce the Kb size
> of the
> mail or is it the visibility of the url that is cut?
>
> I hit reply and highlight unnecessary text and then hit delete, it's a
> bit quicker than copy n
> paste.
> If we have to cut down on url lengths shouldn't we omit signatures
> and
> all that kinda stuff.
>
> All seems a tad ridiculous to me.
>
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 19:52:58 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 20:58:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <00aa01c708cb$544834b0$d478480c@HOME>
References: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5BB@dps-exchange1.dps.local>
<00aa01c708cb$544834b0$d478480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <AEF272B8-81A2-4FB6-82D3-F9AACFAF96AE@dc.rr.com>
So what causes these feelings to arise? Why would I choose to feel
angry if I didn't have a reason?
don
On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:32 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> My own explorations of anger and happiness (and emotions in
> general) have led me to the idea that I don't need a reason to be
> happy or angry. These are simply states that I can manifest any
> time I want without a reason. But we've been taught to believe
> through both religion and science that we "need" a reason to
> manifest these feelings and so we allow "reason" to rule rather
> than exploring our own power to create.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/a261602f/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 20:03:41 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Thu Nov 16 21:08:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <00e101c708d5$d5e50200$d478480c@HOME>
References: <20061115.112739.2144.81.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<00e101c708d5$d5e50200$d478480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <5ABA5113-C97B-4D65-BB3E-E1A7912A16C9@dc.rr.com>
Yes, the "I have to be right" thought is a key. I think it may
underly just about all the painful thoughts/actions that are
initiated everyday and everywhere. I can easily figure out where it
came from - school, parents, etc. - but is it possible that this has
always been the case? Did tribal people in ancient times have to be
right? I mean, there is both a personal and cultural level to this
kind of thought.
On re-reading the above it may also cause similar effects with
pleasurable emotions. lIke "I am right" or "I have been proved
right," etc.
Whatever, rightness seems very important, Somehow it also seems to
relate to Good and Evil. Rightness and Wrongness.
don
On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> I would say that there is one belief/assumption underlying this
> whole imaginary internal event that you are describing Pat,
> including the cultural event of how it gets passed from generation
> to generation. The belief is: it's necessary to be right to have
> this feeling. Or, another way to put it is that the need to be
> right is the "cause" of this feeling. Or you could go further and
> say....the "cause" of any feeling is not something external.
>
> Once someone realizes that being right is not a cause of a feeling,
> or it's not necessary to be right to feel this way, then they can
> begin to realize that they have the power to feel the way they want
> to any time they want to.
>
> Susan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/c318a823/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 20:07:33 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 21:12:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
References: <C180C1A5.3B05%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk><009601c708ca$9140d670$d478480c@HOME>
<1FE55014-E915-4F8E-8C2D-79E47DF26E4D@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00f401c708e9$4f3a2000$d478480c@HOME>
Good question. My first response to this suggestion is UGH!!!!! I find I
really don't like the word impersonal, sounds very cold which doesn't seem
to leave any room for the warmth I want to create. Like Gill my goal seems
to be more about being up close and PERSONAL. The more personal I can be
and the more I can engage others in being personal the more satisfaction
that seems to contain for me.
So, no, I don't think that phrase works for me. It seems to have more to do
with allowing intimacy to emerge rather than expecting it. And also, when I
do this it allows it to take lots of different forms and to surprise me. It
also leaves room for me to have other kinds of experiences and to enjoy
those experiences even though they might not contain the kind of intimacy I
might have placed value on in the past. And the surprising thing is that
when I do that intimacy seems to just erupt sometimes out of those other
types of experiences.
So it's more about being able to broaden the idea of intimacy and so broaden
the scope of my own experience of it. And it also enables me to just relax
and enjoy what's happening without the need to try to "make" something
happen in particular. So this brings in not only growth but also freedom.
There's lots of freedom with this kind of intimacy.
So it's more like freedom to be intimate (or not).
Thanks Don for helping me put that into words.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
> What about impersonal intimacy? Sounds to me like something very special.
>
> don
>
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>
>> Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle wayHi Gill. Yes, I'm
>> enjoying this conversation immensely and feel very grateful to have
>> someone who is willing to stay with the process.
>>
>> As I've said before, when I approach this subject I start with Bohm's
>> idea of people being able to discuss what's important to them. I also
>> think of the idea of personal responsibility. So, from there, I come to
>> ideas about the feeling of warmth, connection, and understanding. In my
>> exploration of my own thoughts and assumptions I've learned that for me,
>> all of those ideas have a common connection with the idea of intimacy.
>> So, I've discovered that when I'm looking for those things in my
>> relationships with other people what's important to me is intimacy. And
>> I came to the decision that if that's what's important to me and I'm
>> going to walk my talk of taking personal responsibility then I'm the one
>> who has to create the intimacy I'm looking for. I also came to the
>> conclusion that, again, if I'm going to walk my talk, I can not decide
>> for other people that intimacy "should" be what's important to them. It
>> has to be ok with me for other things to be more important to them.
>>
>> So, how to do that? I decided that for me, intimacy happens when I am
>> able to be what I think of as "authentically me". For me, that involves
>> being willing to spontaneously put myself out there as openly and
>> honestly as possible. To allow myself to respond to things in a way
>> that shows who I am in the moment warts and all. And it also means
>> allowing others to have what ever response to me that feels right to
>> them......and then staying with the process as long as they are willing,
>> to see where that takes us. So I learned to let go of having any
>> expectations of how others were going to respond to me.
>>
>> In the process of trying this for some time here on this list and also
>> on other lists that I belong to I have come to the tentative conclusion
>> that perhaps the kind of understanding I used to look for may not be
>> possible. But I've also discovered that it may not be as important as I
>> used to think it was and I would say that at this point, I don't think
>> it is a necessity. For me, what's happened is that my ideas of intimacy
>> have changed. I now feel intimately connected to people in a very
>> different way and with people that I never would have dreamed that I
>> could have felt intimate with. And I'm not sure how to describe that so
>> maybe I will have to leave that for another post when I've had more time
>> to think about it.
>>
>> Oh yes, I rarely feel disappointed with other people's response to me
>> now although I do feel frustration at times and I welcome that feeling
>> of frustration because I know that it's going to take me somewhere new
>> and exciting.
>>
>> And I would like to thank you for finally sharing what your perspectives
>> are and for putting yourself out there. There is much more in your post
>> that's worth exploring for me but I think this is enough for me for now.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Gill Wyatt
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Susan,
>>
>> I'm understanding our differences I think and coming to respect my
>> stance and yours.
>>
>> For me when I talk about 'understanding my points' I'm referring to
>> simply understanding what I say ... Its interesting ... You pick up on
>> the word 'point' and it becomes 'get my point' whereas for me what
>> was most important was 'understanding'. Are these the same? Perhaps it
>> doesn't matter.
>>
>> But yes for me Its about talking (well writing here!!) and listening
>> and it does seem important to understand what has been written ...
>> Doesn't dialogue occur from this close listening to each other and
>> taking off the assumptions? ... Do we not need understanding ... And I
>> would go further, from my stance in life I value empathy highly. To
>> truly understand the other and be understood is such a gift. Mmm I'm
>> re-reading my post before sending and I'm realising that there is more
>> here ... I think I look for 'warmth' or maybe simply some 'sense of
>> recognition' as well. I obviously don't expect to find it but I think
>> there might have been something of this here.
>>
>> And I know that I do feel disappointed when that doesn't occur. So yes
>> I think I wanted to feel a warm understanding from you and of course I
>> haven't. Yet I do feel I have met an alive, interesting and vibrant
>> woman.
>>
>> I don't think what we have been discussing is 'simply my way of
>> interpreting' it seems to me that what we have been discussing is the
>> meeting between 'my way of interpreting' AND 'your way of interpreting'.
>> I've appreciated spending this time rediscovering the effect of my way
>> of interpreting, the assumptions that are a part of who I am. I think
>> you have also been saying that you have similarly been affirming who you
>> are and what matters to you ... Is that not 'your way of interpreting'?
>> ...
>>
>> I can see what you mean by the 'us and them' in what Pat quoted. Yet I
>> have witnessed this sort of process in so many groups. There are the
>> 'helpers' or 'teachers' and those that need 'help' or 'teaching'. Over
>> the years I have played both roles of this duality (maybe at the same
>> time ... :-) !!). I know many of us don't want to recreate that culture
>> here but that sort of culture is embedded in the very air that we
>> breath.
>>
>> I do understand and agree when you say you are not responsible for my
>> feelings and my interpretations ... Yet when we live in an
>> interconnected universe and we need to take responsibility for our part
>> for the state of the world on the grand scale and what we manifest in
>> our personal lives on the smaller scale, I think it is so much more
>> complex than what your statement infers.
>>
>> Um ... I'm getting to enjoy this!
>>
>> Gill
>>
>> on 14/11/06 17:56, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel
>> that you are quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something
>> similar.
>>
>> Susan: Truthfully, I'm not sure I feel the need for you to "get my
>> point" or that there's anywhere in particular we need to get. I don't
>> think I wrote any of my posts as way to try to have someone else "get my
>> point" or with the expectations that they would take anyone anywhere in
>> particular. I simply wrote them to the group as a whole (and not just to
>> you) as a way to talk about what I felt was important. It's my
>> understanding that one of Bohm's ideas is that people have difficulty
>> talking about what's important to them. And that seems to be what's
>> happening with us. You seem to have something that's important to you
>> that you want to talk about and you wrote a post about that. I responded
>> to your post with what I felt was important to me.
>>
>> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when you wrote the first
>> post that I responded to, you wrote it with the hopes and perhaps the
>> expectations that some people would respond to you in a particular way
>> that had meaning for you. But when I responded with what was important
>> to me, I didn't respond in the way you were hoping I would. And ever
>> since then that seems to be what your posts to me are about. The idea
>> that what's important to me doesn't seem to meet up with what's
>> important to you.
>>
>> Gill: I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations
>> and people's responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as
>> ... Its just the way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>
>> Susan: Well, that may have been clear to you but it certainly wasn't
>> clear to me. I'm glad it's finally clear to me that's what you meant. I
>> did clearly hear you say that you are open to learning but I don't
>> remember you saying anything close to the last part of this sentence.
>> And I've gone back and read all of our posts to each other several times
>> this morning to see if I missed something or could see something new. I
>> still don't see you saying that. As far as I'm concerned, it IS just the
>> way you interpret what I wrote. And you don't seem to think that's a
>> satisfying answer. I think it's a perfectly good and satisfying answer.
>> And no, I don't think giving that kind of answer is easy at all. People
>> very often don't seem to be able to accept that the way they have
>> interpreted someone could be wrong. You seem to want to insist that you
>> see something in what I wrote to you that I "should" be willing to look
>> at and talk about. Sorry, but I have looked numerous times and just
>> don't see it. Although I'm very willing to talk about it.
>>
>> Gill: Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others
>> and at other times authority can be more facilitative of self and others
>> The authority I sensed in your email did not feel like that of
>> 'equality' if it had I wouldn't have responded in the way I did.
>>
>> Susan: My take on this is that authority is not something to be
>> used. To me, authority is simply a state of mind. The idea that we are
>> all equal authorities to my way of thinking means that there is no one
>> in a higher or lower position. We are all our own authorities and we
>> each have to take responsibility for ourselves and our own feelings and
>> responses. It means to me that I don't take responsibility for your
>> feelings and interpretations of my posts (or Bohm, etc.) and I also
>> don't assign responsibility for my feelings and interpretations to you
>> (or anyone).
>>
>> Gill: It felt more like what Pat said in one of her recent mails ...
>>
>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group
>>> and
>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
>>> little
>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years back,
>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>
>> Susan: The first time I read this statement of Pat's my thought was:
>> There is so much prejudice and discrimination in this statement that I
>> don't even want to respond to it. But since there have been more than
>> one post supporting it and it's come up in this conversation I'll
>> respond. It seems to me that you can't get more fragmented than this
>> kind of response and behavior. Truthfully, I was shocked when I read
>> this statement on a Dialogue group and coming from someone who has been
>> in Dialogue as long as Pat. To me it REEKS of the idea of "us and them".
>> We don't like the way they are in the world and we don't like the way
>> they play. We're against going to war with them or trying to change them
>> and since they don't seem to be willing to learn our way and play by our
>> rules (change themselves or "fix" themselves according to our standards)
>> we'll just go off and form our own little group and leave them out of
>> it. That'll show them!
>>
>> I just wonder how that kind of attitude and response fosters
>> Dialogue of any kind with anyone? I have come to terms with the fact
>> that I sometimes come across as being teacherly or even preacherly. I've
>> learned that it comes from growing up in a family of preachers and
>> teachers and is very ingrained in me. And, yes, I do think it's
>> important to have other ways to communicate and I do strive to watch for
>> it and see when it is occurring. But I also know that at this point in
>> time it's not something I can completely eradicate from my writing or
>> communications and I'm not even sure I want to at this point in time.
>> One of the main things I have learned from exploring my feelings about
>> it is to have far more understanding and tolerance for my family and
>> other people who have this style. It comes from the culture we grow up
>> in and is not a problem when we remain within that culture. It only
>> becomes a problem when we try to communicate with a different culture.
>> And I find that I have just as many problems with your style of
>> communicating as you seem to have with mine. That's one of the reasons
>> I'm so willing to continue this conversation.
>>
>> Gill: My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are
>> saying 'you have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to
>> do. What I have been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a
>> problem.
>>
>> Susan: My sense of what's going here Gill is that you're saying you
>> have a problem with my responses to you and my style of writing and you
>> want me to fix your problem by changing the way I respond to you. My
>> response to you is....sorry, but I'm not responsible for your feelings
>> or your interpretations. What I am willing to do is to talk to you
>> about this as much as you want and to tell you what I'm thinking and
>> feeling as openly and honestly as possible.
>>
>> Gill: Could we just talk together as two people'.
>>
>> Susan: I thought that was what we were doing. But this statement
>> implies to me that you want more. What is this more that you want Gill?
>>
>> Gill: Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what
>> I have been trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters
>> to you. I respect and often like people who are spontaneous,
>> challenging and not afraid of emotions.
>>
>> Susan: I have appreciated this conversation greatly Gill. It's
>> helped me to find quite a bit of clarity for myself within my own
>> thinking. Thank you, and the respect is mutual.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk
>> <mailto:earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> >
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org <mailto:bohm_dialogue@david-
>> bohm.org> >
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>
>>> Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I don't feel that you
>>> are
>>> quite understanding my points and maybe you feel something similar.
>>>
>>> I said clearly how open I am to learn from my own explorations and
>>> people's
>>> responses to me and how easy it is to just pass it back as ... Its just
>>> the
>>> way you interpret what I wrote ...
>>>
>>> Sometimes the way somebody uses authority does diminish others and at
>>> other
>>> times authority can be more facilitative of self and others The
>>> authority I
>>> sensed in your email did not feel like that of 'equality' if it had I
>>> wouldn't have responded in the way I did. It felt more like what Pat
>>> said in
>>> one of her recent mails ...
>>>
>>>> all of the non - teacherly types eventually stop coming to the group
>>>> and
>>>> all that is left is the teacherly types, Who now [eventually] have
>>>> little
>>>> to say because there is no one left to "teach." You all just sit there
>>>> hoping that someone "with a problem" will walk in the door. Years
>>>> back,
>>>> some of us called our little collection of us "Teachers Anonymous."
>>>
>>> My sense of what is going on between us Susan is that you are saying
>>> 'you
>>> have a problem Gill, let me show you what it is and what to do. What I
>>> have
>>> been trying to say to you is 'No Susan, I don't have a problem. Could
>>> we
>>> just talk together as two people'.
>>>
>>> Having said that and maybe at last finding the kernal of what I have
>>> been
>>> trying to say I do feel as if I am getting somewhere ...
>>>
>>> I have appreciated learning about who you are and about what matters to
>>> you.
>>> I respect and often like people who are spontaneous, challenging and
>>> not
>>> afraid of emotions.
>>>
>>> Gill
>>>
>>>
>>> on 13/11/06 15:21, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>>> <mailto:Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess I'm wondering why you would feel that someone (anyone,
>>>> including me)
>>>> feeling that they had something to teach is diminishing? Personally I
>>>> think
>>>> we all have something to teach and to learn from each other. I try to
>>>> look
>>>> at everyone's post as having something to teach me and feel it's my
>>>> responsibility to find that and learn from it. I see that as enabling
>>>> and
>>>> empowering, not diminishing.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are all kinds of tones that posts can take. But, it's been
>>>> my
>>>> experience that the tone the receiver interprets from a post is quite
>>>> often
>>>> different from the intentions of the sender. And it does take inquiry
>>>> to
>>>> sort that out sometimes. I'm glad you want to do that. I suppose the
>>>> authority you sensed in my post could be that I think all of us have
>>>> equal
>>>> authority on this list. To my way of thinking no one is more or less
>>>> of an
>>>> authority on Dialogue regardless of their background or experience.
>>>> As Don
>>>> F. has recently noted, Dialogue on the internet is something brand
>>>> new, a
>>>> frontier.
>>>>
>>>> But, again, you seem to speak about the idea of authority as though
>>>> there's
>>>> something wrong with it like you spoke about teaching as though there
>>>> is
>>>> something wrong with it. Again, I think the idea that all of us are
>>>> authorities as being empowering. It puts all of us on an equal status
>>>> here
>>>> where we each have very valuable things to contribute to each other to
>>>> my
>>>> way of thinking.
>>>>
>>>> So I guess one of the intentions of my tone usually is that we are all
>>>> equal
>>>> authorities here with something to teach and learn from each other I
>>>> suppose. If you find that diminishing, then I'm not sure what to say.
>>>> My
>>>> intentions are to honor myself and honor each member of the group
>>>> equally.
>>>>
>>>> So these ideas of posts having the power to diminish you or limit you
>>>> in
>>>> some way would be where I picked up on the idea of being defensive.
>>>> Perhaps
>>>> you think of someone who takes an authoritative tone as being someone
>>>> who
>>>> "needs" to feel they are an authority to make up for some kind of lack
>>>> and
>>>> so that's where you come up with the idea that I'm being defensive?
>>>> Of
>>>> course, that's possible and I don't claim that I never fall into a
>>>> defensive
>>>> position. But I don't think any of the posts since I have rejoined
>>>> the
>>>> group would fall into that category yet.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also someone who values emotional expression. ALL emotions, not
>>>> just
>>>> some of them. So that could be something you sense in my posts also.
>>>> I try
>>>> to express myself openly and spontaneously. I don't think it's
>>>> caring,
>>>> warm, or kind to repress our emotions. At the same time I'm aware
>>>> that
>>>> emotional expression can be used as a weapon and I try to watch for
>>>> that, to
>>>> use my expression simply as that, an expression and not use them
>>>> against
>>>> someone.
>>>>
>>>> And I suppose I seldom write what some people would call "soft" posts.
>>>> I
>>>> seldom feel the need for that these days. I'm not sure why that is,
>>>> and I
>>>> do think about that sometimes. Maybe it's because I feel there are
>>>> enough
>>>> people on here writing soft posts and so there's a need for a little
>>>> balance
>>>> in the area of soft/firm?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that came up for me on reading
>>>> your
>>>> post.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com Wed Nov 15 20:12:01 2006
From: stephen.devlin3 at btinternet.com (STEPHEN DEVLIN)
Date: Thu Nov 16 21:17:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] quotes, cont
In-Reply-To: <40A2A611-7B87-49A3-BF9A-621161619FDA@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20061115191201.60474.qmail@web86507.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
I understand the need to trim down the real lengthy ones but Ive not seen those for a while (i do remember some of Pi's considerably lengthy posts and thinking i'd never get to the bottom), and I've never heard of anyone needing to trim down a url for any reason.
I use yahoo and gmail, never had any issues of posts being bounced (as far as I know i usually see mine appear seconds after sending them).
donald factor <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote: A lot of posts seem to me like filling up the garage with a lot of
junk that you just can, bear
to throw away. When I see posts that have many previous posts that we
have all already read,
plus many copies of the info signature at the end, it feels like the
sender hasn't really given enough
attention to what they are saying or doing. And there have been many
instances where posts have
been automatically rejected by the listserver for being over 100kb
and most of these conain only
text.
I tend to highlight the bits of a message that are relevant to my
reply and then hit reply.
This then only copies that bit and isn't so redundant.
On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Steve Devlin wrote:
> What is the need for url trimming? And does it reduce the Kb size
> of the
> mail or is it the visibility of the url that is cut?
>
> I hit reply and highlight unnecessary text and then hit delete, it's a
> bit quicker than copy n
> paste.
> If we have to cut down on url lengths shouldn't we omit signatures
> and
> all that kinda stuff.
>
> All seems a tad ridiculous to me.
>
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/24f1f262/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 20:31:47 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 21:37:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <7F05097227EC594E98E31F97901F12B33CB5BB@dps-exchange1.dps.local><00aa01c708cb$544834b0$d478480c@HOME>
<AEF272B8-81A2-4FB6-82D3-F9AACFAF96AE@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <010a01c708ec$b188b8e0$d478480c@HOME>
Oh boy, you just took me into a whole different line of thought. Well, first of all, saying you don't "need" a reason to generate a feeling is not the same as saying you will never have a reason for creating a feeling. It's simply talking about the necessity of a (particular) reason for a feeling to understand the cause of the feeling.
And I don't really know how to talk about this except to talk about NLP. Because that's how I learned that I don't need a reason to feel a particular feeling. In NLP they have an exercise you can do to learn how to generate any feeling you want any time you want to use for any reason you want. In this exercise they have you go through your memories and find a feeling you want to generate and then detach it from the memory and bring it forward into the present and attach it purposefully to a different event that you generate for yourself.
They use this exercise to help people to attach pleasant feelings to situations they've avoided in the past but want to do something different with now. An example of this is a movie they show to explain how it works. In the movie a woman was feeling excessive jealousy with her husband. They elicited her state of jealousy (found out how she was creating that state by having her bring up memories of it), then they elicited the state she would rather feel (comfortable and pleasant). They created an anchor for her pleasant feelings and used that anchor to help her replace the feeling of jealousy with the more desired state.
It was very shocking to me the first time I did this for myself and realized it's implications. It meant that it was not only possible for me to change my feelings and emotional states any time I wanted to, but that "I" was the source of my own feelings. It meant that no one and no situation had ever caused me to feel bad or happy. What I have managed to do with that understanding has been staggering to me.
And when it comes to anger, as I have said many times in the past, anger is just another state and has as many positive uses as it does negative ones. I personally use it as a way to get beyond stuck spots.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
So what causes these feelings to arise? Why would I choose to feel angry if I didn't have a reason?
don
On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:32 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
My own explorations of anger and happiness (and emotions in general) have led me to the idea that I don't need a reason to be happy or angry. These are simply states that I can manifest any time I want without a reason. But we've been taught to believe through both religion and science that we "need" a reason to manifest these feelings and so we allow "reason" to rule rather than exploring our own power to create.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/2f8751a4/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Wed Nov 15 20:54:55 2006
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Thu Nov 16 22:00:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
References: <20061115.112739.2144.81.ae.dropper@juno.com><00e101c708d5$d5e50200$d478480c@HOME>
<5ABA5113-C97B-4D65-BB3E-E1A7912A16C9@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <013101c708ef$ecfc9290$d478480c@HOME>
I don't know about tribal people's but I suspect that they did not need to feel right. My studies of them indicate that they did not have morals in the sense of dichotomies of right/wrong, good/bad the way we do. I think war was something completely different to them based on completely different ideas than we have now.
And yes, it is the necessity of feeling that is important in this discussion. If people believe that it is necessary to be right in order to have good feelings then where does that leave them? There was a time in my life when I did not believe it was possible to feel good unless I was right. This also meant that I believed that I had to feel bad if I was wrong. For me, beliefs were simply not involved in this, it was simply a matter of fact for me.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
Yes, the "I have to be right" thought is a key. I think it may underly just about all the painful thoughts/actions that are initiated everyday and everywhere. I can easily figure out where it came from - school, parents, etc. - but is it possible that this has always been the case? Did tribal people in ancient times have to be right? I mean, there is both a personal and cultural level to this kind of thought.
On re-reading the above it may also cause similar effects with pleasurable emotions. lIke "I am right" or "I have been proved right," etc.
Whatever, rightness seems very important, Somehow it also seems to relate to Good and Evil. Rightness and Wrongness.
don
On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
I would say that there is one belief/assumption underlying this whole imaginary internal event that you are describing Pat, including the cultural event of how it gets passed from generation to generation. The belief is: it's necessary to be right to have this feeling. Or, another way to put it is that the need to be right is the "cause" of this feeling. Or you could go further and say....the "cause" of any feeling is not something external.
Once someone realizes that being right is not a cause of a feeling, or it's not necessary to be right to feel this way, then they can begin to realize that they have the power to feel the way they want to any time they want to.
Susan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/4b37b38c/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Wed Nov 15 21:33:49 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Thu Nov 16 22:35:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] beautiful, Don L. thank you - Dan Moonhawk Alfred
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1695D074D@msw2k.msw.local>
I almost missed this! Thanks for sharing it. D
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Morgan Jett
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:19 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] beautiful, Don L. thank you - Dan Moonhawk
Alfred
Moonhawk was a man of words, yet on his crossing, I have memories,
images, senses of time and experiences. My words are few, for they don't
seem to matter just now. What matters is the vision my friend Moonhawk
had, vision that he shared generously with other minds. Moonhawk saw how
differences in ways of knowing the world were reflected in the
languages, and he talked about these. Are Songs Alive?, he would say,
voice like butterscotch, look in his eye that told you he knew. "That
was [my friend's] song," the Elder in his story would say. "Haven't
heard it in oh, 80, 90 years. I guess it must have been getting lonely."
Must've been getting lonely, so it came back and plopped itself, alive
and vibrant, in someone else's head. These are stories of endless
possibility, the stories of Moonhawk's beliefs, of his vision, of a
reality he shared that was not limited by the sure, the visible, the
measurable. It was a world that opened to the possibility of Phoenician
travellers in Canada, to the possibility that language differences were
based on culture and ways of seeing.
Moonhawk is not gone, just in another dimension, just on the other side
of the veil. His work will live on to inspire others, not only directly
in and through his writings and teachings, but in the ways he inspired
those he touched, those he brought into his circle.
I was one of those, one of the ones he encouraged, one of those who
shared his vision, and his view of what was possible. And for the time
he spent in my life, as my friend, my mentor, someone who challenged and
encouraged me, I will always be grateful.
This is a small item from Moonhawk's list, Relational Languaging. It
shows so much of who and how we were. . . . in loving memory:
A One-act Play
Language lives as a spirit inside a people... all of whom are joined by
a common understanding, a "group knowledge" if you will. One day, a
herald comes with a trumpet and a parchment. He says that from that day
forth, all the people may speak only from the left side of their
brains... for it has been determined that this is the side closest to
"god" and therefore the "best"...
And language can no longer move about, for it has lost its feet, and it
can no longer feel, for it has lost its hands and its heart, language
can no longer sound happy or sad, no longer offer solace for woe or
companionship in joy and gladness, for it has lost its voice. Language
can now only run in circles, for it has too much energy for its task,
and it can only consider "disembodied" information, and has no way of
validating it, for it has lost its "body of knowledge". And language
becomes lonely and dispirited. It lives alone in the minds of those who
are left, unable to reach its companions. And having lost its connection
with others, it begins to lose its connection with itself, for it has
lost its balance and its joy. ... And alone, it dies.
. . . , I think it's truly excellent, Mia! Especially the running -- not
the slower walking speed, in circles -- perfect for unbridled,
ungrounded left brain as Emperor.
warm regards, moonhawk
Mia Kalish
11/03/02
for more, go to www.enformy.com/alford_community.htm
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Wed Nov 15 21:02:07 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Thu Nov 16 23:07:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] thoughts that are not words
In-Reply-To: <5ABA5113-C97B-4D65-BB3E-E1A7912A16C9@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C180CE5F.8084%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Maybe it?s not so much the ?rightness? as the degree of ?have to be?
attached to it. I remember an anthro course, long ago, where we studied a
couple of African societies, separated by a mountain. One society had very
flexible roles and was extremely peaceful ? rape and murder didn?t happen
and they did not go off looking for war. The other had rigid role
stereotypes, rape and murder were commonplace and war was a given. It
impressed me so much I still remember it.
Lynne
On 11/15/06 1:03 PM, "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> Yes, the "I have to be right" thought is a key. I think it may underly just
> about all the painful thoughts/actions that are initiated everyday and
> everywhere.? I can easily figure out where it came from - school, parents,
> etc. - but is it possible that this has always been the case? Did tribal
> people in ancient times have to be right? I mean, there is both a personal and
> cultural level to this kind of thought.?
>
> On re-reading the above it may also cause similar effects with pleasurable
> emotions. lIke "I am right" or "I have been proved right," etc.
>
> Whatever, rightness seems very important,? Somehow it also seems to relate to
> Good and Evil. Rightness and Wrongness.
>
> don
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061115/b36bd89f/attachment.html
From dfactor at dc.rr.com Wed Nov 15 23:01:04 2006
From: dfactor at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Fri Nov 17 00:06:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
In-Reply-To: <00f401c708e9$4f3a2000$d478480c@HOME>
References: <C180C1A5.3B05%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
<009601c708ca$9140d670$d478480c@HOME>
<1FE55014-E915-4F8E-8C2D-79E47DF26E4D@dc.rr.com>
<00f401c708e9$4f3a2000$d478480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <F3A59E6C-063B-48ED-8F71-9AE4317B7B08@dc.rr.com>
To me intimacy means physical intimacy - and I don't mean only sex.
But here we have what William would probably call virtual intimacy,
They are different categories. Intimacy is for me is a kind of
relationship where people know all about one another, their kids,
spouses, whatever. It is a relationship where you can call the person
up in the middle of the night if you are in trouble. I would say that
internet intimacy trivializes the idea of real closeness. But maybe
as the world becomes more and more disconnected physically and most
of people's relationships are virtual it would hold. Anyway, that's
how it looks from here.
don
On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> Good question. My first response to this suggestion is UGH!!!!! I
> find I really don't like the word impersonal, sounds very cold
> which doesn't seem to leave any room for the warmth I want to
> create. Like Gill my goal seems to be more about being up close
> and PERSONAL. The more personal I can be and the more I can engage
> others in being personal the more satisfaction that seems to
> contain for me.
>
> So, no, I don't think that phrase works for me. It seems to have
> more to do with allowing intimacy to emerge rather than expecting
> it. And also, when I do this it allows it to take lots of
> different forms and to surprise me. It also leaves room for me to
> have other kinds of experiences and to enjoy those experiences even
> though they might not contain the kind of intimacy I might have
> placed value on in the past. And the surprising thing is that when
> I do that intimacy seems to just erupt sometimes out of those other
> types of experiences.
>
> So it's more about being able to broaden the idea of intimacy and
> so broaden the scope of my own experience of it. And it also
> enables me to just relax and enjoy what's happening without the
> need to try to "make" something happen in particular. So this
> brings in not only growth but also freedom. There's lots of freedom
> with this kind of intimacy.
>
> So it's more like freedom to be intimate (or not).
>
> Thanks Don for helping me put that into words.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "donald factor" <dfactor@dc.rr.com>
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>
>
>> What about impersonal intimacy? Sounds to me like something very
>> special.
>>
>> don
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>> Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle wayHi Gill.
>>> Yes, I'm enjoying this conversation immensely and feel very
>>> grateful to have someone who is willing to stay with the process.
>>>
>>> As I've said before, when I approach this subject I start with
>>> Bohm's idea of people being able to discuss what's important to
>>> them. I also think of the idea of personal responsibility. So,
>>> from there, I come to ideas about the feeling of warmth,
>>> connection, and understanding. In my exploration of my own
>>> thoughts and assumptions I've learned that for me, all of those
>>> ideas have a common connection with the idea of intimacy. So,
>>> I've discovered that when I'm looking for those things in my
>>> relationships with other people what's important to me is
>>> intimacy. And I came to the decision that if that's what's
>>> important to me and I'm going to walk my talk of taking personal
>>> responsibility then I'm the one who has to create the intimacy
>>> I'm looking for. I also came to the conclusion that, again, if
>>> I'm going to walk my talk, I can not decide for other people
>>> that intimacy "should" be what's important to them. It has to
>>> be ok with me for other things to be more important to them.
>>>
>>> So, how to do that? I decided that for me, intimacy happens when
>>> I am able to be what I think of as "authentically me". For me,
>>> that involves being willing to spontaneously put myself out
>>> there as openly and honestly as possible. To allow myself to
>>> respond to things in a way that shows who I am in the moment
>>> warts and all. And it also means allowing others to have what
>>> ever response to me that feels right to them......and then
>>> staying with the process as long as they are willing, to see
>>> where that takes us. So I learned to let go of having any
>>> expectations of how others were going to respond to me.
>>>
>>> In the process of trying this for some time here on this list
>>> and also on other lists that I belong to I have come to the
>>> tentative conclusion that perhaps the kind of understanding I
>>> used to look for may not be possible. But I've also discovered
>>> that it may not be as important as I used to think it was and I
>>> would say that at this point, I don't think it is a necessity.
>>> For me, what's happened is that my ideas of intimacy have
>>> changed. I now feel intimately connected to people in a very
>>> different way and with people that I never would have dreamed
>>> that I could have felt intimate with. And I'm not sure how to
>>> describe that so maybe I will have to leave that for another
>>> post when I've had more time to think about it.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, I rarely feel disappointed with other people's response
>>> to me now although I do feel frustration at times and I welcome
>>> that feeling of frustration because I know that it's going to
>>> take me somewhere new and exciting.
>>>
>>> And I would like to thank you for finally sharing what your
>>> perspectives are and for putting yourself out there. There is
>>> much more in your post that's worth exploring for me but I think
>>> this is enough for me for now.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Gill Wyatt
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:07 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] robust dialogue and the middle way
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Susan,
>>>
>>> I'm understanding our differences I think and coming to
>>> respect my stance and yours.
>>>
>>> For me when I talk about 'understanding my points' I'm
>>> referring to simply understanding what I say ... Its
>>> interesting ... You pick up on the word 'point' and it becomes
>>> 'get my point' whereas for me what was most important was
>>> 'understanding'. Are these the same? Perhaps it doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> But yes for me Its about talking (well writing here!!) and
>>> listening and it does seem important to understand what has been
>>> written ... Doesn't dialogue occur from this close listening to
>>> each other and taking off the assumptions? ... Do we not need
>>> understanding ... And I would go further, from my stance in life
>>> I value empathy highly. To truly understand the other and be
>>> understood is such a gift. Mmm I'm re-reading my post before
>>> sending and I'm realising that there is more here ... I think I
>>> look for 'warmth' or maybe simply some 'sense of recognition' as
>>> well. I obviously don't expect to find it but I think there
>>> might have been something of this here.
>>>
>>> And I know that I do feel disappointed when that doesn't
>>> occur. So yes I think I wanted to feel a warm understanding from
>>> you and of course I haven't. Yet I do feel I have met an alive,
>>> interesting and vibrant woman.
>>>
>>> I don't think what we have been discussing is 'simply my way of
>>> interpreting' it seems to me that what we have been discussing
>>> is the meeting between 'my way of interpreting' AND 'your way
>>> of interpreting'. I've appreciated spending this time
>>> rediscovering the effect of my way of interpreting, the
>>> assumptions that are a part of who I am. I think you have also
>>> been saying that you have similarly been affirming who you are
>>> and what matters to you ... Is that not 'your way of
>>> interpreting'? ...
>>>
>>> I can see what you mean by the 'us and them' in what Pat
>>> quoted. Yet I have witnessed this sort of process in so many
>>> groups. There are the 'helpers' or 'teachers' and those that
>>> need 'help' or 'teaching'. Over the years I have played both
>>> roles of this duality (maybe at the same time ... :-) !!). I
>>> know many of us don't want to recreate that culture here but
>>> that sort of culture is embedded in the very air that we breath.
>>>
>>> I do understand and agree when you say you are not responsible
>>> for my feelings and my interpretations ... Yet when we live in an
>>> interconnected universe and we need to take responsibility for
>>> our part for the state of the world on the grand scale and what
>>> we manifest in our personal lives on the smaller scale, I think
>>> it is so much more complex than what your statement infers.
>>>
>>> Um ... I'm getting to enjoy this!
>>>
>>> Gill
>>>
>>> on 14/11/06 17:56, Susan Clemons at Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Gill: Susan, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. I
>>> don't feel that you are quite understanding my points and maybe
>>> y