From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Mon Dec 24 00:05:21 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec 24 00:12:47 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was: message
from admin
In-Reply-To: <20071223.171035.3184.244.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071223.171035.3184.244.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <053E6AF7-9AC8-4710-9FA2-F23FA345A9C2@dc.rr.com>
scroll down please
On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
> of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
> It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
> regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
> even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be
> different"
> [or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on
> the planet
> than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
>
> I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in
> their turn,
> "wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right
> now, suggesting
> that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to
> check that out. :-D
> Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just
> interested in looking
> at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific
> thought that triggers it. The
> thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad,
do we find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change?
Somehow, I don't think so. And would not wanting ourselves or others
to change be good or bad or better or worse.
>
> Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long
> time, and wanting
> them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this
> wanting them to change?
> Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the
inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
don
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:45:57 -0500 "Irene Darcy"
> <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
> KI: That's all I ever wanted him to do - be civil. Be honest and
> civil at the same time. And that's what he's forced to do now that
> his 'arsey' persona is unsubscribed. Make no mistake - s/he's
> still here. Hello, Pit.
>
> On Dec 23, 2007 10:38 AM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Does it make a difference if he's subscribed, so long as he isn't
> being personally insulting to people and acting like an arse?
> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:21:00 -0800
>
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>
> I am informed that pit is still subscribed here under yet another
> name, possibly more than one. He has written to Irene and quoted
> something she wrote to the list after he was unsubscribed. So, keep
> your eyes open for any hints. Susan has a very keen eye for such
> things. She was the first to spot that AEB was pit.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Don Lay wrote:
>
> Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by
> the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
> a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his
> own server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam
> filter. -- admin
>
> Under the circumstances, I believe it is not inappropriate to pass
> on the following which I thought was sent to the Bohm list but was
> actually directed to one of Peter's addresses:
>
> [was something about Failure]
>
> If dialogue, from the Greek dia logos indicates reason, is it
> reasonable to expect a dialogue to be the use of reason and to
> eliminate the ignoring of or distortion of reason and meaning?
>
> It seems entirely reasonable, rational, and perhaps more to the
> point -- meaningful -- to not allow the lack of, or distortion of
> reason and meaning, to occur in place of dialogue.
>
> Some questions occur:
>
> May meaningful communication occur without reason, ratio, meaning?
> Does communication occur absent reason, ratio, and meaning?
>
> When reason, ration, meaning is distorted or absent, is
> communication possible? Is meaningful communication possible?
>
> My view is that the moderator's present actions are reasonable,
> rational and meaningful and are therefore, dialogical. -dl
>
>
>
>
> bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org wrote:
> You are now unsubscribed from Bohm_Dialogue
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The 'good'/'bad' news first: Pit is out (gone, booted, unsubbed,
> 'taken-care-of', dedialoged...).
>
> The 'better'/'worse' knews next: s'he is NOT. S'he is still verii
> much here, among yoUs.
>
> Once again, D-Factor could not "take it", could not "handle it"...
> ~ so he "pulled the plug" (oncommunication, and thus, at --the core
> of-- dialogue).
>
> Once again, B-Dialogue could not "take it", could not "handle
> it"... ~ so you "pulled the plug" (on communication, and thus, at --
> the core of-- dialogue).
>
> Once again, B-Dialogue=you have failed, re failing.
>
> Once again, the "problem/s" did not and do not and will not "go
> away" because of this move(away).
>
> Once again you will talk another trillion years 'penetratingly'
> about (B)Dialogue, its beauty (beast): w/o, once again, for once,
> just once, being able to let it happen: (B)Dialogue, to let it
> takgive place, time (tice)... dobeing touched (penetration, see
> above) by it. Once again you findy that groupi strength
> ("coherence", cohesion) in what Don Lay likes to title: "Acting &
> Pretending". Once again, you wo'managed to gather around the
> camp&fire&place of vanities, and superficialities, and phonitities,
> softplaying, neckmassagings, makeupping..... And if it was not so
> pathetictictic, I would congratulate you.
>
> Once again, the 'problem' pit will not go away by moving, pushing,
> pullpushitting him/her/it offlist, & under the 'rug' (of
> "self&awareness").
>
> Once again, the "peters" of this world ARE a part of tas, ARE,
> thusly, a part of YOU. ARE systemic, systematictictic.... And, like
> Bohm's story about the woman who keeps beating herself (while)
> under the i'm-pressure to be under attack: the attacked=the
> attacker= the attack. So, by 'any means': go 'ahead', and keep
> beating yourselves, bones, while you drool over that the-
> observer=the-observed=.... stuff(ing). bood luckg.
>
> ii is still hear, and watching, and in 'awe'.... see you in a bit/pit.
>
> Tschuess )(
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
>
>
>
> From: dialogue-admin
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 5:01 PM
> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
>
> Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by
> the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
> a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his
> own server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam
> filter.
>
> admin
>
>
>
>
> Return-Path: <humanimal@thinkg.net>
> Delivery-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
> Received: from host52.host52-server.com (host52.host52-server.com
> [66.49.137.121])
> by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu25) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
> id 0MKstg-1J680E0KyC-0004k8 ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
> X-ClientAddr: 127.0.0.1
> Received: from www.thinkg.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
> by host52.host52-server.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
> lBMHJ33G015778;
> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:03 -0500
> Received: from 70.23.253.227
> (SquirrelMail authenticated user humanimal@thinkg.net )
> by www.thinkg.net with HTTP;
> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
> Message-ID: < 50379.70.23.253.227.1198343948.squirrel@www.thinkg.net>
> In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-
> bohm.org >
> References: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
> Subject: Re: Request to mailing list Bohm_D
> From: humanimal@thinkg.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> Importance: Normal
> X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP
> for more information
> X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your
> Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
> X-MailScanner-From: humanimal@thinkg.net
> Envelope-To: w@david-bohm.net
>
> Ooooooooooh,
> noooooooooo
> problema, senor
>
> will just use one of the other few hand-full-full-fulls ;---))
>
> ciao
>
> cheers
>
> .... later ... (wellaugh: soooon)
>
> humanimal
>
>
>
> > Your request to the Bohm_Dialogue mailing list
> >
> > Subscription request
> >
> > has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
> > following reason for rejecting your request:
> >
> > "[No reason given]"
> >
> > Any questions or comments should be directed to the list
> administrator
> > at:
> >
> > bohm_dialogue-owner@david-bohm.org
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
> Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
> Charades!
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071223/802447bd/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 24 00:15:52 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 24 00:23:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was:
messagefrom admin
References: <20071223.171035.3184.244.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<053E6AF7-9AC8-4710-9FA2-F23FA345A9C2@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <03e001c845b9$c3c25ba0$4577480c@HOME>
Hmmmmm.........well, it seems to me that change happens whether we want it to or not. I don't think the desire for change has anything to do with ideas of good or bad. My experience tells me that change is not good or bad, it just is. However, wanting people to be different than what we perceive them to be seems to be something very different. Wanting them to be different (than what they are being) usually means wanting to control what that difference is. This seems to tie in with the need to control ourselves, our lives and others. Letting go of that need to control and simply allowing change to happen has been my experience of freedom.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was: messagefrom admin
scroll down please
On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be different"
[or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on the planet
than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in their turn,
"wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right now, suggesting
that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to check that out. :-D
Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just interested in looking
at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific thought that triggers it. The
thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad, do we find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change? Somehow, I don't think so. And would not wanting ourselves or others to change be good or bad or better or worse.
Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long time, and wanting
them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this wanting them to change?
Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
don
-- funny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071223/e91629fc/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 24 01:01:16 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:08:41 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
In-Reply-To: <B1CB48C7-979B-416B-A70A-50286CE2FF57@dc.rr.com>
References: <BAY123-W1659AA587FCF90781F69A8DC580@phx.gbl>
<C393EE86.FD87%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
<BAY123-W309B7DB8420BD902CCC918DC580@phx.gbl>
<B1CB48C7-979B-416B-A70A-50286CE2FF57@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W170A515129575A63DA3E4BDC590@phx.gbl>
He's a better poet than me so i typed as he wrote it. speak it though, it works. it has six syllables like all the other last lines, except the tricky one with the marzipan which draws the 'ic' over from the previous line anyway.
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.comSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and alonenessDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:56:39 -0800To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgLovely, but shouldn't it be "too cerebral"? It certainly scan better. Peake was a pretty good poet.
don
On Dec 23, 2007, at 10:18 AM, rob mooney wrote:
I cannot give the reasons (Mervyn Peake) I cannot give the reasons,I only sing the tunes;the sadness of the seasonsthe madness of the moons. I cannot be didacticor lucid, but I canbe quite obscure and practic-ally marzipan in gorgery and gushnessand all that's squishified.My voice has all the lushnessof what I can't abide and yet it has a beautymost proud and terribledenied to those whose dutyis to be cerebral. Among the antlered mountainsI make my viscous wayand watch the sepia fountainsthrow up their lime-green spray.
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:52:54 -0700Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and alonenessFrom: lynne@lifedirectionscoach.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgIt?s hard to put poetry into prose. I?m appreciating both.On 12/23/07 10:48 AM, "rob mooney" <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
thanks Pat. wonderful. now let's see you stand on one leg and touch your nose with your fingertip. :-) -- seriously
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:33:34 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and alonenessFrom: ae.dropper@juno.comTo be without the belief in a thought, is to be without a sense of "separation" [beyond the necessary proprioceptive sense of such]. In the moments where there is a thought of "me" with another thought of "my life" it can be asked "Is this possible?" Is it possible that there could be a "me" that is separate from "my life?" Amazingly enough, there are these beliefs and feelings and deep sensations that there could be a "me" that is separate from "my life." This brings with it a sense of necessity to actually "treat" "my life" as separate from "me." To control it, to change it, to dislike it, to like it. This "my life" thought, can give a sensation that this "my life" is much much 'larger' than "me." And here "my life" can translate in sensation and feeling as "the world" and "the world," in the sensation [of the thought] can thus get vastly larger than "me." And we take refuge in a "friendship" or a "home" as though these are the only places where we can find any rest. Little islands of "safety" and "security" to huddle in for respite from "the world." Writing is great, because in writing there they are; the beliefs plunked down, sitting still, right before my eyes. Those things that create the sensations of reality, just sitting there staring back at me. If one adds after every believed thought on the paper, the additional phrase "This is what it feels like" the document is more complete. The feelings will be some variation on good feeling or bad feeling but with the belief there comes the feeling that "this is true," that "this is what is." We think we are reporting (Thought is simply telling me the way things are) but what we are doing is creating (Thought is affecting feeling and thus, perception of "reality"). And "we" are not even doing it, because "we" [here] is another thought, another belief. And an "attachment" occurs between the two thoughts, that comes of the peculiar structure of the language of the thoughts. The thought of "I" as the 'maker' of "of "my life" is in the structure of the language. And there is truth in this, is there not? This thought of "I" as "making" "my life" is the experience of "my life." In order to achieve this though, this proprietorship, separation is necessary. For this life to be this "mine," property lines need to be drawn. What is "not mine" [the edges]. "not my life" needs to be determined. And the edges of "my life" are the points where it is separated from "the rest of the world." And with this comes a feeling, a sense, a deep conviction, of separation. A separation way beyond any proprioceptive needs of the organism, a separation built and continually reconstructed by belief [largely implicit] in the language structure of reflexive thought's delivery system. The combination of inquiry into the truth of each thought, along with the "passion" to stay with the feelings as much as possible is a workable formula for freedom from the sense of separateness [that "separateness" that shows itself in any distress or discomfort with that which is "beyond the 'property lines' of the thought of "me" or "mine"]. We can express ourselves for years, as in journaling, and be thinking any number of things about such expression. We can think of it as 'getting it out of us'. We can think of it as 'making archive material' or biography. We can think of it as 'working with language; refining or improving ways of saying things. We can think of it in a lot of ways. But we can also think of it as "the best prerequisite to the inquiry process that there is." We can think of it as a goldmine of opportunity. And incidentally, the structure of language, as in using the phrase "We can think of it" instead of the phrase "The thought occurs" [which incidentally might be helpful] is not necessary. What is necessary is that the beliefs in these thoughts as truths [any thoughts, as truths] needs to fall away. And it can fall away. And it does fall away. And this is what the emphasis on proprioception [the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception] is all about. It is about a seeing; a seeing that has nothing at all to do with thinking. Except that it is a "seeing" of the thinking process. A seeing of the thought process in the entirety of its course of movement. Without belief in the thoughts, the thoughts pass through as clouds that are a configuration which is noticed. With the belief in thoughts, the belief in a thought is its entryway into the entire neurochemistry and neurophysiology of the body. And this is what makes conviction that these thoughts are "the truth." -- funny Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:08:40 -0800 (PST) Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> writes:
Hello, group exploring online, There are couple things I would like to talk about. It is of course great that new people are joining in. However, I have so many messages, especially from Alan, that they are going in my spam folder and I just cant keep up. I may go on vacation mode again. I think it is awesome that Susan and Franis are here because you all just seem authentic and inspiring -- the types of people who are "good" at dialogue. It is difficult for me to find the "real" messages when so much of what is sent just reads like spam to me. So this list is actually spam right now in a sense is the first thing. What value do those messages add? (Not that mine adds more; you can judge that.) The second thing I want to talk about it just some "food for thought" about my own experience lately. I know it is a limited snapshot, but speaking from our own experiences and feelings is a great way to have real dialogue, especially when it (our interpretations of the experiences and future experiences) is up for investigation. Lately, I have been emotionally raw. The last few months, and even the last year have been fairly intense. Have attributed it to exhaustion some of the time, but I wonder what else is happening here. Many of us know something about human and adult development, ranging from Piaget, Maslow, Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, Kegan, Torbert, Beck and Cowan, etc. (If any of those names are not familiar, we can talk further.) There have been some intense contractions, physically and emotionally lately. So, given that development is not a straight line, or even stair steps, but let's say a dialectical spiral of patterns that is evolving, so nothing is a given...:) my "self assessment" is that I may be engaging more of my capacity than ever before and I dont know if that means I am "going to the next level of development" or hitting a pathological place, or a good place. Luckily I feel like I can be supported in this at work and through a few of my friends, whatever it is, though one aspect I will say a bit more about is being alone. But first, some other aspects: I feel this deep, deep, tension in my stomach, and my heart area feels very raw, large, and warm. I realize in a sense I am story telling through this whole email. I did not plan to write it until a few moments ago, so maybe something interesting or provoking will be here, maybe not. (Yes, I have a bias for unplanned activities...) Back to the "symptoms" I've been noticing. There is a sense of separation, of woundedness, that I tend to wallow in. A small comment from someone can send me to a place of doubting if I really know anything, and if I am just a joke of a person. Yet I know that "my" capacity to experience and make sense of reality, in happy ecstatic places as well as dark lonely places in the psyche, is beyond what I seem to know. I can sort of trust my adaptogenic nature as a human and consciousness to take care of me. I dont know if it makes the disgust with myself and the world any easier to hold, but so far Im still here...or something is. The realization of life lately, or maybe even oneness, for me has included a flavor of aloneness that I have always known, but when I was younger, I wanted it to go away and called it depression at times. As we are unique beings, no person can ever truly understand another. For what is there to understand, and who is doing it? The realization, I am alone...has really schocked me. I am inquiring into it and do not wish to hold on to it longer than it serves, but in a way it can be freeing. To truly realize this liberates me from the need for others to "get me." Then I am more available to be with them in a non-wanting way, except to allow them to be who they are by listening and seeing them. The fact is some people get me more than others. It is fine if some of us just dont get each other. That is why there are millions of people...so we can be seen, met, and supported by someone -- not everyone at everytime. So to play with this thought-feeling of woundedness and aloneness which is at times isolating, can provide a lot of opening. We can inquire all the way to the level of seeing that there is no one to be understood, and that we are all understanding each other together...so this is just where I am at. On this beginning of winter, when the days begin to lengthen and the nights grow shorter, I am contemplative as I head to 15 hours of nighttime partying. What is there for me/us (yes, us) to do in the world this year? What beliefs and parts of self/psyche will I discover and welcome, or let go of? Who is letting go of them? How can I, sort of get out of the way, of my own development while taking an empowering stand for my values, knowing that they are going to change and they are not the final story? Or is this what we effortlessly do because it is our destiny if anything is? How can I have an impact in the next year? How am I fulfilling my unlimited capacity? What do I/we want to create in this next day, next year? Anyone have any answers or other useful guiding questions for us? What do we want to explore this year? Who are we? Maybe what I have said will provoke more inquiry. If there is a goal, then that is it. And of course, I expect to be seen and understood by some of you because we are all here together, and I have certain general ideas about the capacities of this group...other than that I am sick of hearing myself talk so I will close this. Thank you all... Love,Kari
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/cba2f611/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 24 01:04:09 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:11:33 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F>
<A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com>
<027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME>
<c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com>
<89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
From: Funny@Dancing.OrgTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was to point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become suspect. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves are even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to our assumed selves?)
Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us can't afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion are deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a treasure?:
http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
~funny~
On Dec 23, 2007, at 14:47 , donald factor wrote:
I see no problem with this language. And I sometimes, I must admit that I have wondered if Irene. Kathy, and all your other pseudonyms might not be incarnations of peter. I wouldn't put it past him. Didn't you say that you had met Peter Renzland?
don
and 5 minutes later:
On Dec 23, 2007, at 14:52 , donald factor wrote:
You really are beginning to sound like Peter now.
don
On Dec 23, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
KI: Your response has a great deal in common with Peter's. You tell me to show the relationship as though you are incapable of seeing relationships. And what is 'personally'? How do you feel about Bohm's experience with McCarthy? About Bush? Are you trying to make think that you can't see how any of this mirrors society ? I remember Peter said it looked like he and I were the only ones into taking out the trash. Forget it. I've got better things to do.
On Dec 23, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
become subversive to the groupKI: Those words sound like McCarthy and Homeland Security. Are there better words available, or is that what you mean to say?
On Dec 23, 2007 12:34 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I'm guessing that Pete Renzland is Peter and also possibly Alfred Landman. Who knows how many other names he's used to subscribe to the list. As he's said, there really isn't any way to keep him from subscribing. We can only unsub him or anyone else when their posts become subversive to the group.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
But how does he read the quoted segments?
don
On Dec 23, 2007, at 8:17 AM, william wrote:
Peter is sending unsollicited emails and tries to make it look as if they come through the bohm_dialogue list server. He uses the following email addresses: humanimal@thinkg.net or a.debakey@yahoo.com
If you feel bothered by this please go to http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/original/abuse/abuse-33.html where you find instructions on how to complain at Yahoo.com about a.debakey@yahoo.com
or go to www.canaca.com to complain about humanimal@thinkg.net
admin
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/08f3a89d/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 24 01:07:34 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:14:59 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought is the direct
awareness that thought is affecting perc
In-Reply-To: <20071223.171035.3184.247.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071223.171035.3184.247.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W2837F9D3D6E87C699E3836DC590@phx.gbl>
in the eye of the song
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:48:48 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is affecting percFrom: ae.dropper@juno.com
There is the ear before the song.
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:41:57 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
sometimes the bird song here is beautiful
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:37:35 -0500From: ae.dropper@juno.comSubject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception.
It seems difficult to focus on "what the words do 'in there' ", focus on function. (dl)
Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception. All - but this awareness is the operation of the false belief that thought is simply telling me the way things are. There it is. That's what this is about. In between the thought/perception link is feeling; is conviction. Every believed thought is felt as the way things are.. This seeing - perceiving functions as the proof of the thought/belief. These thought - worlds collide.
All of the believed thoughts are organized around a single "center" or organizing function. It has a generic name which is "I"
I thinkI seeI believeI knowI canI doI wantI goI comeI findI sendI take I haveI wishI wouldI should I couldI couldn'tI followI leadI tryI haveI workI went
Then there are the generic names[organizing functions] of I am
I am smartI am goingI am lateI am discriminatingI am patientI am humbleI am proudI am shyI am faithfulthere are a million of them
These are learned through the generic "you" and "you are" versions of I and I am. It doesn't take a lot to condition thought.Just imagine and remember how early the conditioning of "you" and "you are"began. How frequent it was and how it continued and continues, and think of the constancyof it, and you get a little sense of the depth of this conditioning, this organizing function, this "center" around which all of the believed thoughts are drawn, sort of stabilized. Without this "center" in thoughtthe thoughts are just thoughts. They are no longer felt to come from "me." They are no longer feltto be "my" thoughts. I am no longer felt to be the "thinker" of these thoughts, the "maker" ofthese thoughts. They are just flotsam and jetsam. Or like clouds passing by. A cornucopia ofofferings along with a steady and abiding lack of interest and perception changes completely.There is no world "out there" made of some of these. When the falsely sensed "I" goes,the falsely perceived "world" goes too and there is no more "world bubble" to collide with all of the other "world bubbles."
Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception. All - but this awareness is the operation of the false belief that thought is simply telling me the way things are. There it is. That's what this is about. That what this [Bohm theory] offers in terms of the opportunity of seeing. And the possibilities abound for seeing this movement in operation here. But of course, it is not required. It's just an expression of how the best things in life are not only free but opulently abundant as well. This seeing is the best thing.
-- funny
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/0625bd49/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 24 01:08:26 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:15:51 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness
In-Reply-To: <20071223.171035.3184.248.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071223.171035.3184.248.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W2185E6F2C0B62FE086192ADC590@phx.gbl>
fuckin' 'ell, that's impressive!
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:10:26 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and alonenessFrom: ae.dropper@juno.com
O>\1/
/ I 1
/_ _ I__/
I
/ I
_ _ _ / I
L I
L_
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:48:11 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
thanks Pat. wonderful. now let's see you stand on one leg and touch your nose with your fingertip. :-) -- seriously
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:33:34 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and alonenessFrom: ae.dropper@juno.com
To be without the belief in a thought, is to be without a sense of "separation" [beyond the necessary proprioceptive sense of such]. In the moments where there is a thought of "me" with another thought of "my life" it can be asked "Is this possible?" Is it possible that there could be a "me" that is separate from "my life?" Amazingly enough, there are these beliefs and feelings and deep sensations that there could be a "me" that is separate from "my life."
This brings with it a sense of necessity to actually "treat" "my life" as separate from "me." To control it, to change it, to dislike it, to like it. This "my life" thought, can give a sensation that this "my life" is much much 'larger' than "me." And here "my life" can translate in sensation and feeling as "the world" and "the world," in the sensation [of the thought] can thus get vastly larger than "me."
And we take refuge in a "friendship" or a "home" as though these are the only places where we can find any rest. Little islands of "safety" and "security" to huddle in for respite from "the world."
Writing is great, because in writing there they are; the beliefs plunked down, sitting still, right before my eyes. Those things that create the sensations of reality, just sitting there staring back at me. If one adds after every believed thought on the paper, the additional phrase "This is what it feels like" the document is more complete. The feelings will be some variation on good feeling or bad feeling but with the belief there comes the feeling that "this is true," that "this is what is."
We think we are reporting (Thought is simply telling me the way things are) but what we are doing is creating (Thought is affecting feeling and thus, perception of "reality"). And "we" are not even doing it, because "we" [here] is another thought, another belief. And an "attachment" occurs between the two thoughts, that comes of the peculiar structure of the language of the thoughts. The thought of "I" as the 'maker' of "of "my life" is in the structure of the language. And there is truth in this, is there not? This thought of "I" as "making" "my life" is the experience of "my life."
In order to achieve this though, this proprietorship, separation is necessary. For this life to be this "mine," property lines need to be drawn. What is "not mine" [the edges]. "not my life" needs to be determined. And the edges of "my life" are the points where it is separated from "the rest of the world." And with this comes a feeling, a sense, a deep conviction, of separation. A separation way beyond any proprioceptive needs of the organism, a separation built and continually reconstructed by belief [largely implicit] in the language structure of reflexive thought's delivery system.
The combination of inquiry into the truth of each thought, along with the "passion" to stay with the feelings as much as possible is a workable formula for freedom from the sense of separateness [that "separateness" that shows itself in any distress or discomfort with that which is "beyond the 'property lines' of the thought of "me" or "mine"].
We can express ourselves for years, as in journaling, and be thinking any number of things about such expression. We can think of it as 'getting it out of us'. We can think of it as 'making archive material' or biography. We can think of it as 'working with language; refining or improving ways of saying things. We can think of it in a lot of ways. But we can also think of it as "the best prerequisite to the inquiry process that there is." We can think of it as a goldmine of opportunity.
And incidentally, the structure of language, as in using the phrase "We can think of it" instead of the phrase "The thought occurs" [which incidentally might be helpful] is not necessary. What is necessary is that the beliefs in these thoughts as truths [any thoughts, as truths] needs to fall away. And it can fall away. And it does fall away. And this is what the emphasis on proprioception [the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception] is all about. It is about a seeing; a seeing that has nothing at all to do with thinking. Except that it is a "seeing" of the thinking process. A seeing of the thought process in the entirety of its course of movement. Without belief in the thoughts, the thoughts pass through as clouds that are a configuration which is noticed. With the belief in thoughts, the belief in a thought is its entryway into the entire neurochemistry and neurophysiology of the body. And this is what makes conviction that these thoughts are "the truth."
-- funny
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:08:40 -0800 (PST) Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> writes:
Hello, group exploring online,
There are couple things I would like to talk about. It is of course great that new people are joining in. However, I have so many messages, especially from Alan, that they are going in my spam folder and I just cant keep up. I may go on vacation mode again. I think it is awesome that Susan and Franis are here because you all just seem authentic and inspiring -- the types of people who are "good" at dialogue. It is difficult for me to find the "real" messages when so much of what is sent just reads like spam to me. So this list is actually spam right now in a sense is the first thing. What value do those messages add? (Not that mine adds more; you can judge that.)
The second thing I want to talk about it just some "food for thought" about my own experience lately. I know it is a limited snapshot, but speaking from our own experiences and feelings is a great way to have real dialogue, especially when it (our interpretations of the experiences and future experiences) is up for investigation.
Lately, I have been emotionally raw. The last few months, and even the last year have been fairly intense. Have attributed it to exhaustion some of the time, but I wonder what else is happening here. Many of us know something about human and adult development, ranging from Piaget, Maslow, Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, Kegan, Torbert, Beck and Cowan, etc. (If any of those names are not familiar, we can talk further.) There have been some intense contractions, physically and emotionally lately. So, given that development is not a straight line, or even stair steps, but let's say a dialectical spiral of patterns that is evolving, so nothing is a given...:) my "self assessment" is that I may be engaging more of my capacity than ever before and I dont know if that means I am "going to the next level of development" or hitting a pathological place, or a good place. Luckily I feel like I can be supported in this at work and through a few of my friends, whatever it is, though one aspect I will say a bit more about is being alone.
But first, some other aspects: I feel this deep, deep, tension in my stomach, and my heart area feels very raw, large, and warm. I realize in a sense I am story telling through this whole email. I did not plan to write it until a few moments ago, so maybe something interesting or provoking will be here, maybe not. (Yes, I have a bias for unplanned activities...) Back to the "symptoms" I've been noticing. There is a sense of separation, of woundedness, that I tend to wallow in. A small comment from someone can send me to a place of doubting if I really know anything, and if I am just a joke of a person. Yet I know that "my" capacity to experience and make sense of reality, in happy ecstatic places as well as dark lonely places in the psyche, is beyond what I seem to know. I can sort of trust my adaptogenic nature as a human and consciousness to take care of me. I dont know if it makes the disgust with myself and the world any easier to hold, but so far Im still here...or something is.
The realization of life lately, or maybe even oneness, for me has included a flavor of aloneness that I have always known, but when I was younger, I wanted it to go away and called it depression at times. As we are unique beings, no person can ever truly understand another. For what is there to understand, and who is doing it? The realization, I am alone...has really schocked me. I am inquiring into it and do not wish to hold on to it longer than it serves, but in a way it can be freeing. To truly realize this liberates me from the need for others to "get me." Then I am more available to be with them in a non-wanting way, except to allow them to be who they are by listening and seeing them. The fact is some people get me more than others. It is fine if some of us just dont get each other. That is why there are millions of people...so we can be seen, met, and supported by someone -- not everyone at everytime. So to play with this thought-feeling of woundedness and aloneness which is at times isolating, can provide a lot of opening. We can inquire all the way to the level of seeing that there is no one to be understood, and that we are all understanding each other together...so this is just where I am at.
On this beginning of winter, when the days begin to lengthen and the nights grow shorter, I am contemplative as I head to 15 hours of nighttime partying. What is there for me/us (yes, us) to do in the world this year? What beliefs and parts of self/psyche will I discover and welcome, or let go of? Who is letting go of them? How can I, sort of get out of the way, of my own development while taking an empowering stand for my values, knowing that they are going to change and they are not the final story? Or is this what we effortlessly do because it is our destiny if anything is? How can I have an impact in the next year? How am I fulfilling my unlimited capacity? What do I/we want to create in this next day, next year? Anyone have any answers or other useful guiding questions for us? What do we want to explore this year? Who are we?
Maybe what I have said will provoke more inquiry. If there is a goal, then that is it. And of course, I expect to be seen and understood by some of you because we are all here together, and I have certain general ideas about the capacities of this group...other than that I am sick of hearing myself talk so I will close this. Thank you all...
Love,
Kari
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Everything in one place. All new Windows Live!
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
http://www.searchgamesbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/19c4f104/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 24 01:09:24 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:16:49 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness, Scansion and Rhythm
In-Reply-To: <1A63339C-2D55-4476-A7F6-D611BC72FC91@Dancing.Org>
References: <BAY123-W1659AA587FCF90781F69A8DC580@phx.gbl>
<C393EE86.FD87%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
<BAY123-W309B7DB8420BD902CCC918DC580@phx.gbl>
<B1CB48C7-979B-416B-A70A-50286CE2FF57@dc.rr.com>
<1A63339C-2D55-4476-A7F6-D611BC72FC91@Dancing.Org>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W331B8692CA98E3BE44522EDC590@phx.gbl>
hello petedon
From: Funny@Dancing.OrgTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and aloneness, Scansion and RhythmDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:48 -0500
Peake was a pretty good poet.A pretty good scanner was he.
Is to be cerebral has six beats,
Too cerebral five, do you see?
~funny~
On Dec 23, 2007, at 14:56 , donald factor wrote:
Lovely, but shouldn't it be "too cerebral"? It certainly scan better. Peake was a pretty good poet.
don
On Dec 23, 2007, at 10:18 AM, rob mooney wrote:
I cannot give the reasons (Mervyn Peake) I cannot give the reasons,I only sing the tunes;the sadness of the seasonsthe madness of the moons. I cannot be didacticor lucid, but I canbe quite obscure and practic-ally marzipan in gorgery and gushnessand all that's squishified.My voice has all the lushnessof what I can't abide and yet it has a beautymost proud and terribledenied to those whose dutyis to be cerebral. Among the antlered mountainsI make my viscous wayand watch the sepia fountainsthrow up their lime-green spray.
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:52:54 -0700Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and alonenessFrom: lynne@lifedirectionscoach.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgIt?s hard to put poetry into prose. I?m appreciating both.On 12/23/07 10:48 AM, "rob mooney" <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
thanks Pat. wonderful. now let's see you stand on one leg and touch your nose with your fingertip. :-) -- seriously
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:33:34 -0500Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] spam and alonenessFrom: ae.dropper@juno.comTo be without the belief in a thought, is to be without a sense of "separation" [beyond the necessary proprioceptive sense of such]. In the moments where there is a thought of "me" with another thought of "my life" it can be asked "Is this possible?" Is it possible that there could be a "me" that is separate from "my life?" Amazingly enough, there are these beliefs and feelings and deep sensations that there could be a "me" that is separate from "my life." This brings with it a sense of necessity to actually "treat" "my life" as separate from "me." To control it, to change it, to dislike it, to like it. This "my life" thought, can give a sensation that this "my life" is much much 'larger' than "me." And here "my life" can translate in sensation and feeling as "the world" and "the world," in the sensation [of the thought] can thus get vastly larger than "me." And we take refuge in a "friendship" or a "home" as though these are the only places where we can find any rest. Little islands of "safety" and "security" to huddle in for respite from "the world." Writing is great, because in writing there they are; the beliefs plunked down, sitting still, right before my eyes. Those things that create the sensations of reality, just sitting there staring back at me. If one adds after every believed thought on the paper, the additional phrase "This is what it feels like" the document is more complete. The feelings will be some variation on good feeling or bad feeling but with the belief there comes the feeling that "this is true," that "this is what is." We think we are reporting (Thought is simply telling me the way things are) but what we are doing is creating (Thought is affecting feeling and thus, perception of "reality"). And "we" are not even doing it, because "we" [here] is another thought, another belief. And an "attachment" occurs between the two thoughts, that comes of the peculiar structure of the language of the thoughts. The thought of "I" as the 'maker' of "of "my life" is in the structure of the language. And there is truth in this, is there not? This thought of "I" as "making" "my life" is the experience of "my life." In order to achieve this though, this proprietorship, separation is necessary. For this life to be this "mine," property lines need to be drawn. What is "not mine" [the edges]. "not my life" needs to be determined. And the edges of "my life" are the points where it is separated from "the rest of the world." And with this comes a feeling, a sense, a deep conviction, of separation. A separation way beyond any proprioceptive needs of the organism, a separation built and continually reconstructed by belief [largely implicit] in the language structure of reflexive thought's delivery system. The combination of inquiry into the truth of each thought, along with the "passion" to stay with the feelings as much as possible is a workable formula for freedom from the sense of separateness [that "separateness" that shows itself in any distress or discomfort with that which is "beyond the 'property lines' of the thought of "me" or "mine"]. We can express ourselves for years, as in journaling, and be thinking any number of things about such expression. We can think of it as 'getting it out of us'. We can think of it as 'making archive material' or biography. We can think of it as 'working with language; refining or improving ways of saying things. We can think of it in a lot of ways. But we can also think of it as "the best prerequisite to the inquiry process that there is." We can think of it as a goldmine of opportunity. And incidentally, the structure of language, as in using the phrase "We can think of it" instead of the phrase "The thought occurs" [which incidentally might be helpful] is not necessary. What is necessary is that the beliefs in these thoughts as truths [any thoughts, as truths] needs to fall away. And it can fall away. And it does fall away. And this is what the emphasis on proprioception [the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception] is all about. It is about a seeing; a seeing that has nothing at all to do with thinking. Except that it is a "seeing" of the thinking process. A seeing of the thought process in the entirety of its course of movement. Without belief in the thoughts, the thoughts pass through as clouds that are a configuration which is noticed. With the belief in thoughts, the belief in a thought is its entryway into the entire neurochemistry and neurophysiology of the body. And this is what makes conviction that these thoughts are "the truth." -- funny Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:08:40 -0800 (PST) Karilen Mays <tubakari@yahoo.com> writes:
Hello, group exploring online, There are couple things I would like to talk about. It is of course great that new people are joining in. However, I have so many messages, especially from Alan, that they are going in my spam folder and I just cant keep up. I may go on vacation mode again. I think it is awesome that Susan and Franis are here because you all just seem authentic and inspiring -- the types of people who are "good" at dialogue. It is difficult for me to find the "real" messages when so much of what is sent just reads like spam to me. So this list is actually spam right now in a sense is the first thing. What value do those messages add? (Not that mine adds more; you can judge that.) The second thing I want to talk about it just some "food for thought" about my own experience lately. I know it is a limited snapshot, but speaking from our own experiences and feelings is a great way to have real dialogue, especially when it (our interpretations of the experiences and future experiences) is up for investigation. Lately, I have been emotionally raw. The last few months, and even the last year have been fairly intense. Have attributed it to exhaustion some of the time, but I wonder what else is happening here. Many of us know something about human and adult development, ranging from Piaget, Maslow, Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, Kegan, Torbert, Beck and Cowan, etc. (If any of those names are not familiar, we can talk further.) There have been some intense contractions, physically and emotionally lately. So, given that development is not a straight line, or even stair steps, but let's say a dialectical spiral of patterns that is evolving, so nothing is a given...:) my "self assessment" is that I may be engaging more of my capacity than ever before and I dont know if that means I am "going to the next level of development" or hitting a pathological place, or a good place. Luckily I feel like I can be supported in this at work and through a few of my friends, whatever it is, though one aspect I will say a bit more about is being alone. But first, some other aspects: I feel this deep, deep, tension in my stomach, and my heart area feels very raw, large, and warm. I realize in a sense I am story telling through this whole email. I did not plan to write it until a few moments ago, so maybe something interesting or provoking will be here, maybe not. (Yes, I have a bias for unplanned activities...) Back to the "symptoms" I've been noticing. There is a sense of separation, of woundedness, that I tend to wallow in. A small comment from someone can send me to a place of doubting if I really know anything, and if I am just a joke of a person. Yet I know that "my" capacity to experience and make sense of reality, in happy ecstatic places as well as dark lonely places in the psyche, is beyond what I seem to know. I can sort of trust my adaptogenic nature as a human and consciousness to take care of me. I dont know if it makes the disgust with myself and the world any easier to hold, but so far Im still here...or something is. The realization of life lately, or maybe even oneness, for me has included a flavor of aloneness that I have always known, but when I was younger, I wanted it to go away and called it depression at times. As we are unique beings, no person can ever truly understand another. For what is there to understand, and who is doing it? The realization, I am alone...has really schocked me. I am inquiring into it and do not wish to hold on to it longer than it serves, but in a way it can be freeing. To truly realize this liberates me from the need for others to "get me." Then I am more available to be with them in a non-wanting way, except to allow them to be who they are by listening and seeing them. The fact is some people get me more than others. It is fine if some of us just dont get each other. That is why there are millions of people...so we can be seen, met, and supported by someone -- not everyone at everytime. So to play with this thought-feeling of woundedness and aloneness which is at times isolating, can provide a lot of opening. We can inquire all the way to the level of seeing that there is no one to be understood, and that we are all understanding each other together...so this is just where I am at. On this beginning of winter, when the days begin to lengthen and the nights grow shorter, I am contemplative as I head to 15 hours of nighttime partying. What is there for me/us (yes, us) to do in the world this year? What beliefs and parts of self/psyche will I discover and welcome, or let go of? Who is letting go of them? How can I, sort of get out of the way, of my own development while taking an empowering stand for my values, knowing that they are going to change and they are not the final story? Or is this what we effortlessly do because it is our destiny if anything is? How can I have an impact in the next year? How am I fulfilling my unlimited capacity? What do I/we want to create in this next day, next year? Anyone have any answers or other useful guiding questions for us? What do we want to explore this year? Who are we? Maybe what I have said will provoke more inquiry. If there is a goal, then that is it. And of course, I expect to be seen and understood by some of you because we are all here together, and I have certain general ideas about the capacities of this group...other than that I am sick of hearing myself talk so I will close this. Thank you all... Love,Kari
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogueinfo: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/8d440e98/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 24 01:12:00 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:19:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com><476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F><A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com><027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME><c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com><89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
<BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
feeling your aloneness?
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Funny@Dancing.Org
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500
This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was to point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become suspect. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves are even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to our assumed selves?)
Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us can't afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion are deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a treasure?:
http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
~funny~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071223/fc9aa7ae/attachment.html
From bolinas_forever at yahoo.com Mon Dec 24 01:13:28 2007
From: bolinas_forever at yahoo.com (Franis)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:20:53 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712231450u1bef48b2he0ca700b84d2c64@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F>
<A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com>
<027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME>
<c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com>
<89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
<039001c845b1$8b554b90$4577480c@HOME>
<c47283890712231450u1bef48b2he0ca700b84d2c64@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f6040a0a0712231613h174b2a0k9df4290303b42b60@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Irene, I'll do that.
Methinks we've had this conversation over and over...
Many of us together eventually decided that unsubbing people who do not
respect the groups customs, was a necessary evil that we had to install to
minimize the whole group being terrorized. In that we're similar to
Bushies...who always mention terroism or puts some terror tactic in the news
to get people in line again when he wants to control them. However, our
objective in minimizing terrorism isn't control of the rest of the list, but
to free people to not have to discuss what Pit derails us into discussing -
ad infinum. I have come to believe that it's not WHAT you do, but it is HOW
you do it that are the important distinctions. So where we draw the lines
says something about our priorities, limits, boundaries, etc. Of course
having one's boundaries violated or challenged can teach and educate. I look
for the distinction between motives- all the while realizing that it is me
who is assigning the motive and not the other person. It's always best to
ask, and if the other person cannot or will not answer for whatever reason,
their actions speak for them.
As far as I can tell, our line of intolerance has been drawn at classic
Internet "troll" techniques, which quickly become, from my experience with
Peter/Pit and substitutions, pretty much the same as spamming.
Where the rubber meets the road is in communication - if you tell someone
how their behavior is affecting you, this is the first part. Say that they
reassure you that your assignment of their motives is wrong and they meant
more constructive outcomes - well, then you would expect them to compromise
by mitigating or tempering their behavior to meet you somewhat in the middle
as the agreement between you evolves. Pit does not do this, he insists on
his right to chaos, challenging everyone to welcome his childish spamming -
and the longer it goes on, the further he goes with it, until he is
mail-bombing the list along with certain people on the list that he chooses
for some mystery reason as targets.
I have said it before and I'll say it again - making up your own language or
words, although it's interesting experiment, creates a clique that excludes
others, especially those who write in English as their non-native language.
I am for inclusion. Pit/peter is a pain in the ass because he gratuitously
makes up words/ uses text messaging shortcuts and just generally
deliberately demands the reader to put out more and more effort to
understand him, while offering little content beyond tantrums.
well, I guess it's not much different in a way than having the identity
conversation over and over, but I do not blame DonLay for his insistence in
his point of view because as time has gone on, he has mitigated his
expressions of it...and he writes in English.
I'd love to talk in person with anyone here too - I've even tried to
contact/meet Peter/Pit and he didn't want to talk with me.
Franis Engel, in Kamuela, Hawaii
On 12/23/07, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> KI: Anyone who wants to talk to me, my phone is 646 698 5044. If you're
> coming to NYC, I'm ready, willing and able to meet you, contrary to other
> people on this list! And Don, if you recall, I told you I hope to see you
> in London. If I go to Dresden, I'll make it a point to stop and see you
> there whether I go to the Bohm conference or not. And if I wanted to phone
> you in California, I could. Your address and number come up on People
> Search. And yes, I talked to Peter R on the phone he helped install on my
> computer.
>
> It's the people who run away from phone calls and personal contact I
> wonder about.
>
> btw, I'm hard of hearing, and I have caller ID. If I don't recognize the
> phone number, I watch to see what comes up. All you have to do is speak
> loudly, call my name, and identify yourself. I'll pick up if I recognize
> you. Don't leave a message because the machine distorts voices beyond
> recognition. You'd need to email me and tell me you called. Any more
> questions?
>
> Get a grip, people!
>
> On Dec 23, 2007 5:17 PM, Susan Clemons <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pete. Since I'm the one who threw your name in the hat I will be
> > the first to apologize if I'm wrong. And judging from this article it seems
> > that it's very possible I am wrong. And I enjoyed the article. And I think
> > you're quite right about becoming paranoid and jumping to conclusions about
> > people.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Peter Renzland <Funny@Dancing.Org>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 23, 2007 2:43 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> >
> > This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
> > Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was to
> > point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
> >
> > We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment
> > someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become
> > *suspect*. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves are
> > even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to our
> > assumed selves?)
> >
> > Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
> > And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
> > Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
> >
> > Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us can't
> > afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
> > And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion are
> > deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071223/26654df9/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 24 01:13:36 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:21:02 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com><476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F><A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com><027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME><c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com><89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
<BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
<03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
always
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:00 -0700
feeling your aloneness?
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
From: Funny@Dancing.OrgTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was to point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become suspect. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves are even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to our assumed selves?)
Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us can't afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion are deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a treasure?:
http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
~funny~
_________________________________________________________________
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/42d71b9e/attachment.html
From bolinas_forever at yahoo.com Mon Dec 24 01:17:54 2007
From: bolinas_forever at yahoo.com (Franis)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:25:21 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F>
<A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com>
<027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME>
<c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com>
<89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
<BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
<03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
Rob, you were never a child? - Franis
On 12/23/07, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> always
>
> ------------------------------
> From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:00 -0700
>
> feeling your aloneness?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
>
> sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
>
> ------------------------------
> From: Funny@Dancing.Org
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500
>
> This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
> Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was to
> point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
>
> We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment
> someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become *
> suspect*. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves are
> even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to our
> assumed selves?)
>
> Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
> And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
> Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
>
> Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us can't
> afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
> And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion are
> deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
>
>
> I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a
> treasure?:
>
> http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
>
> ~funny~
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!<http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071223/519c3aed/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 24 01:20:04 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:27:31 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com><476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F><A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com><027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME><c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com><89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com><EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org><039001c845b1$8b554b90$4577480c@HOME><c47283890712231450u1bef48b2he0ca700b84d2c64@mail.gmail.com>
<f6040a0a0712231613h174b2a0k9df4290303b42b60@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <042101c845c2$bc3bb260$4577480c@HOME>
Hi Franis and welcome back! How's Hawaii?
This is very well said!
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Franis
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
Thanks Irene, I'll do that.
Methinks we've had this conversation over and over...
Many of us together eventually decided that unsubbing people who do not respect the groups customs, was a necessary evil that we had to install to minimize the whole group being terrorized. In that we're similar to Bushies...who always mention terroism or puts some terror tactic in the news to get people in line again when he wants to control them. However, our objective in minimizing terrorism isn't control of the rest of the list, but to free people to not have to discuss what Pit derails us into discussing - ad infinum. I have come to believe that it's not WHAT you do, but it is HOW you do it that are the important distinctions. So where we draw the lines says something about our priorities, limits, boundaries, etc. Of course having one's boundaries violated or challenged can teach and educate. I look for the distinction between motives- all the while realizing that it is me who is assigning the motive and not the other person. It's always best to ask, and if the other person cannot or will not answer for whatever reason, their actions speak for them.
As far as I can tell, our line of intolerance has been drawn at classic Internet "troll" techniques, which quickly become, from my experience with Peter/Pit and substitutions, pretty much the same as spamming.
Where the rubber meets the road is in communication - if you tell someone how their behavior is affecting you, this is the first part. Say that they reassure you that your assignment of their motives is wrong and they meant more constructive outcomes - well, then you would expect them to compromise by mitigating or tempering their behavior to meet you somewhat in the middle as the agreement between you evolves. Pit does not do this, he insists on his right to chaos, challenging everyone to welcome his childish spamming - and the longer it goes on, the further he goes with it, until he is mail-bombing the list along with certain people on the list that he chooses for some mystery reason as targets.
I have said it before and I'll say it again - making up your own language or words, although it's interesting experiment, creates a clique that excludes others, especially those who write in English as their non-native language. I am for inclusion. Pit/peter is a pain in the ass because he gratuitously makes up words/ uses text messaging shortcuts and just generally deliberately demands the reader to put out more and more effort to understand him, while offering little content beyond tantrums.
well, I guess it's not much different in a way than having the identity conversation over and over, but I do not blame DonLay for his insistence in his point of view because as time has gone on, he has mitigated his expressions of it...and he writes in English.
I'd love to talk in person with anyone here too - I've even tried to contact/meet Peter/Pit and he didn't want to talk with me.
Franis Engel, in Kamuela, Hawaii
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071223/10ec0195/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 24 01:26:26 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:33:50 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F>
<A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com>
<027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME>
<c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com>
<89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
<BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
<03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
<f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W17AB963F8D1E49E02634A6DC590@phx.gbl>
What am I supposed to answer to that Franis? Am I not human seeming? Don't I pass the Turing test with you?
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:17:54 -1000From: bolinas_forever@yahoo.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseRob, you were never a child? - Franis
On 12/23/07, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
always
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:00 -0700
feeling your aloneness?
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
From: Funny@Dancing.OrgTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was to point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become suspect. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves are even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to our assumed selves?)
Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us can't afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion are deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a treasure?:
http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
~funny~
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/7d4216ef/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 24 01:31:26 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:38:50 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com><476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F><A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com><027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME><c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com><89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com><EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org><BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl><03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME><BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
<f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W17AB963F8D1E49E02634A6DC590@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <043f01c845c4$52620040$4577480c@HOME>
hahahaha!! Only when you write your own poetry.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
What am I supposed to answer to that Franis? Am I not human seeming? Don't I pass the Turing test with you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:17:54 -1000
From: bolinas_forever@yahoo.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
Rob, you were never a child? - Franis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071223/c83e333e/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 24 01:50:30 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 24 01:57:55 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <043f01c845c4$52620040$4577480c@HOME>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com><476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F><A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com><027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME><c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com><89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com><EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org><BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl><03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME><BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
<f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W17AB963F8D1E49E02634A6DC590@phx.gbl>
<043f01c845c4$52620040$4577480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W111A57FE622F88D71BC40DC590@phx.gbl>
what's the difference between that and peter, peter?
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:31:26 -0700
hahahaha!! Only when you write your own poetry.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
What am I supposed to answer to that Franis? Am I not human seeming? Don't I pass the Turing test with you?
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:17:54 -1000From: bolinas_forever@yahoo.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseRob, you were never a child? - Franis
_________________________________________________________________
Fancy some celeb spotting?
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/8faec693/attachment.html
From rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk Mon Dec 24 02:25:48 2007
From: rob.mooney at hotmail.co.uk (rob mooney)
Date: Mon Dec 24 02:33:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F>
<A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com>
<027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME>
<c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com>
<89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
<BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
<03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
<f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W20C890873C25756278DEA8DC590@phx.gbl>
'the Eskimo-Aleut language does not name things that already exist, but that naming brings them into being. For example, when a child is named at birth, an old woman stands by while the mother is in labour, calling out all the different eligible names she can think of. The child comes out when its name is called.'
(Edmund Carpenter quoted in Harry Wilmer, Quest for Silence.)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:17:54 -1000From: bolinas_forever@yahoo.comTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseRob, you were never a child? - Franis
On 12/23/07, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
always
From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.netTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:00 -0700
feeling your aloneness?
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
From: Funny@Dancing.OrgTo: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.orgSubject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuseDate: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was to point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become suspect. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves are even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to our assumed selves?)
Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us can't afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion are deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a treasure?:
http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
~funny~
Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/e9c0ee04/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Mon Dec 24 00:59:52 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec 24 08:21:07 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was:
messagefrom admin
In-Reply-To: <03e001c845b9$c3c25ba0$4577480c@HOME>
References: <20071223.171035.3184.244.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<053E6AF7-9AC8-4710-9FA2-F23FA345A9C2@dc.rr.com>
<03e001c845b9$c3c25ba0$4577480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <8D43A5F5-A416-401C-BC95-FDE30A786DA7@dc.rr.com>
Yes, but as I recall in recent years you have been living on your
own, Would having a housemate, partner, husband, etc. make it any
different? Or for that matter, a business partner, or bridge partner?
don
On Dec 23, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
> Hmmmmm.........well, it seems to me that change happens whether we
> want it to or not. I don't think the desire for change has
> anything to do with ideas of good or bad. My experience tells me
> that change is not good or bad, it just is. However, wanting
> people to be different than what we perceive them to be seems to be
> something very different. Wanting them to be different (than what
> they are being) usually means wanting to control what that
> difference is. This seems to tie in with the need to control
> ourselves, our lives and others. Letting go of that need to
> control and simply allowing change to happen has been my experience
> of freedom.
>
> Susan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different -
> was: messagefrom admin
>
> scroll down please
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
>> of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
>> It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
>> regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
>> even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be
>> different"
>> [or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on
>> the planet
>> than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
>>
>> I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in
>> their turn,
>> "wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right
>> now, suggesting
>> that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to
>> check that out. :-D
>> Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just
>> interested in looking
>> at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific
>> thought that triggers it. The
>> thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
>
> I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad,
> do we find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change?
> Somehow, I don't think so. And would not wanting ourselves or
> others to change be good or bad or better or worse.
>>
>> Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long
>> time, and wanting
>> them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this
>> wanting them to change?
>> Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
>
> Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the
> inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
>
> don
>>
>> -- funny
>>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071223/8c724b77/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Mon Dec 24 08:24:35 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec 24 08:32:05 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W20C890873C25756278DEA8DC590@phx.gbl>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<476E8A2C.000001.07956@VAIO-584793128F>
<A12A684E-268D-4BEC-AA4E-D6BDFD0F55B3@dc.rr.com>
<027701c8458a$123dc2e0$4577480c@HOME>
<c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com>
<89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
<BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
<03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
<f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W20C890873C25756278DEA8DC590@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <B78C26C9-1F98-43D0-A4C9-A2D3C5CD8FE8@dc.rr.com>
An interesting aside: Bohm had an anthropologist friend who had lived
with the Aleut. He was the one who told Bohm about the regular
meetings where the people just talked to together and when the
meeting was over they all kniew what to do without anyone giving
instructions. But from the sound of this there may have been much
more in their culture that allowed this. I shall try to chase down
your reference.
don
On Dec 23, 2007, at 5:25 PM, rob mooney wrote:
> 'the Eskimo-Aleut language does not name things that already exist,
> but that naming brings them into being. For example, when a child
> is named at birth, an old woman stands by while the mother is in
> labour, calling out all the different eligible names she can think
> of. The child comes out when its name is called.'
> (Edmund Carpenter quoted in Harry Wilmer, Quest for Silence.)
>
>
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:17:54 -1000
> From: bolinas_forever@yahoo.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
>
> Rob, you were never a child? - Franis
>
> On 12/23/07, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> always
>
> From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:00 -0700
>
>
> feeling your aloneness?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rob mooney
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
>
> sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
>
> From: Funny@Dancing.Org
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500
>
> This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
>
> Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was
> to point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them
> disappear.
>
> We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment
> someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves
> become suspect. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we
> ourselves are even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting
> and pretending to our assumed selves?)
>
> Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
> And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
> Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
>
> Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us
> can't afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
> And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion
> are deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
>
>
> I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a
> treasure?:
>
> http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
>
> ~funny~
>
>
>
>
> Messenger on the move. Text MSN to 63463 now!
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071223/41da4537/attachment.html
From Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 24 15:20:21 2007
From: Susan.Joy at worldnet.att.net (Susan Clemons)
Date: Mon Dec 24 15:27:56 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different -
was:messagefrom admin
References: <20071223.171035.3184.244.ae.dropper@juno.com><053E6AF7-9AC8-4710-9FA2-F23FA345A9C2@dc.rr.com><03e001c845b9$c3c25ba0$4577480c@HOME>
<8D43A5F5-A416-401C-BC95-FDE30A786DA7@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001a01c84638$1f712200$2c77480c@HOME>
Make a difference in what way? Living alone doesn't mean that I don't interact with people. I have had business partners, close friendships and room mates, etc. I didn't say it was simple or easy to let go of the need to control, only that it's been my experience that when I am able to do it I have experienced more freedom and that includes more freedom within my personal relationships.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was:messagefrom admin
Yes, but as I recall in recent years you have been living on your own, Would having a housemate, partner, husband, etc. make it any different? Or for that matter, a business partner, or bridge partner?
don
On Dec 23, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
Hmmmmm.........well, it seems to me that change happens whether we want it to or not. I don't think the desire for change has anything to do with ideas of good or bad. My experience tells me that change is not good or bad, it just is. However, wanting people to be different than what we perceive them to be seems to be something very different. Wanting them to be different (than what they are being) usually means wanting to control what that difference is. This seems to tie in with the need to control ourselves, our lives and others. Letting go of that need to control and simply allowing change to happen has been my experience of freedom.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was: messagefrom admin
scroll down please
On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be different"
[or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on the planet
than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in their turn,
"wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right now, suggesting
that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to check that out. :-D
Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just interested in looking
at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific thought that triggers it. The
thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad, do we find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change? Somehow, I don't think so. And would not wanting ourselves or others to change be good or bad or better or worse.
Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long time, and wanting
them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this wanting them to change?
Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/5bfcfdd0/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Mon Dec 24 15:53:45 2007
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Mon Dec 24 16:01:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different -
was:messagefrom admin
In-Reply-To: <001a01c84638$1f712200$2c77480c@HOME>
Message-ID: <C3951609.FDCB%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
I have had the same experience. And while I also live alone, I have some
very close and intense relationships, particularly with my daughter and
grandson, and even here, the more I let go, the better the relationship.
Probably the biggest challenge, and most successful outcome was letting go
of trying to keep my mother alive.
Lynne
On 12/24/07 7:20 AM, "Susan Clemons" <Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Make a difference in what way? Living alone doesn't mean that I don't
> interact with people. I have had business partners, close friendships and
> room mates, etc. I didn't say it was simple or easy to let go of the need to
> control, only that it's been my experience that when I am able to do it I have
> experienced more freedom and that includes more freedom within my personal
> relationships.
>
> Susan
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: donald factor <mailto:DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different -
>> was:messagefrom admin
>>
>> Yes, but as I recall in recent years you have been living on your own, Would
>> having a housemate, partner, husband, etc. make it any different? Or for that
>> matter, a business partner, or bridge partner?
>>
>> don
>>
>> On Dec 23, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Susan Clemons wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmmmm.........well, it seems to me that change happens whether we want it
>>> to or not. I don't think the desire for change has anything to do with
>>> ideas of good or bad. My experience tells me that change is not good or
>>> bad, it just is. However, wanting people to be different than what we
>>> perceive them to be seems to be something very different. Wanting them to
>>> be different (than what they are being) usually means wanting to control
>>> what that difference is. This seems to tie in with the need to control
>>> ourselves, our lives and others. Letting go of that need to control and
>>> simply allowing change to happen has been my experience of freedom.
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: donald factor <mailto:DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
>>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:05 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was:
>>>> messagefrom admin
>>>>
>>>> scroll down please
>>>> On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
>>>>> of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
>>>>> It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
>>>>> regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
>>>>> even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be
>>>>> different"
>>>>> [or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on the
>>>>> planet
>>>>> than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in their
>>>>> turn,
>>>>> "wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right now,
>>>>> suggesting
>>>>> that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to check that
>>>>> out. :-D
>>>>> Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just
>>>>> interested in looking
>>>>> at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific thought
>>>>> that triggers it. The
>>>>> thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad, do we
>>>> find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change? Somehow, I don't
>>>> think so. And would not wanting ourselves or others to change be good or
>>>> bad or better or worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long time,
>>>>> and wanting
>>>>> them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this wanting
>>>>> them to change?
>>>>> Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable. But
>>>> it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
>>>>
>>>> don
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/2b732b71/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 16:25:43 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 24 16:33:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <B78C26C9-1F98-43D0-A4C9-A2D3C5CD8FE8@dc.rr.com>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712230937p4b12a767ua725d17f61efe644@mail.gmail.com>
<89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
<BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
<03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
<f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W20C890873C25756278DEA8DC590@phx.gbl>
<B78C26C9-1F98-43D0-A4C9-A2D3C5CD8FE8@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712240725u6d8c00bdsa9724cdc8a72c377@mail.gmail.com>
But from the sound of this there may have been much more in their culture
that allowed this.
KI: You bet there was more!
On Dec 24, 2007 2:24 AM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> An interesting aside: Bohm had an anthropologist friend who had lived with
> the Aleut. He was the one who told Bohm about the regular meetings where the
> people just talked to together and when the meeting was over they all kniew
> what to do without anyone giving instructions. But from the sound of this
> there may have been much more in their culture that allowed this. I shall
> try to chase down your reference.
> don
>
>
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 5:25 PM, rob mooney wrote:
>
> 'the Eskimo-Aleut language does not name things that already exist, but
> that naming brings them into being. For example, when a child is named at
> birth, an old woman stands by while the mother is in labour, calling out all
> the different eligible names she can think of. The child comes out when its
> name is called.'
> (Edmund Carpenter quoted in Harry Wilmer, Quest for Silence.)
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:17:54 -1000
> From: bolinas_forever@yahoo.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
>
> Rob, you were never a child? - Franis
>
> On 12/23/07, *rob mooney* <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> always
>
> ------------------------------
> From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:00 -0700
>
> feeling your aloneness?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
>
> sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
>
> ------------------------------
> From: Funny@Dancing.Org
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500
>
> This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
> Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was to
> point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
>
> We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment
> someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become *
> suspect*. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves are
> even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to our
> assumed selves?)
>
> Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
> And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
> Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
>
> Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us can't
> afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
> And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion are
> deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
>
>
> I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a
> treasure?:
>
> http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
>
> ~funny~
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/4f34c21e/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Dec 24 17:45:16 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Dec 24 17:55:06 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Message-ID: <20071224.114654.3184.267.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I?m not there. (lynne)
I hear and seem to understand.
This might be of interest though [or then] -
Upon hearing the hototogisu, a cuckoolike bird known for its soft,
nostalgic call, Basho wrote:
I am in Kyoto
Yet at the voice of the Hototogisu
Longing for Kyoto
Is it not the believed thoughts/felts about 'freedom' that bind
consciousness
to an illusion of 'non freedom'?
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:55 -0700 Lynne Tolk
<lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Wonderful vision of trust in the moment. But difficult individually, I
don?t think I?ve seen it in a group. I know what you are talking about,
but I just catch glimpses, I?m not there.
On 12/23/07 2:39 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
There is nothing that seems more vulnerable to disruption than a group of
"suspenders."
But such "vulnerability" is "suspension" misunderstood. Because when
thought is suspended
["lifted" from 'itself as the basis of behavior'], appropriate action is
swift, certain, and seamless
with intelligence. I've seen it happen many times - a group acting
organically in concert with one
another in relation to an unexpected disruption. Beautiful stuff. But
then some of the people
get a little nervous and begin to "meet" to figure out what to do if
something like that
happens again. Recipe for group impotence. A group is just like an
individual. It can
act as an organism complete with an "immune" [or "defensive"] system.
Except
we've forgotten how - forgotten that there is no "how." Each circumstance
is unique. Pre - planning bungles, applies a pre-arranged response to a
completely new situation. Applicability is rare and accidental.
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:29:28 -0700 Lynne Tolk
<lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Disruption is the issue. It may or may not be abusive. Confusion works,
overload works, grabbing and holding everyone?s attention works. When
this happens, others in the group becomes silent, caught in arguments
with the disrupter, or they leave. This effectively kills dialogue, and
since that is what we are supposed to be here for, it cannot be
tolerated.
Lynne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/7b17fa41/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Mon Dec 24 17:46:00 2007
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Mon Dec 24 17:55:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was: message
from admin
Message-ID: <20071224.114654.3184.268.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable.
But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it, (df)
These kinds of thoughts about freedom, or any kind of thoughts for that
matter, [if believed] are literal predictors of the 'sense' of it. We get
trapped in the map every time. There is no other trap.
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:05:21 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com>
writes:
scroll down please
On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be
different"
[or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on the
planet
than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in their
turn,
"wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right now,
suggesting
that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to check that
out. :-D
Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just
interested in looking
at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific thought
that triggers it. The
thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad, do we
find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change? Somehow, I don't
think so. And would not wanting ourselves or others to change be good or
bad or better or worse.
Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long time,
and wanting
them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this wanting
them to change?
Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable.
But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
don
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:45:57 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com>
writes:
KI: That's all I ever wanted him to do - be civil. Be honest and civil
at the same time. And that's what he's forced to do now that his 'arsey'
persona is unsubscribed. Make no mistake - s/he's still here. Hello,
Pit.
On Dec 23, 2007 10:38 AM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Does it make a difference if he's subscribed, so long as he isn't being
personally insulting to people and acting like an arse?
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:21:00 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
I am informed that pit is still subscribed here under yet another name,
possibly more than one. He has written to Irene and quoted something she
wrote to the list after he was unsubscribed. So, keep your eyes open for
any hints. Susan has a very keen eye for such things. She was the first
to spot that AEB was pit.
don
On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Don Lay wrote:
Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the
bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own
server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam filter. --
admin
Under the circumstances, I believe it is not inappropriate to pass on the
following which I thought was sent to the Bohm list but was actually
directed to one of Peter's addresses:
[was something about Failure]
If dialogue, from the Greek dia logos indicates reason, is it reasonable
to expect a dialogue to be the use of reason and to eliminate the
ignoring of or distortion of reason and meaning?
It seems entirely reasonable, rational, and perhaps more to the point --
meaningful -- to not allow the lack of, or distortion of reason and
meaning, to occur in place of dialogue.
Some questions occur:
May meaningful communication occur without reason, ratio, meaning?
Does communication occur absent reason, ratio, and meaning?
When reason, ration, meaning is distorted or absent, is communication
possible? Is meaningful communication possible?
My view is that the moderator's present actions are reasonable, rational
and meaningful and are therefore, dialogical. -dl
http:/// wrote:
You are now unsubscribed from Bohm_Dialogue
The 'good'/'bad' news first: Pit is out (gone, booted, unsubbed,
'taken-care-of', dedialoged...).
The 'better'/'worse' knews next: s'he is NOT. S'he is still verii much
here, among yoUs.
Once again, D-Factor could not "take it", could not "handle it"... ~ so
he "pulled the plug" (oncommunication, and thus, at --the core of--
dialogue).
Once again, B-Dialogue could not "take it", could not "handle it"... ~ so
you "pulled the plug" (on communication, and thus, at --the core of--
dialogue).
Once again, B-Dialogue=you have failed, re failing.
Once again, the "problem/s" did not and do not and will not "go away"
because of this move(away).
Once again you will talk another trillion years 'penetratingly' about
(B)Dialogue, its beauty (beast): w/o, once again, for once, just once,
being able to let it happen: (B)Dialogue, to let it takgive place, time
(tice)... dobeing touched (penetration, see above) by it. Once again you
findy that groupi strength ("coherence", cohesion) in what Don Lay likes
to title: "Acting & Pretending". Once again, you wo'managed to gather
around the camp&fire&place of vanities, and superficialities, and
phonitities, softplaying, neckmassagings, makeupping..... And if it was
not so pathetictictic, I would congratulate you.
Once again, the 'problem' pit will not go away by moving, pushing,
pullpushitting him/her/it offlist, & under the 'rug' (of
"self&awareness").
Once again, the "peters" of this world ARE a part of tas, ARE, thusly, a
part of YOU. ARE systemic, systematictictic.... And, like Bohm's story
about the woman who keeps beating herself (while) under the i'm-pressure
to be under attack: the attacked=the attacker= the attack. So, by 'any
means': go 'ahead', and keep beating yourselves, bones, while you drool
over that the-observer=the-observed=.... stuff(ing). bood luckg.
ii is still hear, and watching, and in 'awe'.... see you in a bit/pit.
Tschuess )(
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
From: dialogue-admin
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the
bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own
server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam filter.
admin
Return-Path: <humanimal@thinkg.net>
Delivery-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
Received: from host52.host52-server.com (host52.host52-server.com
[66.49.137.121])
by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu25) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
id 0MKstg-1J680E0KyC-0004k8 ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
X-ClientAddr: 127.0.0.1
Received: from www.thinkg.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by host52.host52-server.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
lBMHJ33G015778;
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:03 -0500
Received: from 70.23.253.227
(SquirrelMail authenticated user humanimal@thinkg.net )
by www.thinkg.net with HTTP;
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
Message-ID: < 50379.70.23.253.227.1198343948.squirrel@www.thinkg.net>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >
References: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Request to mailing list Bohm_D
From: humanimal@thinkg.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for
more information
X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet
E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-MailScanner-From: humanimal@thinkg.net
Envelope-To: w@david-bohm.net
Ooooooooooh,
noooooooooo
problema, senor
will just use one of the other few hand-full-full-fulls ;---))
ciao
cheers
.... later ... (wellaugh: soooon)
humanimal
> Your request to the Bohm_Dialogue mailing list
>
> Subscription request
>
> has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
> following reason for rejecting your request:
>
> "[No reason given]"
>
> Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
> at:
>
> bohm_dialogue-owner@david-bohm.org
>
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/30bc40a4/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Mon Dec 24 18:34:21 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec 24 18:41:57 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
In-Reply-To: <20071224.114654.3184.267.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071224.114654.3184.267.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <50CE7E71-128F-4A83-BDE4-24B4CBD0569E@dc.rr.com>
Lynne's opening line below reminds me of a fascinating movie we saw
the other night.
I'm Not Here is the title of a movie. It is the story of Bob Dylan
but told in a very postmodern way, Four different actors play Dylan
through four phases of his life - one of them a woman. HIs name is
never mentioned but the music is all his and the four phases speaks
eloquently about the question of identity, "I'm not here, I'm not
there" is the title of one of his songs, one that I had never run
across before.
don
On Dec 24, 2007, at 8:45 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> I?m not there. (lynne)
>
> I hear and seem to understand.
> This might be of interest though [or then] -
>
> Upon hearing the hototogisu, a cuckoolike bird known for its soft,
> nostalgic call, Basho wrote:
>
> I am in Kyoto
> Yet at the voice of the Hototogisu
> Longing for Kyoto
>
> Is it not the believed thoughts/felts about 'freedom' that bind
> consciousness
> to an illusion of 'non freedom'?
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:55 -0700 Lynne Tolk
> <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
> Wonderful vision of trust in the moment. But difficult
> individually, I don?t think I?ve seen it in a group. I know what
> you are talking about, but I just catch glimpses, I?m not there.
>
>
> On 12/23/07 2:39 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> There is nothing that seems more vulnerable to disruption than a
> group of "suspenders."
> But such "vulnerability" is "suspension" misunderstood. Because
> when thought is suspended
> ["lifted" from 'itself as the basis of behavior'], appropriate
> action is swift, certain, and seamless
> with intelligence. I've seen it happen many times - a group acting
> organically in concert with one
> another in relation to an unexpected disruption. Beautiful stuff.
> But then some of the people
> get a little nervous and begin to "meet" to figure out what to do
> if something like that
> happens again. Recipe for group impotence. A group is just like an
> individual. It can
> act as an organism complete with an "immune" [or "defensive"]
> system. Except
> we've forgotten how - forgotten that there is no "how." Each
> circumstance
> is unique. Pre - planning bungles, applies a pre-arranged response
> to a
> completely new situation. Applicability is rare and accidental.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:29:28 -0700 Lynne Tolk
> <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
> Disruption is the issue. It may or may not be abusive. Confusion
> works, overload works, grabbing and holding everyone?s attention
> works. When this happens, others in the group becomes silent,
> caught in arguments with the disrupter, or they leave. This
> effectively kills dialogue, and since that is what we are supposed
> to be here for, it cannot be tolerated.
>
> Lynne
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/32ba16d9/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Mon Dec 24 18:35:27 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec 24 18:43:08 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was: message
from admin
In-Reply-To: <20071224.114654.3184.268.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071224.114654.3184.268.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <92AFADB7-7318-4375-B3C4-191FBD7D6ED4@dc.rr.com>
But then isn't your version, or Bohm's version, also a trap?
don
On Dec 24, 2007, at 8:46 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the
> inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with
> it, (df)
>
> These kinds of thoughts about freedom, or any kind of thoughts for
> that matter, [if believed] are literal predictors of the 'sense' of
> it. We get trapped in the map every time. There is no other trap.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:05:21 -0800 donald factor
> <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
> scroll down please
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
>> of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
>> It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
>> regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
>> even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be
>> different"
>> [or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on
>> the planet
>> than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
>>
>> I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in
>> their turn,
>> "wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right
>> now, suggesting
>> that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to
>> check that out. :-D
>> Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just
>> interested in looking
>> at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific
>> thought that triggers it. The
>> thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
>
> I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad,
> do we find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change?
> Somehow, I don't think so. And would not wanting ourselves or
> others to change be good or bad or better or worse.
>>
>> Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long
>> time, and wanting
>> them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this
>> wanting them to change?
>> Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
>
> Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the
> inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
>
> don
>>
>> -- funny
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:45:57 -0500 "Irene Darcy"
>> <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
>> KI: That's all I ever wanted him to do - be civil. Be honest and
>> civil at the same time. And that's what he's forced to do now
>> that his 'arsey' persona is unsubscribed. Make no mistake - s/
>> he's still here. Hello, Pit.
>>
>> On Dec 23, 2007 10:38 AM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> Does it make a difference if he's subscribed, so long as he isn't
>> being personally insulting to people and acting like an arse?
>> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
>> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:21:00 -0800
>>
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>
>> I am informed that pit is still subscribed here under yet another
>> name, possibly more than one. He has written to Irene and quoted
>> something she wrote to the list after he was unsubscribed. So,
>> keep your eyes open for any hints. Susan has a very keen eye for
>> such things. She was the first to spot that AEB was pit.
>>
>> don
>>
>> On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Don Lay wrote:
>>
>> Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by
>> the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
>> a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his
>> own server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam
>> filter. -- admin
>>
>> Under the circumstances, I believe it is not inappropriate to pass
>> on the following which I thought was sent to the Bohm list but was
>> actually directed to one of Peter's addresses:
>>
>> [was something about Failure]
>>
>> If dialogue, from the Greek dia logos indicates reason, is it
>> reasonable to expect a dialogue to be the use of reason and to
>> eliminate the ignoring of or distortion of reason and meaning?
>>
>> It seems entirely reasonable, rational, and perhaps more to the
>> point -- meaningful -- to not allow the lack of, or distortion of
>> reason and meaning, to occur in place of dialogue.
>>
>> Some questions occur:
>>
>> May meaningful communication occur without reason, ratio, meaning?
>> Does communication occur absent reason, ratio, and meaning?
>>
>> When reason, ration, meaning is distorted or absent, is
>> communication possible? Is meaningful communication possible?
>>
>> My view is that the moderator's present actions are reasonable,
>> rational and meaningful and are therefore, dialogical. -dl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http:/// wrote:
>> You are now unsubscribed from Bohm_Dialogue
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The 'good'/'bad' news first: Pit is out (gone, booted, unsubbed,
>> 'taken-care-of', dedialoged...).
>>
>> The 'better'/'worse' knews next: s'he is NOT. S'he is still verii
>> much here, among yoUs.
>>
>> Once again, D-Factor could not "take it", could not "handle it"...
>> ~ so he "pulled the plug" (oncommunication, and thus, at --the
>> core of-- dialogue).
>>
>> Once again, B-Dialogue could not "take it", could not "handle
>> it"... ~ so you "pulled the plug" (on communication, and thus, at
>> --the core of-- dialogue).
>>
>> Once again, B-Dialogue=you have failed, re failing.
>>
>> Once again, the "problem/s" did not and do not and will not "go
>> away" because of this move(away).
>>
>> Once again you will talk another trillion years 'penetratingly'
>> about (B)Dialogue, its beauty (beast): w/o, once again, for once,
>> just once, being able to let it happen: (B)Dialogue, to let it
>> takgive place, time (tice)... dobeing touched
>> (penetration, see above) by it. Once again you findy that groupi
>> strength ("coherence", cohesion) in what Don Lay likes to title:
>> "Acting & Pretending". Once again, you wo'managed to gather around
>> the camp&fire&place of vanities, and superficialities, and
>> phonitities, softplaying, neckmassagings, makeupping..... And if
>> it was not so pathetictictic, I would congratulate you.
>>
>> Once again, the 'problem' pit will not go away by moving, pushing,
>> pullpushitting him/her/it offlist, & under the 'rug' (of
>> "self&awareness").
>>
>> Once again, the "peters" of this world ARE a part of tas, ARE,
>> thusly, a part of YOU. ARE systemic, systematictictic.... And,
>> like Bohm's story about the woman who keeps beating herself
>> (while) under the i'm-pressure to be under attack: the
>> attacked=the attacker= the attack. So, by 'any means': go 'ahead',
>> and keep beating yourselves, bones, while you drool over that the-
>> observer=the-observed=.... stuff(ing). bood luckg.
>>
>> ii is still hear, and watching, and in 'awe'.... see you in a bit/
>> pit.
>>
>> Tschuess )(
>>
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
>> Try it now.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: dialogue-admin
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 5:01 PM
>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
>>
>> Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by
>> the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
>> a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his
>> own server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam
>> filter.
>>
>> admin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Return-Path: <humanimal@thinkg.net>
>> Delivery-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
>> Received: from host52.host52-server.com (host52.host52-server.com
>> [66.49.137.121])
>> by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu25) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
>> id 0MKstg-1J680E0KyC-0004k8 ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
>> X-ClientAddr: 127.0.0.1
>> Received: from www.thinkg.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
>> by host52.host52-server.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
>> lBMHJ33G015778;
>> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:03 -0500
>> Received: from 70.23.253.227
>> (SquirrelMail authenticated user humanimal@thinkg.net )
>> by www.thinkg.net with HTTP;
>> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
>> Message-ID: < 50379.70.23.253.227.1198343948.squirrel@www.thinkg.net>
>> In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-
>> bohm.org >
>> References: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
>> Subject: Re: Request to mailing list Bohm_D
>> From: humanimal@thinkg.net
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>> Importance: Normal
>> X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP
>> for more information
>> X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your
>> Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
>> X-MailScanner-From: humanimal@thinkg.net
>> Envelope-To: w@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Ooooooooooh,
>> noooooooooo
>> problema, senor
>>
>> will just use one of the other few hand-full-full-fulls ;---))
>>
>> ciao
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> .... later ... (wellaugh: soooon)
>>
>> humanimal
>>
>>
>>
>> > Your request to the Bohm_Dialogue mailing list
>> >
>> > Subscription request
>> >
>> > has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
>> > following reason for rejecting your request:
>> >
>> > "[No reason given]"
>> >
>> > Any questions or comments should be directed to the list
>> administrator
>> > at:
>> >
>> > bohm_dialogue-owner@david-bohm.org
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>> Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
>> Charades!
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Irene
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/0eb7a492/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 18:57:40 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 24 19:05:14 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
In-Reply-To: <20071224.114654.3184.267.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20071224.114654.3184.267.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712240957j545725e6s7cc0ec15d1ad67cc@mail.gmail.com>
K: Don't know. Maybe you can help me find a matching metaphor here.
I woke up this morning with this proposition, and began to work it out. It
works!
In music, everything is interplay between consonance and dissonance. In
some respects, composition is essentially conflict resolution because tones
have the ability to be both, depending on the context the composer chooses.
We have both rhythmic and harmonic interplays of consonance & dissonance set
in the scale, and uncountable options. All the possibilities are there,
available and waiting for the composer to make a choice about what s/he will
bring into this perceptual (Explicate Order) domain. And over time, ways of
doing this have evolved that are principles applicable to new insights,
combinations, and styles. Most elementary is something called Anticipation
& Suspension. But this pov isn't taught. The suspension & anticipation
strategies that speak to this haven't been put in that context, and
especially singers and instrumentalists who do not have harmonic capacities
on their instruments have a very difficult time hearing harmony. It was
only Bohm, the interaction here on this list, the alchemical idea that the
monad contains all possibilities, and my teacher's insistence we put
everything in experiential contexts that made me see-hear it.
Are there not believed thoughts and felts that get in the way of that kind
of understanding? Therefore creativity in general? What could they be?
And could that serve as a metaphor for other thinkgs?
On Dec 24, 2007 11:45 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> I'm not there. (lynne)
>
> I hear and seem to understand.
> This might be of interest though [or then] -
>
> Upon hearing the *hototogisu,* a cuckoolike bird known for its soft,
> nostalgic call, Basho wrote:
>
> I am in Kyoto
> Yet at the voice of the Hototogisu
> Longing for Kyoto
>
> Is it not the believed thoughts/felts *about* 'freedom' that bind
> consciousness
> to an illusion of 'non freedom'?
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:55 -0700 Lynne Tolk <
> lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
>
> Wonderful vision of trust in the moment. But difficult individually, I
> don't think I've seen it in a group. I know what you are talking about, but
> I just catch glimpses, I'm not there.
>
>
> On 12/23/07 2:39 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> There is nothing that seems more vulnerable to disruption than a group of
> "suspenders."
> But such "vulnerability" is "suspension" misunderstood. Because when
> thought is suspended
> ["lifted" from 'itself as the basis of behavior'], appropriate action is
> swift, certain, and seamless
> with intelligence. I've seen it happen many times - a group acting
> organically in concert with one
> another in relation to an unexpected disruption. Beautiful stuff. But then
> some of the people
> get a little nervous and begin to "meet" to figure out what to do if
> something like that
> happens again. Recipe for group impotence. A group is just like an
> individual. It can
> act as an organism complete with an "immune" [or "defensive"] system.
> Except
> we've forgotten how - forgotten that there is no "how." Each circumstance
> is unique. Pre - planning bungles, applies a pre-arranged response to a
> completely new situation. Applicability is rare and accidental.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:29:28 -0700 Lynne Tolk <
> lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
>
> Disruption is the issue. It may or may not be abusive. Confusion works,
> overload works, grabbing and holding everyone's attention works. When this
> happens, others in the group becomes silent, caught in arguments with the
> disrupter, or they leave. This effectively kills dialogue, and since that
> is what we are supposed to be here for, it cannot be tolerated.
>
> Lynne
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/3ce596fa/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Mon Dec 24 19:13:24 2007
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Mon Dec 24 19:18:29 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1698821BA@msw2k.msw.local>
I've had no time to enter into the dialogue but got rather tired of some
of the stuff. Began to just click off.
I'm glad I read the following. It gave me courage to think about
entering in again.
Happy holidays to everyone and hopefully we'll figure out a way to deal
with the human ability to choose war rather than peace.
D.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Irene Darcy
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:58 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
K: Don't know. Maybe you can help me find a matching metaphor here.
I woke up this morning with this proposition, and began to work it out.
It works!
In music, everything is interplay between consonance and dissonance. In
some respects, composition is essentially conflict resolution because
tones have the ability to be both, depending on the context the composer
chooses. We have both rhythmic and harmonic interplays of consonance &
dissonance set in the scale, and uncountable options. All the
possibilities are there, available and waiting for the composer to make
a choice about what s/he will bring into this perceptual (Explicate
Order) domain. And over time, ways of doing this have evolved that are
principles applicable to new insights, combinations, and styles. Most
elementary is something called Anticipation & Suspension. But this pov
isn't taught. The suspension & anticipation strategies that speak to
this haven't been put in that context, and especially singers and
instrumentalists who do not have harmonic capacities on their
instruments have a very difficult time hearing harmony. It was only
Bohm, the interaction here on this list, the alchemical idea that the
monad contains all possibilities, and my teacher's insistence we put
everything in experiential contexts that made me see-hear it.
Are there not believed thoughts and felts that get in the way of that
kind of understanding? Therefore creativity in general? What could
they be? And could that serve as a metaphor for other thinkgs?
On Dec 24, 2007 11:45 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
I'm not there. (lynne)
I hear and seem to understand.
This might be of interest though [or then] -
Upon hearing the hototogisu, a cuckoolike bird known for its
soft, nostalgic call, Basho wrote:
I am in Kyoto
Yet at the voice of the Hototogisu
Longing for Kyoto
Is it not the believed thoughts/felts about 'freedom' that bind
consciousness
to an illusion of 'non freedom'?
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:55 -0700 Lynne Tolk
<lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Wonderful vision of trust in the moment. But difficult
individually, I don't think I've seen it in a group. I know what you
are talking about, but I just catch glimpses, I'm not there.
On 12/23/07 2:39 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com"
<ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
There is nothing that seems more vulnerable to
disruption than a group of "suspenders."
But such "vulnerability" is "suspension"
misunderstood. Because when thought is suspended
["lifted" from 'itself as the basis of
behavior'], appropriate action is swift, certain, and seamless
with intelligence. I've seen it happen many
times - a group acting organically in concert with one
another in relation to an unexpected disruption.
Beautiful stuff. But then some of the people
get a little nervous and begin to "meet" to
figure out what to do if something like that
happens again. Recipe for group impotence. A
group is just like an individual. It can
act as an organism complete with an "immune" [or
"defensive"] system. Except
we've forgotten how - forgotten that there is no
"how." Each circumstance
is unique. Pre - planning bungles, applies a
pre-arranged response to a
completely new situation. Applicability is rare
and accidental.
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:29:28 -0700 Lynne Tolk
<lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Disruption is the issue. It may or may
not be abusive. Confusion works, overload works, grabbing and holding
everyone's attention works. When this happens, others in the group
becomes silent, caught in arguments with the disrupter, or they leave.
This effectively kills dialogue, and since that is what we are supposed
to be here for, it cannot be tolerated.
Lynne
<http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/cf9d7847/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Mon Dec 24 19:14:47 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec 24 19:22:23 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712240957j545725e6s7cc0ec15d1ad67cc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20071224.114654.3184.267.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<c47283890712240957j545725e6s7cc0ec15d1ad67cc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1EAE20D5-869B-4F35-9BA5-054DF2DC090D@dc.rr.com>
I am not certain what you are looking for here. The consonance/
dissonance/resolution image is pretty much what life is all about, so
far as I can see. Its the "you can't have one without the other" way
of relating. And, of course, there are believed thoughts that get in
the way of this kind of understanding, even when we believe that we
do understand. These are reflexes, or they behave like reflexes. Bohm
thought that by suspending these, questioning them internally, one
could get at the underlying thought. I guess, one could do that, but
all too often there isn't the time or energy or awareness to be able
to do that, probably because the signal to noise ratio is less than
optimum.
That's all I can think of at the moment.
don
On Dec 24, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
> K: Don't know. Maybe you can help me find a matching metaphor here.
>
> I woke up this morning with this proposition, and began to work it
> out. It works!
>
> In music, everything is interplay between consonance and
> dissonance. In some respects, composition is essentially conflict
> resolution because tones have the ability to be both, depending on
> the context the composer chooses. We have both rhythmic and
> harmonic interplays of consonance & dissonance set in the scale,
> and uncountable options. All the possibilities are there,
> available and waiting for the composer to make a choice about what
> s/he will bring into this perceptual (Explicate Order) domain. And
> over time, ways of doing this have evolved that are principles
> applicable to new insights, combinations, and styles. Most
> elementary is something called Anticipation & Suspension. But this
> pov isn't taught. The suspension & anticipation strategies that
> speak to this haven't been put in that context, and especially
> singers and instrumentalists who do not have harmonic capacities on
> their instruments have a very difficult time hearing harmony. It
> was only Bohm, the interaction here on this list, the alchemical
> idea that the monad contains all possibilities, and my teacher's
> insistence we put everything in experiential contexts that made me
> see-hear it.
>
> Are there not believed thoughts and felts that get in the way of
> that kind of understanding? Therefore creativity in general? What
> could they be? And could that serve as a metaphor for other thinkgs?
>
> On Dec 24, 2007 11:45 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> I'm not there. (lynne)
>
> I hear and seem to understand.
> This might be of interest though [or then] -
>
> Upon hearing the hototogisu, a cuckoolike bird known for its soft,
> nostalgic call, Basho wrote:
>
> I am in Kyoto
> Yet at the voice of the Hototogisu
> Longing for Kyoto
>
> Is it not the believed thoughts/felts about 'freedom' that bind
> consciousness
> to an illusion of 'non freedom'?
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:55 -0700 Lynne Tolk
> <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
> Wonderful vision of trust in the moment. But difficult
> individually, I don't think I've seen it in a group. I know what
> you are talking about, but I just catch glimpses, I'm not there.
>
>
> On 12/23/07 2:39 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> There is nothing that seems more vulnerable to disruption than a
> group of "suspenders."
> But such "vulnerability" is "suspension" misunderstood. Because
> when thought is suspended
> ["lifted" from 'itself as the basis of behavior'], appropriate
> action is swift, certain, and seamless
> with intelligence. I've seen it happen many times - a group acting
> organically in concert with one
> another in relation to an unexpected disruption. Beautiful stuff.
> But then some of the people
> get a little nervous and begin to "meet" to figure out what to do
> if something like that
> happens again. Recipe for group impotence. A group is just like an
> individual. It can
> act as an organism complete with an "immune" [or "defensive"]
> system. Except
> we've forgotten how - forgotten that there is no "how." Each
> circumstance
> is unique. Pre - planning bungles, applies a pre-arranged response
> to a
> completely new situation. Applicability is rare and accidental.
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:29:28 -0700 Lynne Tolk
> <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
> Disruption is the issue. It may or may not be abusive. Confusion
> works, overload works, grabbing and holding everyone's attention
> works. When this happens, others in the group becomes silent,
> caught in arguments with the disrupter, or they leave. This
> effectively kills dialogue, and since that is what we are supposed
> to be here for, it cannot be tolerated.
>
> Lynne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/021a66bd/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Mon Dec 24 19:16:16 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec 24 19:23:46 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was:
messagefrom admin
References: <20071224.114654.3184.268.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<92AFADB7-7318-4375-B3C4-191FBD7D6ED4@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <005601c84659$13f535d0$b5c16018@DL01>
But then isn't your version, or Bohm's version, also a trap? -- don
Maybe it is not "hers or Bohm's" version. Maybe it is that which is noetic and noetic. Maybe when "it" cannot be personified and be what it is.
Maybe acting and pretending the social, personal system means not being free of that system.
Maybe that system can be used when useful, but not used when it is destructive. -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was: messagefrom admin
But then isn't your version, or Bohm's version, also a trap?
don
On Dec 24, 2007, at 8:46 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it, (df)
These kinds of thoughts about freedom, or any kind of thoughts for that matter, [if believed] are literal predictors of the 'sense' of it. We get trapped in the map every time. There is no other trap.
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:05:21 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
scroll down please
On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be different"
[or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on the planet
than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in their turn,
"wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right now, suggesting
that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to check that out. :-D
Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just interested in looking
at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific thought that triggers it. The
thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad, do we find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change? Somehow, I don't think so. And would not wanting ourselves or others to change be good or bad or better or worse.
Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long time, and wanting
them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this wanting them to change?
Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
don
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:45:57 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
KI: That's all I ever wanted him to do - be civil. Be honest and civil at the same time. And that's what he's forced to do now that his 'arsey' persona is unsubscribed. Make no mistake - s/he's still here. Hello, Pit.
On Dec 23, 2007 10:38 AM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Does it make a difference if he's subscribed, so long as he isn't being personally insulting to people and acting like an arse?
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:21:00 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
I am informed that pit is still subscribed here under yet another name, possibly more than one. He has written to Irene and quoted something she wrote to the list after he was unsubscribed. So, keep your eyes open for any hints. Susan has a very keen eye for such things. She was the first to spot that AEB was pit.
don
On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Don Lay wrote:
Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam filter. -- admin
Under the circumstances, I believe it is not inappropriate to pass on the following which I thought was sent to the Bohm list but was actually directed to one of Peter's addresses:
[was something about Failure]
If dialogue, from the Greek dia logos indicates reason, is it reasonable to expect a dialogue to be the use of reason and to eliminate the ignoring of or distortion of reason and meaning?
It seems entirely reasonable, rational, and perhaps more to the point -- meaningful -- to not allow the lack of, or distortion of reason and meaning, to occur in place of dialogue.
Some questions occur:
May meaningful communication occur without reason, ratio, meaning?
Does communication occur absent reason, ratio, and meaning?
When reason, ration, meaning is distorted or absent, is communication possible? Is meaningful communication possible?
My view is that the moderator's present actions are reasonable, rational and meaningful and are therefore, dialogical. -dl
http:/// wrote:
You are now unsubscribed from Bohm_Dialogue
The 'good'/'bad' news first: Pit is out (gone, booted, unsubbed, 'taken-care-of', dedialoged...).
The 'better'/'worse' knews next: s'he is NOT. S'he is still verii much here, among yoUs.
Once again, D-Factor could not "take it", could not "handle it"... ~ so he "pulled the plug" (oncommunication, and thus, at --the core of-- dialogue).
Once again, B-Dialogue could not "take it", could not "handle it"... ~ so you "pulled the plug" (on communication, and thus, at --the core of-- dialogue).
Once again, B-Dialogue=you have failed, re failing.
Once again, the "problem/s" did not and do not and will not "go away" because of this move(away).
Once again you will talk another trillion years 'penetratingly' about (B)Dialogue, its beauty (beast): w/o, once again, for once, just once, being able to let it happen: (B)Dialogue, to let it takgive place, time (tice)... dobeing touched (penetration, see above) by it. Once again you findy that groupi strength ("coherence", cohesion) in what Don Lay likes to title: "Acting & Pretending". Once again, you wo'managed to gather around the camp&fire&place of vanities, and superficialities, and phonitities, softplaying, neckmassagings, makeupping..... And if it was not so pathetictictic, I would congratulate you.
Once again, the 'problem' pit will not go away by moving, pushing, pullpushitting him/her/it offlist, & under the 'rug' (of "self&awareness").
Once again, the "peters" of this world ARE a part of tas, ARE, thusly, a part of YOU. ARE systemic, systematictictic.... And, like Bohm's story about the woman who keeps beating herself (while) under the i'm-pressure to be under attack: the attacked=the attacker= the attack. So, by 'any means': go 'ahead', and keep beating yourselves, bones, while you drool over that the-observer=the-observed=.... stuff(ing). bood luckg.
ii is still hear, and watching, and in 'awe'.... see you in a bit/pit.
Tschuess )(
--------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
From: dialogue-admin
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam filter.
admin
Return-Path: <humanimal@thinkg.net>
Delivery-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
Received: from host52.host52-server.com (host52.host52-server.com [66.49.137.121])
by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu25) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
id 0MKstg-1J680E0KyC-0004k8 ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
X-ClientAddr: 127.0.0.1
Received: from www.thinkg.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by host52.host52-server.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id lBMHJ33G015778;
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:03 -0500
Received: from 70.23.253.227
(SquirrelMail authenticated user humanimal@thinkg.net )
by www.thinkg.net with HTTP;
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
Message-ID: < 50379.70.23.253.227.1198343948.squirrel@www.thinkg.net>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >
References: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Request to mailing list Bohm_D
From: humanimal@thinkg.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-MailScanner-From: humanimal@thinkg.net
Envelope-To: w@david-bohm.net
Ooooooooooh,
noooooooooo
problema, senor
will just use one of the other few hand-full-full-fulls ;---))
ciao
cheers
.... later ... (wellaugh: soooon)
humanimal
> Your request to the Bohm_Dialogue mailing list
>
> Subscription request
>
> has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
> following reason for rejecting your request:
>
> "[No reason given]"
>
> Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
> at:
>
> bohm_dialogue-owner@david-bohm.org
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/15b0c081/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 19:26:51 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 24 19:34:28 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1698821BA@msw2k.msw.local>
References: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D1698821BA@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <c47283890712241026o27e99e6fj1816da6f8a5283c9@mail.gmail.com>
KI: Happy Holidays to you, too. Dorothy. I hope so, too.
On Dec 24, 2007 1:13 PM, Dorothy Stulberg <DStulberg@msw-law.com> wrote:
> I've had no time to enter into the dialogue but got rather tired of some
> of the stuff. Began to just click off.
> I'm glad I read the following. It gave me courage to think about entering
> in again.
> Happy holidays to everyone and hopefully we'll figure out a way to deal
> with the human ability to choose war rather than peace.
> D.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org [mailto:
> bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] *On Behalf Of *Irene Darcy
> *Sent:* Monday, December 24, 2007 12:58 PM
> *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
>
> K: Don't know. Maybe you can help me find a matching metaphor here.
>
> I woke up this morning with this proposition, and began to work it out.
> It works!
>
> In music, everything is interplay between consonance and dissonance. In
> some respects, composition is essentially conflict resolution because tones
> have the ability to be both, depending on the context the composer chooses.
> We have both rhythmic and harmonic interplays of consonance & dissonance set
> in the scale, and uncountable options. All the possibilities are there,
> available and waiting for the composer to make a choice about what s/he will
> bring into this perceptual (Explicate Order) domain. And over time, ways of
> doing this have evolved that are principles applicable to new insights,
> combinations, and styles. Most elementary is something called Anticipation
> & Suspension. But this pov isn't taught. The suspension & anticipation
> strategies that speak to this haven't been put in that context, and
> especially singers and instrumentalists who do not have harmonic capacities
> on their instruments have a very difficult time hearing harmony. It was
> only Bohm, the interaction here on this list, the alchemical idea that the
> monad contains all possibilities, and my teacher's insistence we put
> everything in experiential contexts that made me see-hear it.
>
> Are there not believed thoughts and felts that get in the way of that kind
> of understanding? Therefore creativity in general? What could they be?
> And could that serve as a metaphor for other thinkgs?
>
> On Dec 24, 2007 11:45 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not there. (lynne)
> >
> > I hear and seem to understand.
> > This might be of interest though [or then] -
> >
> > Upon hearing the *hototogisu,* a cuckoolike bird known for its soft,
> > nostalgic call, Basho wrote:
> >
> > I am in Kyoto
> > Yet at the voice of the Hototogisu
> > Longing for Kyoto
> >
> > Is it not the believed thoughts/felts *about* 'freedom' that bind
> > consciousness
> > to an illusion of 'non freedom'?
> >
> > -- funny
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:55 -0700 Lynne Tolk <
> > lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
> >
> > Wonderful vision of trust in the moment. But difficult individually, I
> > don't think I've seen it in a group. I know what you are talking about, but
> > I just catch glimpses, I'm not there.
> >
> >
> > On 12/23/07 2:39 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > There is nothing that seems more vulnerable to disruption than a group
> > of "suspenders."
> > But such "vulnerability" is "suspension" misunderstood. Because when
> > thought is suspended
> > ["lifted" from 'itself as the basis of behavior'], appropriate action is
> > swift, certain, and seamless
> > with intelligence. I've seen it happen many times - a group acting
> > organically in concert with one
> > another in relation to an unexpected disruption. Beautiful stuff. But
> > then some of the people
> > get a little nervous and begin to "meet" to figure out what to do if
> > something like that
> > happens again. Recipe for group impotence. A group is just like an
> > individual. It can
> > act as an organism complete with an "immune" [or "defensive"] system.
> > Except
> > we've forgotten how - forgotten that there is no "how." Each
> > circumstance
> > is unique. Pre - planning bungles, applies a pre-arranged response to a
> > completely new situation. Applicability is rare and accidental.
> >
> > -- funny
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:29:28 -0700 Lynne Tolk <
> > lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
> >
> > Disruption is the issue. It may or may not be abusive. Confusion
> > works, overload works, grabbing and holding everyone's attention works.
> > When this happens, others in the group becomes silent, caught in arguments
> > with the disrupter, or they leave. This effectively kills dialogue, and
> > since that is what we are supposed to be here for, it cannot be tolerated.
> >
> > Lynne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/c0dd025e/attachment.html
From bolinas_forever at yahoo.com Mon Dec 24 19:28:18 2007
From: bolinas_forever at yahoo.com (Franis)
Date: Mon Dec 24 19:35:54 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712240725u6d8c00bdsa9724cdc8a72c377@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<89CD9808-1C72-4E13-BB34-CE2D57D54CFC@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
<BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
<03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
<f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W20C890873C25756278DEA8DC590@phx.gbl>
<B78C26C9-1F98-43D0-A4C9-A2D3C5CD8FE8@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712240725u6d8c00bdsa9724cdc8a72c377@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f6040a0a0712241028qfa15ac5ncbf5cd0ec5f24faa@mail.gmail.com>
The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been
reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European
communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part
of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling
had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for
what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short).
In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly,
sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard "c" will be
replaced with "k." Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters
kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the
sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This will
make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter.
In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to
reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments
will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a
deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of
silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go. By the fourth
year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by "z" and "W"
by "V".
During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining
"ou", and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of
leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil b
no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech
ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru.
Hop u giz r havn a gud Xmas ev,
luv,
Franis
On 12/24/07, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But from the sound of this there may have been much more in their culture
> that allowed this.
>
> KI: You bet there was more!
>
> On Dec 24, 2007 2:24 AM, donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > An interesting aside: Bohm had an anthropologist friend who had lived
> > with the Aleut. He was the one who told Bohm about the regular meetings
> > where the people just talked to together and when the meeting was over they
> > all kniew what to do without anyone giving instructions. But from the sound
> > of this there may have been much more in their culture that allowed this. I
> > shall try to chase down your reference.
> > don
> >
> >
> > On Dec 23, 2007, at 5:25 PM, rob mooney wrote:
> >
> > 'the Eskimo-Aleut language does not name things that already exist, but
> > that naming brings them into being. For example, when a child is named at
> > birth, an old woman stands by while the mother is in labour, calling out all
> > the different eligible names she can think of. The child comes out when its
> > name is called.'
> > (Edmund Carpenter quoted in Harry Wilmer, Quest for Silence.)
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:17:54 -1000
> > From: bolinas_forever@yahoo.com
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> >
> > Rob, you were never a child? - Franis
> >
> > On 12/23/07, *rob mooney* <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > always
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:00 -0700
> >
> > feeling your aloneness?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
> > *Subject: * RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> >
> > sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > From: Funny@Dancing.Org
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500
> >
> > This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
> > Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was to
> > point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
> >
> > We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment
> > someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become
> > *suspect*. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves are
> > even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to our
> > assumed selves?)
> >
> > Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
> > And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
> > Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
> >
> > Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us can't
> > afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
> > And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion are
> > deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
> >
> >
> > I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a
> > treasure?:
> >
> > http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
> >
> > ~funny~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > <http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
> >
> >
> >
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/38d6b4ad/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 19:29:50 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 24 19:37:26 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
In-Reply-To: <1EAE20D5-869B-4F35-9BA5-054DF2DC090D@dc.rr.com>
References: <20071224.114654.3184.267.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<c47283890712240957j545725e6s7cc0ec15d1ad67cc@mail.gmail.com>
<1EAE20D5-869B-4F35-9BA5-054DF2DC090D@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712241029g4859049fs13fc4b3f2c1cdea5@mail.gmail.com>
KI: Thanks, Don. That's a lot! Experience continues to point out how much
Bohm had on the Ball. And how much his ideas deserve application to all
levels of life.
On Dec 24, 2007 1:14 PM, donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> I am not certain what you are looking for here. The
> consonance/dissonance/resolution image is pretty much what life is all
> about, so far as I can see. Its the "you can't have one without the other"
> way of relating. And, of course, there are believed thoughts that get in the
> way of this kind of understanding, even when we believe that we do
> understand. These are reflexes, or they behave like reflexes. Bohm thought
> that by suspending these, questioning them internally, one could get at the
> underlying thought. I guess, one could do that, but all too often there
> isn't the time or energy or awareness to be able to do that, probably
> because the signal to noise ratio is less than optimum.
> That's all I can think of at the moment.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 24, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Irene Darcy wrote:
>
> K: Don't know. Maybe you can help me find a matching metaphor here.
>
> I woke up this morning with this proposition, and began to work it out.
> It works!
>
> In music, everything is interplay between consonance and dissonance. In
> some respects, composition is essentially conflict resolution because tones
> have the ability to be both, depending on the context the composer chooses.
> We have both rhythmic and harmonic interplays of consonance & dissonance set
> in the scale, and uncountable options. All the possibilities are there,
> available and waiting for the composer to make a choice about what s/he will
> bring into this perceptual (Explicate Order) domain. And over time, ways of
> doing this have evolved that are principles applicable to new insights,
> combinations, and styles. Most elementary is something called Anticipation
> & Suspension. But this pov isn't taught. The suspension & anticipation
> strategies that speak to this haven't been put in that context, and
> especially singers and instrumentalists who do not have harmonic capacities
> on their instruments have a very difficult time hearing harmony. It was
> only Bohm, the interaction here on this list, the alchemical idea that the
> monad contains all possibilities, and my teacher's insistence we put
> everything in experiential contexts that made me see-hear it.
>
> Are there not believed thoughts and felts that get in the way of that kind
> of understanding? Therefore creativity in general? What could they be?
> And could that serve as a metaphor for other thinkgs?
>
> On Dec 24, 2007 11:45 AM, <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not there. (lynne)
> >
> > I hear and seem to understand.
> > This might be of interest though [or then] -
> >
> > Upon hearing the *hototogisu,* a cuckoolike bird known for its soft,
> > nostalgic call, Basho wrote:
> >
> > I am in Kyoto
> > Yet at the voice of the Hototogisu
> > Longing for Kyoto
> >
> > Is it not the believed thoughts/felts *about* 'freedom' that bind
> > consciousness
> > to an illusion of 'non freedom'?
> >
> > -- funny
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:55 -0700 Lynne Tolk <
> > lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
> >
> > Wonderful vision of trust in the moment. But difficult individually, I
> > don't think I've seen it in a group. I know what you are talking about, but
> > I just catch glimpses, I'm not there.
> >
> >
> > On 12/23/07 2:39 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > There is nothing that seems more vulnerable to disruption than a group
> > of "suspenders."
> > But such "vulnerability" is "suspension" misunderstood. Because when
> > thought is suspended
> > ["lifted" from 'itself as the basis of behavior'], appropriate action is
> > swift, certain, and seamless
> > with intelligence. I've seen it happen many times - a group acting
> > organically in concert with one
> > another in relation to an unexpected disruption. Beautiful stuff. But
> > then some of the people
> > get a little nervous and begin to "meet" to figure out what to do if
> > something like that
> > happens again. Recipe for group impotence. A group is just like an
> > individual. It can
> > act as an organism complete with an "immune" [or "defensive"] system.
> > Except
> > we've forgotten how - forgotten that there is no "how." Each
> > circumstance
> > is unique. Pre - planning bungles, applies a pre-arranged response to a
> > completely new situation. Applicability is rare and accidental.
> >
> > -- funny
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:29:28 -0700 Lynne Tolk <
> > lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
> >
> > Disruption is the issue. It may or may not be abusive. Confusion
> > works, overload works, grabbing and holding everyone's attention works.
> > When this happens, others in the group becomes silent, caught in arguments
> > with the disrupter, or they leave. This effectively kills dialogue, and
> > since that is what we are supposed to be here for, it cannot be tolerated.
> >
> > Lynne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/542dc945/attachment.html
From irenedarcy at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 19:31:42 2007
From: irenedarcy at gmail.com (Irene Darcy)
Date: Mon Dec 24 19:39:17 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <f6040a0a0712241028qfa15ac5ncbf5cd0ec5f24faa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<EC346E5B-2369-4827-B276-A00762D8F2B1@Dancing.Org>
<BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
<03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
<f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W20C890873C25756278DEA8DC590@phx.gbl>
<B78C26C9-1F98-43D0-A4C9-A2D3C5CD8FE8@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712240725u6d8c00bdsa9724cdc8a72c377@mail.gmail.com>
<f6040a0a0712241028qfa15ac5ncbf5cd0ec5f24faa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c47283890712241031w57ee66abu331f694299a09fc6@mail.gmail.com>
KI: Priceless, Franis. Lots of laughter here.
On Dec 24, 2007 1:28 PM, Franis <bolinas_forever@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been
> reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European
> communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part
> of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling
> had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for
> what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short).
>
> In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly,
> sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard "c" will be
> replaced with "k." Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters
> kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the
> sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This will
> make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter.
>
> In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted
> to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments
> will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a
> deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of
> silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go. By the fourth
> year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by "z" and "W"
> by "V".
>
> During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining
> "ou", and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of
> leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil b
> no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech
> ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru.
>
>
>
> Hop u giz r havn a gud Xmas ev,
> luv,
> Franis
>
>
> On 12/24/07, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But from the sound of this there may have been much more in their
> > culture that allowed this.
> >
> > KI: You bet there was more!
> >
> > On Dec 24, 2007 2:24 AM, donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > An interesting aside: Bohm had an anthropologist friend who had lived
> > > with the Aleut. He was the one who told Bohm about the regular meetings
> > > where the people just talked to together and when the meeting was over they
> > > all kniew what to do without anyone giving instructions. But from the sound
> > > of this there may have been much more in their culture that allowed this. I
> > > shall try to chase down your reference.
> > > don
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 23, 2007, at 5:25 PM, rob mooney wrote:
> > >
> > > 'the Eskimo-Aleut language does not name things that already exist,
> > > but that naming brings them into being. For example, when a child is named
> > > at birth, an old woman stands by while the mother is in labour, calling out
> > > all the different eligible names she can think of. The child comes out when
> > > its name is called.'
> > > (Edmund Carpenter quoted in Harry Wilmer, Quest for Silence.)
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:17:54 -1000
> > > From: bolinas_forever@yahoo.com
> > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > >
> > > Rob, you were never a child? - Franis
> > >
> > > On 12/23/07, *rob mooney* <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > always
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:00 -0700
> > >
> > > feeling your aloneness?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > *Sent:* Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
> > > *Subject: * RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > >
> > > sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > From: Funny@Dancing.Org
> > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500
> > >
> > > This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
> > > Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was to
> > > point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
> > >
> > > We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment
> > > someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become
> > > *suspect*. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves
> > > are even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to
> > > our assumed selves?)
> > >
> > > Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
> > > And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
> > > Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
> > >
> > > Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us
> > > can't afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
> > > And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion
> > > are deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a
> > > treasure?:
> > >
> > > http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
> > >
> > > ~funny~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > <http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
--
Irene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/2a1ae6bb/attachment.html
From DFACTOR at dc.rr.com Mon Dec 24 19:43:33 2007
From: DFACTOR at dc.rr.com (donald factor)
Date: Mon Dec 24 19:51:09 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was:
messagefrom admin
In-Reply-To: <005601c84659$13f535d0$b5c16018@DL01>
References: <20071224.114654.3184.268.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<92AFADB7-7318-4375-B3C4-191FBD7D6ED4@dc.rr.com>
<005601c84659$13f535d0$b5c16018@DL01>
Message-ID: <70B4E6AE-FF5E-4DDB-A55E-266993C64443@dc.rr.com>
You may be interested in this video. I think it speaks to what you
are saying here.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12212007/watch.html
don
On Dec 24, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Don Lay wrote:
> But then isn't your version, or Bohm's version, also a trap? -- don
>
> Maybe it is not "hers or Bohm's" version. Maybe it is that which
> is noetic and noetic. Maybe when "it" cannot be personified and be
> what it is.
>
> Maybe acting and pretending the social, personal system means not
> being free of that system.
>
> Maybe that system can be used when useful, but not used when it is
> destructive. -- dl
>
>
>
>
> From: donald factor
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different -
> was: messagefrom admin
>
> But then isn't your version, or Bohm's version, also a trap?
>
> don
>
> On Dec 24, 2007, at 8:46 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>> Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the
>> inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with
>> it, (df)
>>
>> These kinds of thoughts about freedom, or any kind of thoughts for
>> that matter, [if believed] are literal predictors of the 'sense'
>> of it. We get trapped in the map every time. There is no other trap.
>>
>> -- funny
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:05:21 -0800 donald factor
>> <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
>> scroll down please
>> On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>> From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
>>> of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
>>> It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
>>> regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
>>> even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be
>>> different"
>>> [or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on
>>> the planet
>>> than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
>>>
>>> I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in
>>> their turn,
>>> "wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right
>>> now, suggesting
>>> that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to
>>> check that out. :-D
>>> Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way.
>>> Just interested in looking
>>> at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific
>>> thought that triggers it. The
>>> thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
>>
>> I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or
>> bad, do we find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to
>> change? Somehow, I don't think so. And would not wanting ourselves
>> or others to change be good or bad or better or worse.
>>>
>>> Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a
>>> long time, and wanting
>>> them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this
>>> wanting them to change?
>>> Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
>>
>> Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the
>> inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with
>> it,
>>
>> don
>>>
>>> -- funny
>>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:45:57 -0500 "Irene Darcy"
>>> <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
>>> KI: That's all I ever wanted him to do - be civil. Be honest
>>> and civil at the same time. And that's what he's forced to do
>>> now that his 'arsey' persona is unsubscribed. Make no mistake -
>>> s/he's still here. Hello, Pit.
>>>
>>> On Dec 23, 2007 10:38 AM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> Does it make a difference if he's subscribed, so long as he isn't
>>> being personally insulting to people and acting like an arse?
>>> From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
>>> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:21:00 -0800
>>>
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>
>>> I am informed that pit is still subscribed here under yet another
>>> name, possibly more than one. He has written to Irene and quoted
>>> something she wrote to the list after he was unsubscribed. So,
>>> keep your eyes open for any hints. Susan has a very keen eye for
>>> such things. She was the first to spot that AEB was pit.
>>>
>>> don
>>>
>>> On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Don Lay wrote:
>>>
>>> Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed
>>> by the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
>>> a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his
>>> own server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your
>>> spam filter. -- admin
>>>
>>> Under the circumstances, I believe it is not inappropriate to
>>> pass on the following which I thought was sent to the Bohm list
>>> but was actually directed to one of Peter's addresses:
>>>
>>> [was something about Failure]
>>>
>>> If dialogue, from the Greek dia logos indicates reason, is it
>>> reasonable to expect a dialogue to be the use of reason and to
>>> eliminate the ignoring of or distortion of reason and meaning?
>>>
>>> It seems entirely reasonable, rational, and perhaps more to the
>>> point -- meaningful -- to not allow the lack of, or distortion of
>>> reason and meaning, to occur in place of dialogue.
>>>
>>> Some questions occur:
>>>
>>> May meaningful communication occur without reason, ratio, meaning?
>>> Does communication occur absent reason, ratio, and meaning?
>>>
>>> When reason, ration, meaning is distorted or absent, is
>>> communication possible? Is meaningful communication possible?
>>>
>>> My view is that the moderator's present actions are reasonable,
>>> rational and meaningful and are therefore, dialogical. -dl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http:/// wrote:
>>> You are now unsubscribed from Bohm_Dialogue
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'good'/'bad' news first: Pit is out (gone, booted, unsubbed,
>>> 'taken-care-of', dedialoged...).
>>>
>>> The 'better'/'worse' knews next: s'he is NOT. S'he is still verii
>>> much here, among yoUs.
>>>
>>> Once again, D-Factor could not "take it", could not "handle
>>> it"... ~ so he "pulled the plug" (oncommunication, and thus, at --
>>> the core of-- dialogue).
>>>
>>> Once again, B-Dialogue could not "take it", could not "handle
>>> it"... ~ so you "pulled the plug" (on communication, and thus, at
>>> --the core of-- dialogue).
>>>
>>> Once again, B-Dialogue=you have failed, re failing.
>>>
>>> Once again, the "problem/s" did not and do not and will not "go
>>> away" because of this move(away).
>>>
>>> Once again you will talk another trillion years 'penetratingly'
>>> about (B)Dialogue, its beauty (beast): w/o, once again, for once,
>>> just once, being able to let it happen: (B)Dialogue, to let it
>>> takgive place, time (tice)... dobeing touched (penetration, see
>>> above) by it. Once again you findy that groupi strength
>>> ("coherence", cohesion) in what Don Lay likes to title: "Acting &
>>> Pretending". Once again, you wo'managed to gather around the
>>> camp&fire&place of vanities, and superficialities, and
>>> phonitities, softplaying, neckmassagings, makeupping..... And if
>>> it was not so pathetictictic, I would congratulate you.
>>>
>>> Once again, the 'problem' pit will not go away by moving,
>>> pushing, pullpushitting him/her/it offlist, & under the 'rug' (of
>>> "self&awareness").
>>>
>>> Once again, the "peters" of this world ARE a part of tas, ARE,
>>> thusly, a part of YOU. ARE systemic, systematictictic.... And,
>>> like Bohm's story about the woman who keeps beating herself
>>> (while) under the i'm-pressure to be under attack: the
>>> attacked=the attacker= the attack. So, by 'any means': go
>>> 'ahead', and keep beating yourselves, bones, while you drool over
>>> that the-observer=the-observed=.... stuff(ing). bood luckg.
>>>
>>> ii is still hear, and watching, and in 'awe'.... see you in a bit/
>>> pit.
>>>
>>> Tschuess )(
>>>
>>> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
>>> Mobile. Try it now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: dialogue-admin
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 5:01 PM
>>> Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
>>>
>>> Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed
>>> by the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as
>>> a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his
>>> own server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your
>>> spam filter.
>>>
>>> admin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Return-Path: <humanimal@thinkg.net>
>>> Delivery-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
>>> Received: from host52.host52-server.com (host52.host52-server.com
>>> [66.49.137.121])
>>> by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu25) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
>>> id 0MKstg-1J680E0KyC-0004k8 ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
>>> X-ClientAddr: 127.0.0.1
>>> Received: from www.thinkg.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
>>> by host52.host52-server.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
>>> lBMHJ33G015778;
>>> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:03 -0500
>>> Received: from 70.23.253.227
>>> (SquirrelMail authenticated user humanimal@thinkg.net )
>>> by www.thinkg.net with HTTP;
>>> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
>>> Message-ID: <
>>> 50379.70.23.253.227.1198343948.squirrel@www.thinkg.net>
>>> In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-
>>> bohm.org >
>>> References: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
>>> Subject: Re: Request to mailing list Bohm_D
>>> From: humanimal@thinkg.net
>>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>>> Importance: Normal
>>> X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP
>>> for more information
>>> X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your
>>> Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
>>> X-MailScanner-From: humanimal@thinkg.net
>>> Envelope-To: w@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Ooooooooooh,
>>> noooooooooo
>>> problema, senor
>>>
>>> will just use one of the other few hand-full-full-fulls ;---))
>>>
>>> ciao
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> .... later ... (wellaugh: soooon)
>>>
>>> humanimal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Your request to the Bohm_Dialogue mailing list
>>> >
>>> > Subscription request
>>> >
>>> > has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
>>> > following reason for rejecting your request:
>>> >
>>> > "[No reason given]"
>>> >
>>> > Any questions or comments should be directed to the list
>>> administrator
>>> > at:
>>> >
>>> > bohm_dialogue-owner@david-bohm.org
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search
>>> Charades!
>>>
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Irene
>>>
>>>
>>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>
>>
>> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
>
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/cd92aefa/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Mon Dec 24 21:14:07 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec 24 21:21:41 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different -
was:messagefrom admin
References: <20071224.114654.3184.268.ae.dropper@juno.com><92AFADB7-7318-4375-B3C4-191FBD7D6ED4@dc.rr.com><005601c84659$13f535d0$b5c16018@DL01>
<70B4E6AE-FF5E-4DDB-A55E-266993C64443@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00a901c84669$89ec3c10$b5c16018@DL01>
Very interesting. Thanks.
There's another interesting blog at that site, "Faith and Reason" which may be very interesting.
I find Tillich's vision of reason and meaning as logos persuasive. -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was:messagefrom admin
You may be interested in this video. I think it speaks to what you are saying here.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12212007/watch.html
don
On Dec 24, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Don Lay wrote:
But then isn't your version, or Bohm's version, also a trap? -- don
Maybe it is not "hers or Bohm's" version. Maybe it is that which is noetic and noetic. Maybe when "it" cannot be personified and be what it is.
Maybe acting and pretending the social, personal system means not being free of that system.
Maybe that system can be used when useful, but not used when it is destructive. -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] People please - just be different - was: messagefrom admin
But then isn't your version, or Bohm's version, also a trap?
don
On Dec 24, 2007, at 8:46 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it, (df)
These kinds of thoughts about freedom, or any kind of thoughts for that matter, [if believed] are literal predictors of the 'sense' of it. We get trapped in the map every time. There is no other trap.
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:05:21 -0800 donald factor <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> writes:
scroll down please
On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:47 PM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
From a specific to the general. A general question comes up
of what is it that makes us want people to act differently.
It seems a question where there is a lot of "shared meaning"
regarding the fact, the very common fact - a very 'true' "we-ness"
even, that there is this frequently strong desire that "people be different"
[or "act" differently} and is there a more common frustration on the planet
than the frustration that people just aren't "being different?"
I mean, even the people who "we" "want to be different" are, in their turn,
"wanting people to be different" too. And even me - am I, right now, suggesting
that I want people to not want people to be different? Have to check that out. :-D
Not suggesting at all though that this is 'wrong' in any way. Just interested in looking
at this functionally. What is the initial impulse? The specific thought that triggers it. The
thoughts surrounding that thought. etc.
I wonder, if we suspend our ideas of right or wrong or good or bad, do we find that we stop wanting ourselves or others to change? Somehow, I don't think so. And would not wanting ourselves or others to change be good or bad or better or worse.
Anybody ever been in a situation of living with someone for a long time, and wanting
them to change over and over and over. And then it stopped - this wanting them to change?
Remarkably unambiguous difference, isn't it.
Yes, but if feels like just giving up, surrendering to the inevitable. But it doesn't bring any greater sense of freedom with it,
don
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:45:57 -0500 "Irene Darcy" <irenedarcy@gmail.com> writes:
KI: That's all I ever wanted him to do - be civil. Be honest and civil at the same time. And that's what he's forced to do now that his 'arsey' persona is unsubscribed. Make no mistake - s/he's still here. Hello, Pit.
On Dec 23, 2007 10:38 AM, rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Does it make a difference if he's subscribed, so long as he isn't being personally insulting to people and acting like an arse?
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: DFACTOR@dc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:21:00 -0800
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
I am informed that pit is still subscribed here under yet another name, possibly more than one. He has written to Irene and quoted something she wrote to the list after he was unsubscribed. So, keep your eyes open for any hints. Susan has a very keen eye for such things. She was the first to spot that AEB was pit.
don
On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Don Lay wrote:
Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam filter. -- admin
Under the circumstances, I believe it is not inappropriate to pass on the following which I thought was sent to the Bohm list but was actually directed to one of Peter's addresses:
[was something about Failure]
If dialogue, from the Greek dia logos indicates reason, is it reasonable to expect a dialogue to be the use of reason and to eliminate the ignoring of or distortion of reason and meaning?
It seems entirely reasonable, rational, and perhaps more to the point -- meaningful -- to not allow the lack of, or distortion of reason and meaning, to occur in place of dialogue.
Some questions occur:
May meaningful communication occur without reason, ratio, meaning?
Does communication occur absent reason, ratio, and meaning?
When reason, ration, meaning is distorted or absent, is communication possible? Is meaningful communication possible?
My view is that the moderator's present actions are reasonable, rational and meaningful and are therefore, dialogical. -dl
http:/// wrote:
You are now unsubscribed from Bohm_Dialogue
The 'good'/'bad' news first: Pit is out (gone, booted, unsubbed, 'taken-care-of', dedialoged...).
The 'better'/'worse' knews next: s'he is NOT. S'he is still verii much here, among yoUs.
Once again, D-Factor could not "take it", could not "handle it"... ~ so he "pulled the plug" (oncommunication, and thus, at --the core of-- dialogue).
Once again, B-Dialogue could not "take it", could not "handle it"... ~ so you "pulled the plug" (on communication, and thus, at --the core of-- dialogue).
Once again, B-Dialogue=you have failed, re failing.
Once again, the "problem/s" did not and do not and will not "go away" because of this move(away).
Once again you will talk another trillion years 'penetratingly' about (B)Dialogue, its beauty (beast): w/o, once again, for once, just once, being able to let it happen: (B)Dialogue, to let it takgive place, time (tice)... dobeing touched (penetration, see above) by it. Once again you findy that groupi strength ("coherence", cohesion) in what Don Lay likes to title: "Acting & Pretending". Once again, you wo'managed to gather around the camp&fire&place of vanities, and superficialities, and phonitities, softplaying, neckmassagings, makeupping..... And if it was not so pathetictictic, I would congratulate you.
Once again, the 'problem' pit will not go away by moving, pushing, pullpushitting him/her/it offlist, & under the 'rug' (of "self&awareness").
Once again, the "peters" of this world ARE a part of tas, ARE, thusly, a part of YOU. ARE systemic, systematictictic.... And, like Bohm's story about the woman who keeps beating herself (while) under the i'm-pressure to be under attack: the attacked=the attacker= the attack. So, by 'any means': go 'ahead', and keep beating yourselves, bones, while you drool over that the-observer=the-observed=.... stuff(ing). bood luckg.
ii is still hear, and watching, and in 'awe'.... see you in a bit/pit.
Tschuess )(
----------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
From: dialogue-admin
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Please note that Peter's emails are no longer being distributed by the bohm_dialogue list server. He has been unsubscribed as a.debakey@yahoo.com but is now sending his spam directly from his own server as humanimal@thinkg.net. I suggest you update your spam filter.
admin
Return-Path: <humanimal@thinkg.net>
Delivery-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
Received: from host52.host52-server.com (host52.host52-server.com [66.49.137.121])
by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu25) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
id 0MKstg-1J680E0KyC-0004k8 ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:19:10 +0100
X-ClientAddr: 127.0.0.1
Received: from www.thinkg.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by host52.host52-server.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id lBMHJ33G015778;
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:03 -0500
Received: from 70.23.253.227
(SquirrelMail authenticated user humanimal@thinkg.net )
by www.thinkg.net with HTTP;
Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
Message-ID: < 50379.70.23.253.227.1198343948.squirrel@www.thinkg.net>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >
References: <mailman.2.1198287578.1367.bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:08 -0500 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Request to mailing list Bohm_D
From: humanimal@thinkg.net
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-Canaca-Com_Inc.-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-MailScanner-From: humanimal@thinkg.net
Envelope-To: w@david-bohm.net
Ooooooooooh,
noooooooooo
problema, senor
will just use one of the other few hand-full-full-fulls ;---))
ciao
cheers
.... later ... (wellaugh: soooon)
humanimal
> Your request to the Bohm_Dialogue mailing list
>
> Subscription request
>
> has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
> following reason for rejecting your request:
>
> "[No reason given]"
>
> Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
> at:
>
> bohm_dialogue-owner@david-bohm.org
>
----------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like? How many syllables? Guess and win prizes with Search Charades!
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--
Irene
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/f2ed676b/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Mon Dec 24 21:46:13 2007
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Mon Dec 24 21:53:52 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
In-Reply-To: <20071224.114654.3184.267.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C39568A5.FDE6%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Is it not the believed thoughts/felts about 'freedom' that bind
consciousness
to an illusion of 'non freedom'? (funny)
Absolutely. I?ve explored many of these, including the one that says I must
not presume to know what I know (or don?t know, as the case may be).
They?re losing ground ? consequently, my increased participation here.
Lynne
On 12/24/07 9:45 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> I?m not there. (lynne)
>
> I hear and seem to understand.
> This might be of interest though [or then] -
>
> Upon hearing the hototogisu, a cuckoolike bird known for its soft, nostalgic
> call, Basho wrote:
>
> I am in Kyoto
> Yet at the voice of the Hototogisu
> Longing for Kyoto
>
> Is it not the believed thoughts/felts about 'freedom' that bind consciousness
> to an illusion of 'non freedom'?
>
> -- funny
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:55 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
> writes:
>> Wonderful vision of trust in the moment. But difficult individually, I don?t
>> think I?ve seen it in a group. I know what you are talking about, but I just
>> catch glimpses, I?m not there.
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/07 2:39 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is nothing that seems more vulnerable to disruption than a group of
>> "suspenders."
>> But such "vulnerability" is "suspension" misunderstood. Because when thought
>> is suspended
>> ["lifted" from 'itself as the basis of behavior'], appropriate action is
>> swift, certain, and seamless
>> with intelligence. I've seen it happen many times - a group acting
>> organically in concert with one
>> another in relation to an unexpected disruption. Beautiful stuff. But then
>> some of the people
>> get a little nervous and begin to "meet" to figure out what to do if
>> something like that
>> happens again. Recipe for group impotence. A group is just like an
>> individual. It can
>> act as an organism complete with an "immune" [or "defensive"] system. Except
>> we've forgotten how - forgotten that there is no "how." Each circumstance
>> is unique. Pre - planning bungles, applies a pre-arranged response to a
>> completely new situation. Applicability is rare and accidental.
>>
>> -- funny
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:29:28 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>> writes:
>>> Disruption is the issue. It may or may not be abusive. Confusion works,
>>> overload works, grabbing and holding everyone?s attention works. When this
>>> happens, others in the group becomes silent, caught in arguments with the
>>> disrupter, or they leave. This effectively kills dialogue, and since that
>>> is what we are supposed to be here for, it cannot be tolerated.
>>>
>>> Lynne
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/2133e1ee/attachment.html
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Mon Dec 24 21:48:32 2007
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Mon Dec 24 21:56:10 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
In-Reply-To: <50CE7E71-128F-4A83-BDE4-24B4CBD0569E@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C3956930.FDE7%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
I love it! Will keep my eyes open for the movie.
On 12/24/07 10:34 AM, "donald factor" <DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> Lynne's opening line below reminds me of a fascinating movie we saw the other
> night.
>
> I'm Not Here is the title of a movie. It is the story of Bob Dylan but told in
> a very postmodern way, Four different actors play Dylan through four phases of
> his life - one of them a woman. HIs name is never mentioned but the music is
> all his and the four phases speaks eloquently about the question of identity,
> "I'm not here, I'm not there" is the title of one of his songs, one that I had
> never run across before.
>
> don
>
> On Dec 24, 2007, at 8:45 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I?m not there. (lynne)
>>
>> ?
>>
>> I hear and seem to understand.
>>
>> This might be of interest though [or then] -
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Upon hearing the hototogisu, a cuckoolike bird known for its soft, nostalgic
>> call, Basho wrote:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> ?? I am in Kyoto
>>
>> Yet at the voice of the Hototogisu
>>
>> ?? Longing for Kyoto
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Is it not the believed thoughts/felts about? 'freedom' that bind
>> consciousness
>>
>> to an illusion of 'non freedom'??
>>
>> ?
>>
>> --? funny
>>
>> ?
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:55 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
>> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Wonderful vision of trust in the moment. ?But difficult individually, I
>>> don?t think I?ve seen it in a group. ?I know what you are talking about,
>>> but I just catch glimpses, I?m not there.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/07 2:39 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is nothing that seems more vulnerable to disruption than a group
>>>> of "suspenders."
>>>> But such "vulnerability" is "suspension" misunderstood. Because when
>>>> thought is suspended
>>>> ["lifted" from 'itself as the basis of behavior'], appropriate action
>>>> is swift, certain, and seamless
>>>> with intelligence. I've seen it happen many times - a group acting
>>>> organically in concert with one
>>>> another in relation to an unexpected disruption. Beautiful stuff. But
>>>> then some of the people
>>>> get a little nervous and begin to "meet" to figure out what to do if
>>>> something like that
>>>> happens again. Recipe for group impotence. A group is just like an
>>>> individual. It can
>>>> act as an organism complete with an "immune" [or "defensive"] system.
>>>> Except
>>>> we've forgotten how - forgotten that there is no "how." Each
>>>> circumstance
>>>> is unique. Pre - planning bungles, applies a pre-arranged response to a
>>>> completely new situation. Applicability is rare and accidental.
>>>> ?
>>>> -- ?funny
>>>> ?
>>>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:29:28 -0700 Lynne Tolk
>>>> <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Disruption is the issue. ?It may or may not be abusive. ?Confusion
>>>>> works, overload works, grabbing and holding everyone?s attention
>>>>> works. ?When this happens, others in the group becomes silent,
>>>>> caught in arguments with the disrupter, or they leave. ?This
>>>>> effectively kills dialogue, and since that is what we are supposed
>>>>> to be here for, it cannot be tolerated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/c2879fe3/attachment.html
From bolinas_forever at yahoo.com Mon Dec 24 22:23:14 2007
From: bolinas_forever at yahoo.com (Franis)
Date: Mon Dec 24 22:30:51 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <c47283890712241031w57ee66abu331f694299a09fc6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<BAY123-W41ED3D65828ECE3619F4FFDC590@phx.gbl>
<03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
<f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W20C890873C25756278DEA8DC590@phx.gbl>
<B78C26C9-1F98-43D0-A4C9-A2D3C5CD8FE8@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712240725u6d8c00bdsa9724cdc8a72c377@mail.gmail.com>
<f6040a0a0712241028qfa15ac5ncbf5cd0ec5f24faa@mail.gmail.com>
<c47283890712241031w57ee66abu331f694299a09fc6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f6040a0a0712241323s627eb355lfc35af1d9404dedd@mail.gmail.com>
What is it, how come words that start with a hard "k" are so inherently
funny?
kitty-cat...
kinky...
kohlrabi...
I'm noticing that the effect is somewhat lost in these days of text
messaging... - Franis
On 12/24/07, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> KI: Priceless, Franis. Lots of laughter here.
>
> On Dec 24, 2007 1:28 PM, Franis <bolinas_forever@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> > The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been
> > reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European
> > communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part
> > of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling
> > had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for
> > what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short).
> >
> > In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly,
> > sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard "c" will be
> > replaced with "k." Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters
> > kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the
> > sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This will
> > make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter.
> >
> > In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted
> > to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments
> > will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a
> > deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of
> > silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go. By the fourth
> > year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by "z" and "W"
> > by "V".
> >
> > During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining
> > "ou", and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of
> > leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil b
> > no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech
> > ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hop u giz r havn a gud Xmas ev,
> > luv,
> > Franis
> >
> >
> > On 12/24/07, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But from the sound of this there may have been much more in their
> > > culture that allowed this.
> > >
> > > KI: You bet there was more!
> > >
> > > On Dec 24, 2007 2:24 AM, donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > An interesting aside: Bohm had an anthropologist friend who had
> > > > lived with the Aleut. He was the one who told Bohm about the regular
> > > > meetings where the people just talked to together and when the meeting was
> > > > over they all kniew what to do without anyone giving instructions. But from
> > > > the sound of this there may have been much more in their culture that
> > > > allowed this. I shall try to chase down your reference.
> > > > don
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 23, 2007, at 5:25 PM, rob mooney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 'the Eskimo-Aleut language does not name things that already exist,
> > > > but that naming brings them into being. For example, when a child is named
> > > > at birth, an old woman stands by while the mother is in labour, calling out
> > > > all the different eligible names she can think of. The child comes out when
> > > > its name is called.'
> > > > (Edmund Carpenter quoted in Harry Wilmer, Quest for Silence.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:17:54 -1000
> > > > From: bolinas_forever@yahoo.com
> > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > > >
> > > > Rob, you were never a child? - Franis
> > > >
> > > > On 12/23/07, *rob mooney* <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > always
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > > > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:00 -0700
> > > >
> > > > feeling your aloneness?
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > *Sent:* Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
> > > > *Subject: * RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > > >
> > > > sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > From: Funny@Dancing.Org
> > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > > > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500
> > > >
> > > > This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
> > > > Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do was
> > > > to point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
> > > >
> > > > We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the moment
> > > > someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves become
> > > > *suspect*. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we ourselves
> > > > are even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and pretending to
> > > > our assumed selves?)
> > > >
> > > > Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
> > > > And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey appears.
> > > > Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
> > > >
> > > > Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us
> > > > can't afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
> > > > And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and discretion
> > > > are deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a
> > > > treasure?:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
> > > >
> > > > ~funny~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > <http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Irene
>
> info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/514c59a5/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Mon Dec 24 22:24:56 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec 24 22:32:22 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
References: <20071224.114654.3184.267.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<50CE7E71-128F-4A83-BDE4-24B4CBD0569E@dc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00da01c84673$6e481420$b5c16018@DL01>
"I'm Not Here ...". ... df quoting Dylan
What can it possibly mean when someone question or even denies identity? Does it mean "they" cease being?
Of course not! Maybe it means they inquired into and have some understanding regarding the identity structures or movements which may be the essence of the existence of identity.
Seems reasonable to believe that Bohm nears this position also. -- dl
From: donald factor
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Lynne's opening line below reminds me of a fascinating movie we saw the other night.
I'm Not Here is the title of a movie. It is the story of Bob Dylan but told in a very postmodern way, Four different actors play Dylan through four phases of his life - one of them a woman. HIs name is never mentioned but the music is all his and the four phases speaks eloquently about the question of identity, "I'm not here, I'm not there" is the title of one of his songs, one that I had never run across before.
don
On Dec 24, 2007, at 8:45 AM, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
I?m not there. (lynne)
I hear and seem to understand.
This might be of interest though [or then] -
Upon hearing the hototogisu, a cuckoolike bird known for its soft, nostalgic call, Basho wrote:
I am in Kyoto
Yet at the voice of the Hototogisu
Longing for Kyoto
Is it not the believed thoughts/felts about 'freedom' that bind consciousness
to an illusion of 'non freedom'?
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:55 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Wonderful vision of trust in the moment. But difficult individually, I don?t think I?ve seen it in a group. I know what you are talking about, but I just catch glimpses, I?m not there.
On 12/23/07 2:39 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
There is nothing that seems more vulnerable to disruption than a group of "suspenders."
But such "vulnerability" is "suspension" misunderstood. Because when thought is suspended
["lifted" from 'itself as the basis of behavior'], appropriate action is swift, certain, and seamless
with intelligence. I've seen it happen many times - a group acting organically in concert with one
another in relation to an unexpected disruption. Beautiful stuff. But then some of the people
get a little nervous and begin to "meet" to figure out what to do if something like that
happens again. Recipe for group impotence. A group is just like an individual. It can
act as an organism complete with an "immune" [or "defensive"] system. Except
we've forgotten how - forgotten that there is no "how." Each circumstance
is unique. Pre - planning bungles, applies a pre-arranged response to a
completely new situation. Applicability is rare and accidental.
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:29:28 -0700 Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> writes:
Disruption is the issue. It may or may not be abusive. Confusion works, overload works, grabbing and holding everyone?s attention works. When this happens, others in the group becomes silent, caught in arguments with the disrupter, or they leave. This effectively kills dialogue, and since that is what we are supposed to be here for, it cannot be tolerated.
Lynne
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/8218edc7/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Mon Dec 24 22:31:33 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec 24 22:38:58 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
References: <20071223.171035.3184.245.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00f801c84674$5ad8d6d0$b5c16018@DL01>
What is it that determines that a view is "my" view? -- funny
Maybe the experience of something being "mine" requires the identity movement. Maybe it requires being
"civilized", being part of modern civilization culture.
I guess that first one must experience the imaginary identity, then somehow see or experience the meaning of ownership of a POV.
It seems important to be aware of these movements, and that friends can help us participate in such awareness.
Thanks Friend, -- dl
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
What is it that determines that a view is "my" view?
-- funny
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:01:29 -0500 "Don Lay" <donlay@knology.net> writes:
This is close to my view also. -- dl
From: Susan Clemons
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Being insulting doesn't bother me in the least. What one person interprets as insulting another may interpret as a compliment. I don't care what kind of language someone uses or what they say as long as they are genuinely interested in dialoguing. In other words, if a deliberate insult is thrown out in the heat of the moment, no big deal, that's part of how we've learned to communicate with each other and is worth inquiring into. However, if that's all that's done and there's no effort made to look at the communication and inquire into our interactions then it's a different story.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Irene Darcy
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
KI: Wait - not good enough. All people who insult others aren't doing it for reasons of trolling-spaming. There are people who do it in real life, and not in the context of cyberspace. Some learned it from verbally abusive parents. So I would like to see insults, for whatever reason, be unacceptable.
On Dec 23, 2007 10:47 AM, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
KI: That works for me, too.
On Dec 23, 2007 10:45 AM, Susan Clemons < Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
Makes no difference to me. But I would like to know that the moment he starts acting out he's going to unsubscribed. And that goes for anyone who joins who starts making it obvious that they are here for the purpose of trolling and/or spamming.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: rob mooney
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 8:38 AM
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] message from admin
Does it make a difference if he's subscribed, so long as he isn't being personally insulting to people and acting like an arse?
----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/f83e79df/attachment.html
From donlay at knology.net Mon Dec 24 22:37:42 2007
From: donlay at knology.net (Don Lay)
Date: Mon Dec 24 22:45:18 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought is the
directawareness that thought is affecting perc
References: <20071223.171035.3184.247.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <011101c84675$36da6720$b5c16018@DL01>
There is the ear before the song. -- Rob
Yes. And there's something of the vision before the painting.
Would we say that improv requires self-awareness, awareness of the self identity?
Or is it properly regarded as selfless experience ... as db writes of piano playing in WIO?
I believe in WIO db indicates that language may be problematic regarding identity and music. -- dl
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought is the directawareness that thought is affecting perc
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:41:57 +0000 rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
sometimes the bird song here is beautiful
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:37:35 -0500
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception.
It seems difficult to focus on "what the words do 'in there' ", focus on function. (dl)
Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception. All - but this awareness is the operation of the false belief that thought is simply telling me the way things are. There it is. That's what this is about. In between the thought/perception link is feeling; is conviction. Every believed thought is felt as the way things are.. This seeing - perceiving functions as the proof of the thought/belief. These thought - worlds collide.
All of the believed thoughts are organized around a single "center" or organizing function. It has a generic name which is "I"
I think
I see
I believe
I know
I can
I do
I want
I go
I come
I find
I send
I take
I have
I wish
I would
I should
I could
I couldn't
I follow
I lead
I try
I have
I work
I went
Then there are the generic names
[organizing functions] of I am
I am smart
I am going
I am late
I am discriminating
I am patient
I am humble
I am proud
I am shy
I am faithful
there are a million of them
These are learned through the generic "you" and "you are"
versions of I and I am. It doesn't take a lot to condition thought.
Just imagine and remember how early the conditioning of "you" and "you are"
began. How frequent it was and how it continued and continues, and think of the constancy
of it, and you get a little sense of the depth of this conditioning, this organizing function, this "center" around which all of the believed thoughts are drawn, sort of stabilized. Without this "center" in thought
the thoughts are just thoughts. They are no longer felt to come from "me." They are no longer felt
to be "my" thoughts. I am no longer felt to be the "thinker" of these thoughts, the "maker" of
these thoughts. They are just flotsam and jetsam. Or like clouds passing by. A cornucopia of
offerings along with a steady and abiding lack of interest and perception changes completely.
There is no world "out there" made of some of these. When the falsely sensed "I" goes,
the falsely perceived "world" goes too and there is no more "world bubble" to
collide with all of the other "world bubbles."
Proprioception of thought is the direct awareness that thought is affecting perception. All - but this awareness is the operation of the false belief that thought is simply telling me the way things are. There it is. That's what this is about. That what this [Bohm theory] offers in terms of the opportunity of seeing. And the possibilities abound for seeing this movement in operation here. But of course, it is not required. It's just an expression of how the best things in life are not only free but opulently abundant as well. This seeing is the best thing.
-- funny
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think you know your TV, music and film? Try Search Charades!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/df45920f/attachment.html
From bolinas_forever at yahoo.com Mon Dec 24 22:47:52 2007
From: bolinas_forever at yahoo.com (Franis)
Date: Mon Dec 24 22:55:30 2007
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
In-Reply-To: <f6040a0a0712241323s627eb355lfc35af1d9404dedd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9F9BE2CB-F249-4FCD-9C9C-4B50570D261A@dc.rr.com>
<03f901c845c1$9b813500$4577480c@HOME>
<BAY123-W203FE8870023DADBFDBEC5DC590@phx.gbl>
<f6040a0a0712231617r3a33f9bay283c842149a59496@mail.gmail.com>
<BAY123-W20C890873C25756278DEA8DC590@phx.gbl>
<B78C26C9-1F98-43D0-A4C9-A2D3C5CD8FE8@dc.rr.com>
<c47283890712240725u6d8c00bdsa9724cdc8a72c377@mail.gmail.com>
<f6040a0a0712241028qfa15ac5ncbf5cd0ec5f24faa@mail.gmail.com>
<c47283890712241031w57ee66abu331f694299a09fc6@mail.gmail.com>
<f6040a0a0712241323s627eb355lfc35af1d9404dedd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f6040a0a0712241347m1414ca47uc0cf28cff50a7bf6@mail.gmail.com>
The other thing that I was wondering was, if you could, could you or how
would you classify your own sense of humor? I would describe mine as
something similar to this website, which has a sort of goofy style:
http://icanhascheezburger.com/page/73/
(warning, this site, where people send in their animal pics and assign weird
captions to them, has lotsa popups, so if you don't have a popup stopper,
it's a nuisance and you may not want to check it out.) - Franis
On 12/24/07, Franis <bolinas_forever@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What is it, how come words that start with a hard "k" are so inherently
> funny?
> kitty-cat...
> kinky...
> kohlrabi...
>
> I'm noticing that the effect is somewhat lost in these days of text
> messaging... - Franis
>
>
> On 12/24/07, Irene Darcy <irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > KI: Priceless, Franis. Lots of laughter here.
> >
> > On Dec 24, 2007 1:28 PM, Franis < bolinas_forever@yahoo.com > wrote:
> >
> > > The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has
> > > been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European
> > > communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part
> > > of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling
> > > had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for
> > > what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short).
> > >
> > > In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c".
> > > Sertainly, sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard
> > > "c" will be replaced with "k." Not only will this klear up konfusion, but
> > > typewriters kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik
> > > enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by
> > > "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter.
> > >
> > > In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
> > > expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.
> > > Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always
> > > ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of
> > > silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go. By the fourth
> > > year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by "z" and "W"
> > > by "V".
> > >
> > > During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords
> > > kontaining "ou", and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer
> > > kombinations of leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten
> > > styl. Zer vil b no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu
> > > understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hop u giz r havn a gud Xmas ev,
> > > luv,
> > > Franis
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/24/07, Irene Darcy < irenedarcy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But from the sound of this there may have been much more in their
> > > > culture that allowed this.
> > > >
> > > > KI: You bet there was more!
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 24, 2007 2:24 AM, donald factor < DFACTOR@dc.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > An interesting aside: Bohm had an anthropologist friend who had
> > > > > lived with the Aleut. He was the one who told Bohm about the regular
> > > > > meetings where the people just talked to together and when the meeting was
> > > > > over they all kniew what to do without anyone giving instructions. But from
> > > > > the sound of this there may have been much more in their culture that
> > > > > allowed this. I shall try to chase down your reference.
> > > > > don
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 23, 2007, at 5:25 PM, rob mooney wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 'the Eskimo-Aleut language does not name things that already
> > > > > exist, but that naming brings them into being. For example, when a child is
> > > > > named at birth, an old woman stands by while the mother is in labour,
> > > > > calling out all the different eligible names she can think of. The child
> > > > > comes out when its name is called.'
> > > > > (Edmund Carpenter quoted in Harry Wilmer, Quest for Silence.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:17:54 -1000
> > > > > From: bolinas_forever@yahoo.com
> > > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > > > >
> > > > > Rob, you were never a child? - Franis
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/23/07, *rob mooney* <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > always
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > From: Susan.Joy@worldnet.att.net
> > > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > > > > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:12:00 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > > feeling your aloneness?
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > *From:* rob mooney <rob.mooney@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > > > *To:* bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > > *Sent:* Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:04 PM
> > > > > *Subject: * RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > > > >
> > > > > sometimes it's like everybody here is a solipsist except me :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > From: Funny@Dancing.Org
> > > > > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] abuse
> > > > > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:43:03 -0500
> > > > >
> > > > > This little thread is becoming quite interesting.
> > > > > Reminds me of times and circumstances when all one needed to do
> > > > > was to point a finger at someone and "the system" would make them disappear.
> > > > >
> > > > > We're so good at disappearing or disparaging people, but the
> > > > > moment someone asks "what standards? what principles?", they themselves
> > > > > become *suspect*. (Pretty soon we'll all be wondering whether we
> > > > > ourselves are even whom we really are. Perhaps we are just acting and
> > > > > pretending to our assumed selves?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Did anyone notice how Suzy-Q was gone for 6 long months?!
> > > > > And then she returns, and within two weeks, Alan E. DeBakey
> > > > > appears.
> > > > > Coincidence? Aha! :-) :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Funny how on this list, which values honesty and trust, some of us
> > > > > can't afford to be honest without pretend-ID's.
> > > > > And others can't feel secure without outings. Trust and
> > > > > discretion are deprecated by cyberstalking. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder how many find the following to be boring, and how many a
> > > > > treasure?:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.divineparadox.com/Essays/discussion_group_harmony.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > ~funny~
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx+>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Irene
> >
> > info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20071224/9d903595/attachment.html