From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 24 00:14:43 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 25 01:15:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F1A7D0C1EBCE55551632FEA5000@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F1A7D0C1EBCE55551632FEA5000@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <71751CC2-93C0-4FC0-890C-80C9914C17DA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
> Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
> how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
> of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>
> We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which
> word language and imagination are two components. It seems to me
> it's what we do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical
> thinking the only tools? How do those tools bypass mechanical
> conditioning? The executive function of the brain is part of the
> system, too. How do we get around that? Do we need to? Are those
> moments of insight a breaking free of such tyranny? Is it that we
> simply don't have enough "scientific" information to go on? Is
> intuition free of the tyranny? k
>
>
My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal
something beyond what might be expressed by either one individually.
A single person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the
mechanical, and even when she does there is no immediate feedback
because the system is too limited, to specifically conditioned. But
when there are two or more participating the meanings can blend and
float freely and unfold, possibly, into more than the sum of their
parts. The connections within a single brain can only do so much, but
two or more might transcend these limits and, in the "space between",
there is the possibility for something new.
Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's
comment that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am
with you." Maybe those guys were on to something.
don
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 24 01:29:04 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 25 02:29:55 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <BAY22-F1A7D0C1EBCE55551632FEA5000@phx.gbl>
<71751CC2-93C0-4FC0-890C-80C9914C17DA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001f01c6f6fb$1131d320$b566153f@DL01>
My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
participant. -- df
Doesn't Bohm say, in On Dialogue, that one can dialogue, something like
that? -- dbl
But
> when there are two or more participating the meanings can blend and float
> freely and unfold, possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. -- df
When you use the plural of meaning, do you mean that meaning might be
something fragmented and broken such that there are separate meaningS? --
dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>
> On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>> how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>> of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>
>> We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
>> language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what
>> we do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only
>> tools? How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The
>> executive function of the brain is part of the system, too. How do we
>> get around that? Do we need to? Are those moments of insight a
>> breaking free of such tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough
>> "scientific" information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny?
>> k
>>
>>
> My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
> participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal something
> beyond what might be expressed by either one individually. A single
> person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the mechanical, and
> even when she does there is no immediate feedback because the system is
> too limited, to specifically conditioned. But when there are two or more
> participating the meanings can blend and float freely and unfold,
> possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The connections within a
> single brain can only do so much, but two or more might transcend these
> limits and, in the "space between", there is the possibility for
> something new.
>
> Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's comment
> that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you."
> Maybe those guys were on to something.
>
> don
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 24 01:46:01 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 25 02:46:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <BAY22-F1A7D0C1EBCE55551632FEA5000@phx.gbl>
<71751CC2-93C0-4FC0-890C-80C9914C17DA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002201c6f6fd$68042a20$b566153f@DL01>
Are dialog and critical thinking the only tools? -- Morgan
Hi Morgan. Bohm refers to "Greek dialogue". Greek _dia logos_ can be
interpreted as meaning through Reason, through Ratio, through Meaning.
Given this, then we can see that language, symbols, etc., are part of logos
as reason. -- dbl
How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? -- Morgan
I believe they ("dialogue and critical thinking") do not .... I believe
Bohm indicates that it is awareness that is efficacious factor. I believe
this means that when language is used critically to direct awareness to what
actually is, fragmentation no longer obtains.
Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see how the "chemistry" and the
"neurophysiology" of thought [as a system] comes into play? -- Pat
If we answer Pat's question and say it was important to Bohm to seek truth
as 'that which is' instead of just playing ego games. Looking at and
talking about the meaning and effects of "chemistry" and "neurophysiology"
is not at all close to talking about self, is it? That is, the words
"chemistry" and "neurophysiology" direct attentive awareness to that which
is going on and is not at all like using words that direct attention to the
imaginary self and its social standing. Don't you agree?
Pat, is this close to what you are thinking? -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>
> On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>> how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>> of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>
>> We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
>> language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what
>> we do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only
>> tools? How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The
>> executive function of the brain is part of the system, too. How do we
>> get around that? Do we need to? Are those moments of insight a
>> breaking free of such tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough
>> "scientific" information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny?
>> k
>>
>>
> My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
> participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal something
> beyond what might be expressed by either one individually. A single
> person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the mechanical, and
> even when she does there is no immediate feedback because the system is
> too limited, to specifically conditioned. But when there are two or more
> participating the meanings can blend and float freely and unfold,
> possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The connections within a
> single brain can only do so much, but two or more might transcend these
> limits and, in the "space between", there is the possibility for
> something new.
>
> Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's comment
> that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you."
> Maybe those guys were on to something.
>
> don
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 24 01:50:54 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 25 02:51:18 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <BAY22-F1A7D0C1EBCE55551632FEA5000@phx.gbl>
<71751CC2-93C0-4FC0-890C-80C9914C17DA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002a01c6f6fe$16d82d30$b566153f@DL01>
Morgan, seems to me it is the repetitive personal feed back loops that
tyranize us. When language is used that directs awareness to that which is
... not subject to the subject-verb-object schema, then something like
insight breaks the tyrany.
Make sense? -- don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>
> On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>> how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>> of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>
>> We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
>> language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what
>> we do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only
>> tools? How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The
>> executive function of the brain is part of the system, too. How do we
>> get around that? Do we need to? Are those moments of insight a
>> breaking free of such tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough
>> "scientific" information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny?
>> k
>>
>>
> My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
> participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal something
> beyond what might be expressed by either one individually. A single
> person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the mechanical, and
> even when she does there is no immediate feedback because the system is
> too limited, to specifically conditioned. But when there are two or more
> participating the meanings can blend and float freely and unfold,
> possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The connections within a
> single brain can only do so much, but two or more might transcend these
> limits and, in the "space between", there is the possibility for
> something new.
>
> Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's comment
> that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you."
> Maybe those guys were on to something.
>
> don
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 24 02:26:32 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 25 03:42:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <BAY22-F1A7D0C1EBCE55551632FEA5000@phx.gbl>
<71751CC2-93C0-4FC0-890C-80C9914C17DA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000201c6f705$2ab91e70$c206153f@DL01>
Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus'
comment that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am
with you." Maybe those guys were on to something. -- don
What's the meaning of religion? It is meaningful for me to interpret this
as meaning the New Testament writers associated Jesus with the Greek _logos_
which, at that time (I believe) was being interpreted as Reason, the Latin
Ratio. Thusly, when two or three are gathered in the name of REASON or
RATIO (as the character of that which is) -- the 'universal logos', then
wholeness obtains such that they no longer experience being separated
THINGKS that are "filed off" to die, etc.
That period, according to historian and Philosopher Tillich, was
characterized by that form of anxiety known as "the anxiety of fate, death
and dying", for which there was no known escape for the Latin, Roman
_persona idem_. Jesus was spoken of as _soter_, as was Socrates. The Greek
word, _soter_ was applied to both Socrates and Jesus. It meant savior.
Socrates and Jesus were called saviors because they saved the _PERSONA_, the
person from the anxiety of the fate of death and dying. Socrates by taking
hemlock and dying of his own will (I suppose to show there's no need to be
anxious; Jesus by denying the Latin of Roman _persona idem_, the personal
identity.
I could never "believe" in or see the meaning of JC being "up there" looking
down at us, marking in a book when we sinned. However, I can believe in
Reason, Ratio, Meaning because that's every day experience. If this sounds
like religion, so be it. Try it; you'll like it. -- Don L
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
> On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>> how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>> of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>
>> We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
>> language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what
>> we do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only
>> tools? How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The
>> executive function of the brain is part of the system, too. How do we
>> get around that? Do we need to? Are those moments of insight a
>> breaking free of such tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough
>> "scientific" information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny?
>> k
>>
>>
> My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
> participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal something
> beyond what might be expressed by either one individually. A single
> person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the mechanical, and
> even when she does there is no immediate feedback because the system is
> too limited, to specifically conditioned. But when there are two or more
> participating the meanings can blend and float freely and unfold,
> possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The connections within a
> single brain can only do so much, but two or more might transcend these
> limits and, in the "space between", there is the possibility for
> something new.
>
> Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's comment
> that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you."
> Maybe those guys were on to something.
>
> don
>
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 24 02:45:08 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 25 03:45:54 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue]
Fw: [diatrope] Article: Self-Portraits Chronicle a Descent Into
Alzheimer's
Message-ID: <000f01c6f705$aac54530$c206153f@DL01>
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ione
To: donlay@verizon.net
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:35 PM
Subject: [diatrope] Article: Self-Portraits Chronicle a Descent Into Alzheimer's
Self-Portraits Chronicle a Descent Into Alzheimer's
By DENISE GRADY / New York Times
When he learned in 1995 that he had Alzheimer's disease, William Utermohlen, an American artist in London, responded in characteristic fashion.
"From that moment on, he began to try to understand it by painting himself," said his wife, Patricia Utermohlen, a professor of art history.
Mr. Utermohlen's self-portraits are being exhibited through Friday at the New York Academy of Medicine in Manhattan, by the Alzheimer's Association.
The paintings starkly reveal the artist's descent into dementia, as his world began to tilt, perspectives flattened and details melted away. His wife and his doctors said he seemed aware at times that technical flaws had crept into his work, but he could not figure out how to correct them.
"The spatial sense kept slipping, and I think he knew," Professor Utermohlen said. A psychoanalyst wrote that the paintings depicted sadness, anxiety, resignation and feelings of feebleness and shame.
Dr. Bruce Miller, a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies artistic creativity in people with brain diseases, said some patients could still produce powerful work.
Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/health/24alzh.html?hp&ex=1161662400&en=b9f3d26b9139e14a&ei=5094&partner=homepage
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061023/9dba0109/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 24 03:19:59 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 25 04:20:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <BAY22-F1A7D0C1EBCE55551632FEA5000@phx.gbl>
<71751CC2-93C0-4FC0-890C-80C9914C17DA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <009701c6f70a$88464cc0$c206153f@DL01>
I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus' comment that "when two
or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you." Maybe those guys
were on to something. -- don
Neither do I care for religions. I agree though "that those guys were on to
something". Jesus is called the _logos_ (4th gospel). Logos at that time
meant in the Latin RATIO, Reason.
I'm on to that also, and seems to me Bohm was on to Reason, Ratio also --
not to ego nonsense about the personal identity!
My understanding is that "those guys" were 'on to TRUTH' instead of the
Roman pretense regarding the mask of persona. At that time, "those guys"
were not Christians. At that time, the _Cristus_ or Christ was a Roman god
named Hercules who, it was said, saved people from the anxiety of fate and
death.
It was much later that they began saying Jesus was the _Cristus_ because he
also saved persons from the anxiety of fate and death. How? JC said, DENY
THE PERSONA: meaning, declare the persona untrue. No persona, no anxiety
about the persona. Seems to me anyone who looks at these words meaningfully
can see this, understand the simple logic, reason, logos of the situation.
It also seems to me that Bohm understood this. He writes as thought he did,
and although he never talked about it with you, that does not mean he did
not understand the reason, the logos of the situation.
Remember, "those guys" were in an occupied territory, they were occupied by
Rome. That's the origin of present Western law regarding personal
identity -- they had to identify even though identity came with great
anxiety regarding the imaginary self.
Yes, I believe they "were on to something" and Bohm is on the same
rail. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>
> On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>> how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>> of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>
>> We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
>> language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what
>> we do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only
>> tools? How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The
>> executive function of the brain is part of the system, too. How do we
>> get around that? Do we need to? Are those moments of insight a
>> breaking free of such tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough
>> "scientific" information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny?
>> k
>>
>>
> My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
> participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal something
> beyond what might be expressed by either one individually. A single
> person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the mechanical, and
> even when she does there is no immediate feedback because the system is
> too limited, to specifically conditioned. But when there are two or more
> participating the meanings can blend and float freely and unfold,
> possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The connections within a
> single brain can only do so much, but two or more might transcend these
> limits and, in the "space between", there is the possibility for
> something new.
>
> Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's comment
> that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you."
> Maybe those guys were on to something.
>
> don
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 24 03:26:03 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 25 04:26:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <20061023.134102.2116.31.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00a601c6f70b$614aa2a0$c206153f@DL01>
After all these years, I know what they mean. I am doing what I have to do, and if it helps, great and if not, well, maybe it can't be helped. (df)
Maybe the only payoff is a temporary lack of confusion. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Seems to me Bohm, Korzybski and others suggests a better view. If the two alternatives are part of language or language structure, then it appears the language expressing the propositions needs to be looked at for meaning. (dbl)
It may be the language that conceals other choices but I don't think its only that. I am aware of the fact that there are many languages spoken on this planet, many of them structured differently from English, but the problem of fragmentation and incoherence, primary and secondary, are universal. (df)
DBL wasn't addressing "English." He was addressing "Language." (pat)
...the problem of fragmentation and incoherence, primary and secondary, are universal. (df)
Just a clarification [that is often necessary], there is no "problem" with "primary incoherence." In fact, seeing "primary incoherence" or "simple confusion [not knowing]" AS a problem IS "Secondary Incoherence." (pat)
For example, What's the meaning that there are only two choices? what's the meaning of the judgments in the first place? What are the effects of the judgments, etc? (dbl)
These are good questions, worth asking, but they will yield, at best, only context specific answers. Nothing definite. (df)
This indicates that words are to be the [direct] carriers of "the answer." What makes questions "worth asking?" Do we not often leave out the step of "looking" or "suspending" or "pondering" when a question is asked? And before that, do we not often leave out the step[s] of "clarifying the question?" (pat)
It reminds me of an event where, I can't recall whether it was Bohm or K who actually said it, but they made the point that they had been asking themselves about all these people who kept coming back to their talks and never seemed to get beyond the level where they had always been. They asked themselves if they had been doing something wrong, or the teachings weren't getting through. What they came up with was that it couldn't be helped, they were simply doing what they had to do. Results were another matter.
After all these years, I know what they mean. I am doing what I have to do, and if it helps, great and if not, well, maybe it can't be helped. (df)
This doesn't require literal thinking. Just think of the smashed watch analogy. A smashed watch might be able to be repaired in the way that ancient artifacts can be stitched together, but nation states are a more difficult problem because they became fragmented as a result of human intervention. (df)
The very fact of nation states. is an example of fragmentation. (pat)
pat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061023/7e987cd9/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 04:18:15 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 05:18:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <71751CC2-93C0-4FC0-890C-80C9914C17DA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F16D40F0EF405405436FF03A5010@phx.gbl>
There has to be something more. I can dialog all year with a person who
believes in segregation and white supremacy, and the only thing I'll get out
of it is frustration. I already know the arguments. I grew up with them.
And the other person is highly unlikely to change his/er views, either. I'm
a child of the segregated South. Been there, done that many times. Benet in
his poem "John Brown" called for "...a crack in time." The Supreme Court
decision simply made them put a different mask on it. It hasn't gone
anywhere. k
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:14:43 +0100
>
>
>On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>>how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>>of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>
>>We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
>>language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what we
>>do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only tools?
>> How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The executive
>>function of the brain is part of the system, too. How do we get around
>>that? Do we need to? Are those moments of insight a breaking free of
>>such tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough "scientific"
>>information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny? k
>>
>>
>My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
>participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal something
>beyond what might be expressed by either one individually. A single
>person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the mechanical, and
>even when she does there is no immediate feedback because the system is
>too limited, to specifically conditioned. But when there are two or more
>participating the meanings can blend and float freely and unfold,
>possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The connections within a
>single brain can only do so much, but two or more might transcend these
>limits and, in the "space between", there is the possibility for something
>new.
>
>Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's comment
>that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you."
>Maybe those guys were on to something.
>
>don
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 04:31:47 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 05:32:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <002a01c6f6fe$16d82d30$b566153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1D30E1FAD268F0BA3A008A5010@phx.gbl>
Hi - I'm Kathy, Kathryn. New cyber identity because I changed internet
providers.
Frankly, my experience says that doesn't really work unless the participants
in dailog are all willing to search for deeper meaning, and can handle the
feelings that go with such inquiry. See my comment on segregation.
You and I have a lot in common, except for what sides of the Civil War our
families were on. One of my gggg-don't know how my-uncles was the last
surviving Civil War veteran from Tennessee. Another family member was
president of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. My father's family
all settled the Tennessee-Kentucky border, starting when the Cumberland Gap
opened. We're supposedly connected with Daniel Boone! And I was born in
Lakeland, FL, grew up in Plant City, Avon Park, Palmetto, and Tallahassee.
We used to drive to Tampa long before Sunshine Highway was built. My
grandfather on my mother's side helped settle Havana, FL, and rode circuit
from New Orleans to Tallahassee. He also served in Tampa when Teddy
Roosevelt took troops to Cuba.
It wasn't dialog that broke me out of the blinders my family put me in. It
was a lot of hard living and interacting with other ethnic groups that did
it. k
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:50:54 -0400
>
>Morgan, seems to me it is the repetitive personal feed back loops that
>tyranize us. When language is used that directs awareness to that which is
>... not subject to the subject-verb-object schema, then something like
>insight breaks the tyrany.
>
>Make sense? -- don L
>
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Factor"
><donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:14 PM
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>
>
>>
>>On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>>Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>>>how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>>>of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>>
>>>We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
>>>language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what
>>>we do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only
>>>tools? How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The
>>>executive function of the brain is part of the system, too. How do we
>>>get around that? Do we need to? Are those moments of insight a
>>>breaking free of such tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough
>>>"scientific" information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny? k
>>>
>>>
>>My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
>>participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal something
>>beyond what might be expressed by either one individually. A single
>>person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the mechanical, and
>>even when she does there is no immediate feedback because the system is
>>too limited, to specifically conditioned. But when there are two or more
>>participating the meanings can blend and float freely and unfold,
>>possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The connections within a
>>single brain can only do so much, but two or more might transcend these
>>limits and, in the "space between", there is the possibility for
>>something new.
>>
>>Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's comment
>>that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you."
>>Maybe those guys were on to something.
>>
>>don
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Oct 24 05:06:52 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Oct 25 06:08:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061023.230659.2116.32.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see how the "chemistry" and
the
"neurophysiology" of thought [as a system] comes into play? -- Pat
If we answer Pat's question and say it was important to Bohm to seek
truth
as 'that which is' instead of just playing ego games. Looking at and
talking about the meaning and effects of "chemistry" and
"neurophysiology"
is not at all close to talking about self, is it? That is, the words
"chemistry" and "neurophysiology" direct attentive awareness to that
which
is going on and is not at all like using words that direct attention to
the
imaginary self and its social standing. Don't you agree?
Pat, is this close to what you are thinking? -- dbl
I don't know what I was thinking. But I love what you are thinking.
and I think that "what I was thinking" relates well to what kathryn
says here:
"Frankly, my experience says that doesn't really work unless the
participants
in dailog are all willing to search for deeper meaning, and can handle
the
feelings that go with such inquiry." (k)
"Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" have to do with feelings, the feelings
that are stirred by thoughts. If there is an awareness that feelings are
stirred by thoughts (rather than by actual danger), along with an
awareness that thoughts are not "mine," chances are better that
they can be "handled." But more, they can actually be welcomed.
This is a far cry from both suppression & and defensiveness.
pat
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 24 11:15:47 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 25 12:16:16 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <001f01c6f6fb$1131d320$b566153f@DL01>
References: <BAY22-F1A7D0C1EBCE55551632FEA5000@phx.gbl>
<71751CC2-93C0-4FC0-890C-80C9914C17DA@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
<001f01c6f6fb$1131d320$b566153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <4B5688C5-560E-40E6-AA21-34BA4F97962B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 24 Oct 2006, at 00:29, Don Lay wrote:
> When you use the plural of meaning, do you mean that meaning might
> be something fragmented and broken such that there are separate
> meaningS? -- dbl
meaning is not its content, it is more than that.
don
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 24 11:27:26 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 25 12:27:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fw: [diatrope] Article: Self-Portraits Chronicle
a Descent Into Alzheimer's
In-Reply-To: <000f01c6f705$aac54530$c206153f@DL01>
References: <000f01c6f705$aac54530$c206153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <DB4C78EB-B4EE-4F8D-A37A-F5AAC87A8CC7@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Fascinating. The painting become more beautiful and moving the deeper
he gets into Alzheimers. For a comparison, you ought to have a look
at William DeKoonings late paintings, after he began to suffer from
the same disease. These are far more graceful, rhythmic and lyrical
than his previous work. As though he was in a lighter, happier place.
But one just doesn't know. I had an uncle who was diagnosed with
Alzheimers. He had always been a rather sour, serious and humorless
kind of person, but as he got into his illness he changed into a very
happy-go-lucky character who was full of fantastic stories, most of
them pure fantasy. But he was fun to be with. The rest of his family
were very disturbed by this, but I kept saying, Hey, look, he is
happy and enjoying himself, maybe for the first time. But they just
couldn't cope with the change. They wanted the old familiar persona
back again.
don
On 24 Oct 2006, at 01:45, Don Lay wrote:
>
> http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ione
> To: donlay@verizon.net
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:35 PM
> Subject: [diatrope] Article: Self-Portraits Chronicle a Descent
> Into Alzheimer?s
>
> Self-Portraits Chronicle a Descent Into Alzheimer?s
> By DENISE GRADY / New York Times
>
> When he learned in 1995 that he had Alzheimer?s disease, William
> Utermohlen, an American artist in London, responded in
> characteristic fashion.
>
> ?From that moment on, he began to try to understand it by painting
> himself,? said his wife, Patricia Utermohlen, a professor of art
> history.
>
> Mr. Utermohlen?s self-portraits are being exhibited through Friday
> at the New York Academy of Medicine in Manhattan, by the
> Alzheimer?s Association.
>
> The paintings starkly reveal the artist?s descent into dementia, as
> his world began to tilt, perspectives flattened and details melted
> away. His wife and his doctors said he seemed aware at times that
> technical flaws had crept into his work, but he could not figure
> out how to correct them.
>
> ?The spatial sense kept slipping, and I think he knew,? Professor
> Utermohlen said. A psychoanalyst wrote that the paintings depicted
> sadness, anxiety, resignation and feelings of feebleness and shame.
>
> Dr. Bruce Miller, a neurologist at the University of California,
> San Francisco, who studies artistic creativity in people with brain
> diseases, said some patients could still produce powerful work.
>
> Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/health/24alzh.html?
> hp&ex=1161662400&en=b9f3d26b9139e14a&ei=5094&partner=homepage
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/517dec2a/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 24 11:34:49 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 25 12:35:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F16D40F0EF405405436FF03A5010@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F16D40F0EF405405436FF03A5010@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <9C5291A4-3BA7-46D5-8DE1-E32A363DAD82@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I can empathise with your frustration. I have often said, though,
that the activity of dialogue, which means listening to and
empathising with the other person's point of view, while still not
letting go of your own (suspension) does have an effect. But this
effect isn't a linear thing where one or the other of you change your
tune or that you come to some sort of synthesis, but rather that your
other conversations and relationships, in you everyday life become a
little clearer and more coherent, sort of as a side-effect of this
way of relating.
don
On 24 Oct 2006, at 03:18, Morgan Jett wrote:
> There has to be something more. I can dialog all year with a
> person who believes in segregation and white supremacy, and the
> only thing I'll get out of it is frustration. I already know the
> arguments. I grew up with them. And the other person is highly
> unlikely to change his/er views, either. I'm a child of the
> segregated South. Been there, done that many times. Benet in his
> poem "John Brown" called for "...a crack in time." The Supreme
> Court decision simply made them put a different mask on it. It
> hasn't gone anywhere. k
>
>
>> From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:14:43 +0100
>>
>>
>> On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>
>>> Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>>> how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>>> of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>>
>>> We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of
>>> which word language and imagination are two components. It
>>> seems to me it's what we do with it that counts. Are dialog and
>>> critical thinking the only tools? How do those tools bypass
>>> mechanical conditioning? The executive function of the brain is
>>> part of the system, too. How do we get around that? Do we need
>>> to? Are those moments of insight a breaking free of such
>>> tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough "scientific"
>>> information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny? k
>>>
>>>
>> My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
>> participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal
>> something beyond what might be expressed by either one
>> individually. A single person cannot, except in rare instances,
>> get beyond the mechanical, and even when she does there is no
>> immediate feedback because the system is too limited, to
>> specifically conditioned. But when there are two or more
>> participating the meanings can blend and float freely and
>> unfold, possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The
>> connections within a single brain can only do so much, but two or
>> more might transcend these limits and, in the "space between",
>> there is the possibility for something new.
>>
>> Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's
>> comment that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I
>> am with you." Maybe those guys were on to something.
>>
>> don
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live
> Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?
> href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/
> friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 24 11:37:59 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 25 12:38:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <BAY22-F1D30E1FAD268F0BA3A008A5010@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY22-F1D30E1FAD268F0BA3A008A5010@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1B2F09A8-88EB-48E4-BD61-E629164FCFCF@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 24 Oct 2006, at 03:31, Morgan Jett wrote:
> It wasn't dialog that broke me out of the blinders my family put me
> in. It was a lot of hard living and interacting with other ethnic
> groups that did it. k
This, done with an open mind and heart was/is a form of dialogue,
that pretty much parallels David Bohm's project.
don
From w at david-bohm.net Tue Oct 24 12:15:10 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Wed Oct 25 13:15:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <20061023.230659.2116.32.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <453DE7AE.00000B.03736@VAIO-584793128F>
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see how the
>"chemistry" and the "neurophysiology" of thought [as a system]
>comes into play?
>
>"Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" have to do with feelings, the
>feelings that are stirred by thoughts. If there is an awareness
>that feelings are stirred by thoughts (rather than by actual danger),
>along with an Awareness that thoughts are not "mine," chances
>are better that they can be "handled." But more, they can actually
>be welcomed.
No doubt, chemistry and neurophysiology play an essential role in the
production of feelings but I think there is more to it than just that.
Feelings can be stirred up by thoughts but that too is only part of it.
Thoughts and feelings can be viewed as a chemical/neurophysiologal process,
but that is the material aspect of the system. I tend to think that this
material process (chemistry and neurophysiology) constitutes the technical
implementation of a deeper meaning. I.e the material process implements the
deeper meaning, possibly one can derive that meaning from looking at the
material process, but the meaning is the driving factor. In this sense, I
would say the meaning is primary, and the material process is secondary. If
we see a material process then we should look for the meaning, what it is
supposed to be implementing.
Material processes can also be stimulated artificially, but then it may not
be implementing anything meaningful. If we just stimulate material processes
in order to get the feelings then we may be missing the point or the purpose
of the system as a whole. So, I agree that material processes are essential
parts of the whole thing but still the meaning comes first.
In my view, a feeling is not the purpose in and of itself, but rather it is
a symptom or an expression of something else. At the same time it
constitutes the meaning that drives the next process, etc. It's a dual role
enabling cascading chain reactions. This leads us to consider the equally
dual role of thought and it's interaction with feelings, but i think I will
leave that for some other time...
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/cceb495c/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 24 13:05:34 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 25 14:06:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <BAY22-F1D30E1FAD268F0BA3A008A5010@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <000b01c6f75c$5a367c90$0955153f@DL01>
From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
> Hi - I'm Kathy, Kathryn. New cyber identity because I changed internet
> providers. -- K
Hi K,
It is interesting that identities are so easily changed, not just cyber
identies. Tell people you are ZYX and they will call you that. Identity is
arbitrary, and in that sense has little meaning. For example, which among
the few billion people on Earth care if I identify as DBL, Don or Donald
Britton ...? It simply has very little meaning.
You could change your name to Petey Kroudt, and who gives a damn, or
Kristie, or nut-case?
Seems to me the point in context of Bohm Dialogue is that identity is not
necessity .. (DB), and when it (and especially personal identity) is treated
as ultimate -- bad shit happens.
My folks were on both sides of the war. When the Feds came, they were
union; when the Rebs came, they talked their trash -- and that's how they
survived.
What's your interest in David Bohm? Hmmmmm????? -- dbl
>
> Frankly, my experience says that doesn't really work unless the
> participants in dailog are all willing to search for deeper meaning, and
> can handle the feelings that go with such inquiry. See my comment on
> segregation.
> You and I have a lot in common, except for what sides of the Civil War our
> families were on. One of my gggg-don't know how my-uncles was the last
> surviving Civil War veteran from Tennessee. Another family member was
> president of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. My father's family
> all settled the Tennessee-Kentucky border, starting when the Cumberland
> Gap opened. We're supposedly connected with Daniel Boone! And I was born
> in Lakeland, FL, grew up in Plant City, Avon Park, Palmetto, and
> Tallahassee. We used to drive to Tampa long before Sunshine Highway was
> built. My grandfather on my mother's side helped settle Havana, FL, and
> rode circuit from New Orleans to Tallahassee. He also served in Tampa
> when Teddy Roosevelt took troops to Cuba.
>
> It wasn't dialog that broke me out of the blinders my family put me in.
> It was a lot of hard living and interacting with other ethnic groups that
> did it. k
>
>
>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:50:54 -0400
>>
>>Morgan, seems to me it is the repetitive personal feed back loops that
>>tyranize us. When language is used that directs awareness to that which
>>is ... not subject to the subject-verb-object schema, then something like
>>insight breaks the tyrany.
>>
>>Make sense? -- don L
>>
>>
>>
>>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Factor"
>><donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:14 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>>
>>
>>>
>>>On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>>>>how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>>>>of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>>>
>>>>We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
>>>>language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what
>>>>we do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only
>>>>tools? How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The
>>>>executive function of the brain is part of the system, too. How do we
>>>>get around that? Do we need to? Are those moments of insight a
>>>>breaking free of such tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough
>>>>"scientific" information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny? k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
>>>participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal something
>>>beyond what might be expressed by either one individually. A single
>>>person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the mechanical, and
>>>even when she does there is no immediate feedback because the system is
>>>too limited, to specifically conditioned. But when there are two or
>>>more participating the meanings can blend and float freely and unfold,
>>>possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The connections within
>>>a single brain can only do so much, but two or more might transcend
>>>these limits and, in the "space between", there is the possibility for
>>>something new.
>>>
>>>Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's comment
>>>that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you."
>>>Maybe those guys were on to something.
>>>
>>>don
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
> trip!
> http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Tue Oct 24 13:18:03 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Oct 25 14:18:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <20061023.230659.2116.32.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <001001c6f75e$15457da0$0955153f@DL01>
Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" have to do with feelings, the feelings
that are stirred by thoughts. If there is an awareness that feelings are
stirred by thoughts (rather than by actual danger), along with an
awareness that thoughts are not "mine," chances are better that
they can be "handled." But more, they can actually be welcomed.
This is a far cry from both suppression & and defensiveness. -- pat
Can it be 'imagined' and SEEN that "Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" is
whatever it is, and cannot be 'impressed' by social standing, learning,
money, etc., so that addressing "Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology", no
mechanical, reflexive personification occurs? Please simplify! OK.
Addressing chemistry, etc., does not necessitate or mechanically reflexively
trigger acting and pretending a role. "Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" may
not trigger reflexive, mechanical role playing, DEFENSE, defensive
assumptions, etc.
Would identifying thoughts as MINE be slightly paranoid? Since water
comprises a large percentage of the body, what about identifying water as
MINE, YOURS his'n and her'n? Or the air. While the air is in my lungs it
is MINE! Maybe only a sap would do that, but we are all homo-sap. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
> Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see how the "chemistry" and
> the
> "neurophysiology" of thought [as a system] comes into play? -- Pat
>
> If we answer Pat's question and say it was important to Bohm to seek
> truth
> as 'that which is' instead of just playing ego games. Looking at and
> talking about the meaning and effects of "chemistry" and
> "neurophysiology"
> is not at all close to talking about self, is it? That is, the words
> "chemistry" and "neurophysiology" direct attentive awareness to that
> which
> is going on and is not at all like using words that direct attention to
> the
> imaginary self and its social standing. Don't you agree?
>
> Pat, is this close to what you are thinking? -- dbl
>
> I don't know what I was thinking. But I love what you are thinking.
> and I think that "what I was thinking" relates well to what kathryn
> says here:
>
> "Frankly, my experience says that doesn't really work unless the
> participants
> in dailog are all willing to search for deeper meaning, and can handle
> the
> feelings that go with such inquiry." (k)
>
> "Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" have to do with feelings, the feelings
> that are stirred by thoughts. If there is an awareness that feelings are
> stirred by thoughts (rather than by actual danger), along with an
> awareness that thoughts are not "mine," chances are better that
> they can be "handled." But more, they can actually be welcomed.
> This is a far cry from both suppression & and defensiveness.
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 24 14:09:56 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 25 15:10:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <453DE7AE.00000B.03736@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <20061023.230659.2116.32.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<453DE7AE.00000B.03736@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <32138F9F-3EFE-44AF-890B-35C483D7B809@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
This is a very good summary of my understanding, too. But it raises
what is for many a very confusing issue. That is the meaning of
"meaning".
In Bohm's iconography,meaning is, as you are aware, an actual and
active part of the universe - for that matter, it is a fundamental
part. It is no less real than energy or matter. This makes a lot of
sense to me, since it offers the possibility of dissolving a lot
unnecessary distinctions. So I think we need to play with the
possible meanings of meaning a lot more so that when we explore it
we exploring the same stuff, which in turn might help to bring more
clarity to what we mean by it.
Around here, I would guess that everyone has an idea of what matter
is, and also what energy is, or what those terms signify. Or so we
might think. Bohm, in a conversation about molecular biology, said,
"You see, the biologists don't really understand the nature of
matter." Well, the meaning of meaning is even less apparent. So, do
we really understand what it means to say, for example, that thought
is a material system?
don
On 24 Oct 2006, at 11:15, william wrote:
> No doubt, chemistry and neurophysiology play an essential role in
> the production of feelings but I think there is more to it than
> just that. Feelings can be stirred up by thoughts but that too is
> only part of it. Thoughts and feelings can be viewed as a chemical/
> neurophysiologal process, but that is the material aspect of the
> system. I tend to think that this material process (chemistry and
> neurophysiology) constitutes the technical implementation of a
> deeper meaning. I.e the material process implements the deeper
> meaning, possibly one can derive that meaning from looking at the
> material process, but the meaning is the driving factor. In this
> sense, I would say the meaning is primary, and the material process
> is secondary. If we see a material process then we should look for
> the meaning, what it is supposed to be implementing.
>
> Material processes can also be stimulated artificially, but then it
> may not be implementing anything meaningful. If we just stimulate
> material processes in order to get the feelings then we may be
> missing the point or the purpose of the system as a whole. So, I
> agree that material processes are essential parts of the whole
> thing but still the meaning comes first.
> In my view, a feeling is not the purpose in and of itself, but
> rather it is a symptom or an expression of something else. At the
> same time it constitutes the meaning that drives the next process,
> etc. It's a dual role enabling cascading chain reactions. This
> leads us to consider the equally dual role of thought and it's
> interaction with feelings, but i think I will leave that for some
> other time...
>
> william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/95a4c1ea/attachment.html
From benschcoe at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 15:12:39 2006
From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe)
Date: Wed Oct 25 16:13:14 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <453DE7AE.00000B.03736@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY123-F2067CD3D6ECA1A1D25AC1FB7010@phx.gbl>
This leads us to consider the equally dual role of thought and it’s
interaction with feelings (william)
If there is an awareness that feelings are stirred by thoughts (rather than
by actual danger), along with an awareness that thoughts are not "mine,"
chances are better that they can be "handled." But more, they can actually
be welcomed. This is a far cry from both suppression & and defensiveness.
(pat)
————
I sense a connection between these two comments that I cannot quite name. I
am wondering if there is a relationship between “thought and it’s
INTERACTION with feelings” and “AWARENESS that thoughts are not ‘mine.‘”
Could this interaction between thought (object) and feeling (non-object), in
the context of awareness or space consciousness be a form of inner dialogue
or proprioception in action?
Regina
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:15:10 +0200 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> >Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see how the
> >"chemistry" and the "neurophysiology" of thought [as a system]
> >comes into play?
> >
> >"Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" have to do with feelings, the
> >feelings that are stirred by thoughts. If there is an awareness
> >that feelings are stirred by thoughts (rather than by actual danger),
> >along with an Awareness that thoughts are not "mine," chances
> >are better that they can be "handled." But more, they can actually
> >be welcomed.
>
>
>No doubt, chemistry and neurophysiology play an essential role in the
>production of feelings but I think there is more to it than just that.
>Feelings can be stirred up by thoughts but that too is only part of it.
>Thoughts and feelings can be viewed as a chemical/neurophysiologal process,
>but that is the material aspect of the system. I tend to think that this
>material process (chemistry and neurophysiology) constitutes the technical
>implementation of a deeper meaning. I.e the material process implements the
>deeper meaning, possibly one can derive that meaning from looking at the
>material process, but the meaning is the driving factor. In this sense, I
>would say the meaning is primary, and the material process is secondary. If
>we see a material process then we should look for the meaning, what it is
>supposed to be implementing.
>
>Material processes can also be stimulated artificially, but then it may not
>be implementing anything meaningful. If we just stimulate material
>processes
>in order to get the feelings then we may be missing the point or the
>purpose
>of the system as a whole. So, I agree that material processes are essential
>parts of the whole thing but still the meaning comes first.
>In my view, a feeling is not the purpose in and of itself, but rather it is
>a symptom or an expression of something else. At the same time it
>constitutes the meaning that drives the next process, etc. It's a dual role
>enabling cascading chain reactions. This leads us to consider the equally
>dual role of thought and it's interaction with feelings, but i think I will
>leave that for some other time...
>
>william
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 24 15:57:57 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 25 16:58:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <1B2F09A8-88EB-48E4-BD61-E629164FCFCF@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C1639425.3A37%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
No wonder I'm at home with Bohm's ideas. I've been doing it all my life! k
On 10/24/06 5:37 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 24 Oct 2006, at 03:31, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> It wasn't dialog that broke me out of the blinders my family put me
>> in. It was a lot of hard living and interacting with other ethnic
>> groups that did it. k
>
> This, done with an open mind and heart was/is a form of dialogue,
> that pretty much parallels David Bohm's project.
>
> don
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 16:11:52 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 17:12:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-F2067CD3D6ECA1A1D25AC1FB7010@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F1B5C9C7720ED764A52BBCA5010@phx.gbl>
, along with an awareness that thoughts are not "mine
I really have trouble with this. How can thoughts I think not be mine? At
this moment, for me, that would be a rationalization that could lead to my
not taking responsibility for my actions. k
>From: "Regina Bensch-Coe" <benschcoe@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:12:39 -0400
>
>This leads us to consider the equally dual role of thought and it’s
>interaction with feelings (william)
>
>If there is an awareness that feelings are stirred by thoughts (rather than
>by actual danger), along with an awareness that thoughts are not "mine,"
>chances are better that they can be "handled." But more, they can actually
>be welcomed. This is a far cry from both suppression & and defensiveness.
>(pat)
>
>————
>I sense a connection between these two comments that I cannot quite name. I
>am wondering if there is a relationship between “thought and it’s
>INTERACTION with feelings” and “AWARENESS that thoughts are not ‘mine.‘”
>Could this interaction between thought (object) and feeling (non-object),
>in the context of awareness or space consciousness be a form of inner
>dialogue or proprioception in action?
>
>Regina
>
>
>>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:15:10 +0200 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>>
>>
>>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>> >Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see how the
>> >"chemistry" and the "neurophysiology" of thought [as a system]
>> >comes into play?
>> >
>> >"Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" have to do with feelings, the
>> >feelings that are stirred by thoughts. If there is an awareness
>> >that feelings are stirred by thoughts (rather than by actual danger),
>> >along with an Awareness that thoughts are not "mine," chances
>> >are better that they can be "handled." But more, they can actually
>> >be welcomed.
>>
>>
>>No doubt, chemistry and neurophysiology play an essential role in the
>>production of feelings but I think there is more to it than just that.
>>Feelings can be stirred up by thoughts but that too is only part of it.
>>Thoughts and feelings can be viewed as a chemical/neurophysiologal
>>process,
>>but that is the material aspect of the system. I tend to think that this
>>material process (chemistry and neurophysiology) constitutes the technical
>>implementation of a deeper meaning. I.e the material process implements
>>the
>>deeper meaning, possibly one can derive that meaning from looking at the
>>material process, but the meaning is the driving factor. In this sense, I
>>would say the meaning is primary, and the material process is secondary.
>>If
>>we see a material process then we should look for the meaning, what it is
>>supposed to be implementing.
>>
>>Material processes can also be stimulated artificially, but then it may
>>not
>>be implementing anything meaningful. If we just stimulate material
>>processes
>>in order to get the feelings then we may be missing the point or the
>>purpose
>>of the system as a whole. So, I agree that material processes are
>>essential
>>parts of the whole thing but still the meaning comes first.
>>In my view, a feeling is not the purpose in and of itself, but rather it
>>is
>>a symptom or an expression of something else. At the same time it
>>constitutes the meaning that drives the next process, etc. It's a dual
>>role
>>enabling cascading chain reactions. This leads us to consider the equally
>>dual role of thought and it's interaction with feelings, but i think I
>>will
>>leave that for some other time...
>>
>>william
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
>Microsoft Office Live
>http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 16:19:10 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 17:19:48 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <000b01c6f75c$5a367c90$0955153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F722A0B3F251F1BDA4BD7BA5010@phx.gbl>
>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:05:34 -0400
>
It simply has very little meaning.
Dear Don - I know you're speaking for yourself here! Certainly not for me.
k
>
>From: "Morgan Jett" <griffyn23@hotmail.com>
>
>>Hi - I'm Kathy, Kathryn. New cyber identity because I changed internet
>>providers. -- K
>
>Hi K,
>It is interesting that identities are so easily changed, not just cyber
>identies. Tell people you are ZYX and they will call you that. Identity is
>arbitrary, and in that sense has little meaning. For example, which among
>the few billion people on Earth care if I identify as DBL, Don or Donald
>Britton ...? It simply has very little meaning.
>
>You could change your name to Petey Kroudt, and who gives a damn, or
>Kristie, or nut-case?
>
>Seems to me the point in context of Bohm Dialogue is that identity is not
>necessity .. (DB), and when it (and especially personal identity) is
>treated as ultimate -- bad shit happens.
>
>My folks were on both sides of the war. When the Feds came, they were
>union; when the Rebs came, they talked their trash -- and that's how they
>survived.
>
>What's your interest in David Bohm? Hmmmmm????? -- dbl
>
>
>
>>
>>Frankly, my experience says that doesn't really work unless the
>>participants in dailog are all willing to search for deeper meaning, and
>>can handle the feelings that go with such inquiry. See my comment on
>>segregation.
>>You and I have a lot in common, except for what sides of the Civil War our
>>families were on. One of my gggg-don't know how my-uncles was the last
>>surviving Civil War veteran from Tennessee. Another family member was
>>president of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. My father's family
>>all settled the Tennessee-Kentucky border, starting when the Cumberland
>>Gap opened. We're supposedly connected with Daniel Boone! And I was born
>>in Lakeland, FL, grew up in Plant City, Avon Park, Palmetto, and
>>Tallahassee. We used to drive to Tampa long before Sunshine Highway was
>>built. My grandfather on my mother's side helped settle Havana, FL, and
>>rode circuit from New Orleans to Tallahassee. He also served in Tampa
>>when Teddy Roosevelt took troops to Cuba.
>>
>>It wasn't dialog that broke me out of the blinders my family put me in. It
>>was a lot of hard living and interacting with other ethnic groups that did
>>it. k
>>
>>
>>>From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>>>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:50:54 -0400
>>>
>>>Morgan, seems to me it is the repetitive personal feed back loops that
>>>tyranize us. When language is used that directs awareness to that which
>>>is ... not subject to the subject-verb-object schema, then something like
>>>insight breaks the tyrany.
>>>
>>>Make sense? -- don L
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Factor"
>>><donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:14 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>>>>>how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>>>>>of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>>>>
>>>>>We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
>>>>>language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what
>>>>>we do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only
>>>>>tools? How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The
>>>>>executive function of the brain is part of the system, too. How do we
>>>>>get around that? Do we need to? Are those moments of insight a
>>>>>breaking free of such tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough
>>>>>"scientific" information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny?
>>>>>k
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
>>>>participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal something
>>>>beyond what might be expressed by either one individually. A single
>>>>person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the mechanical, and
>>>>even when she does there is no immediate feedback because the system is
>>>>too limited, to specifically conditioned. But when there are two or
>>>>more participating the meanings can blend and float freely and unfold,
>>>>possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The connections within
>>>>a single brain can only do so much, but two or more might transcend
>>>>these limits and, in the "space between", there is the possibility for
>>>>something new.
>>>>
>>>>Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's comment
>>>>that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you."
>>>>Maybe those guys were on to something.
>>>>
>>>>don
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>info:
>>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
>>trip!
>>http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 16:32:39 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 17:33:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] feeling & thought
Message-ID: <BAY22-F235FED0534CC0DEF491C2BA5010@phx.gbl>
The manner in which feeling and thought interpenetrate one another is
central to Bohm's view of the functioning of consciousness. Throughout the
mind and body, he says, they form a structure of neurological reflexes.
Through repetition, emotional intensity and defensiveness, these reflexes
become hard-wired in consciousness, to such an extent that they respond
independently of our conscious choice.
from the foreword of Thought As a System
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 16:39:33 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 17:40:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <4B5688C5-560E-40E6-AA21-34BA4F97962B@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F62B044609DD3546D2BAE1A5010@phx.gbl>
Thought cannot be the whole because it is just a representation, an
abstraction. There is a difference between dividing and fragmenting.
Thought may divide in the sense of marking parts of a whole - such as
smashing the gears of a watch, Or thought may fragment - such as smashing
the watch with a hammer.
Thought As a System
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:15:47 +0100
>
>
>On 24 Oct 2006, at 00:29, Don Lay wrote:
>
>>When you use the plural of meaning, do you mean that meaning might be
>>something fragmented and broken such that there are separate meaningS? --
>> dbl
>meaning is not its content, it is more than that.
>don
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Oct 24 17:31:03 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Oct 25 18:36:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061024.083136.332.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Yes. There is something quirky that goes on when our perception
interprets meaning. Humans seem to imperatively send ourselves a message
of a result or conclusion so quickly. Why so quick and needfully is this
done? How does it serve us for humans to be designed to be that fearful
or driven? If there is a habit in place that can go into action to
respond to our instantaneous interpretations or conclusions (and once the
order of "go" is allowed,) humans act so automatically! This sense as if
the action is "going off by itself" is such a common experience. We seem
to always follows an already defined habitual course of what we assume is
a suitable response. How do people ever learn new things since this is
such a characteristic!
If someone does not allow themselves to make a conclusion or an
interpretation, and instead "suspend" this habitual response and the
order to now go into action, habitual responses can be put on "pause."
Doing this has an advantage, it makes it possible to choose how you
prefer to react and definitely gives you more options beyond how your
assumptions and conclusions will allow you to react. Once you interrupt
this Perception-Interpretation = Response process you can do at least
three other possibilities: you can choose to can gain more data before
you make an interpretation or conclusion, you can choose to do something
else more appropriate or just choose to not react indefinitely.
But this takes quite a bit of training and skill to be able to do,
because the justified necessity for these habits have often been
imperatively shaped and installed.
It seems rare for people to be able to question or suspect our own
thinking strategies in this "meta" reframing way, without undermining our
sense of self in my subculture, it seems. But I believe the ability to
question one's own means of carrying out intentions is a sign of a
strength of character.
Instead most of us only sense what is bothering us - the negative
problems. We don't seem to ask the right questions about how we got to
where we are - which is what Dialogue seems to do for us and what I teach
people by using Alexander Technique. Many people don't ask themselves any
questions!
Perhaps this is because we as humans are not made to sense our own innate
habitual programming that is "doing" something - we just use it. But I
can't believe that we humans have a design flaw that freezes us
indecisively as we age as more habits combine with other contradicting
directives.
I'm wondering if suspecting the assumptions and content of the original
conclusions themselves (as well as the strategy that is being used to
respond to it, which is what I have described here) would be even more
useful than going to the trouble of suspending the reaction.
I guess that is the approach of psychology - to find the erroneous
assumptions behind behavior that is no longer serving you adequately. But
somehow, I wonder if someone else has combined the two... I'll look
around.
- Franis
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:12:39 -0400 "Regina Bensch-Coe"
<benschcoe@hotmail.com> writes:
> This leads us to consider the equally dual role of thought and it’s
> interaction with feelings (william)
>
> If there is an awareness that feelings are stirred by thoughts
> (rather than
> by actual danger), along with an awareness that thoughts are not
> "mine,"
> chances are better that they can be "handled." But more, they can
> actually
> be welcomed. This is a far cry from both suppression & and
> defensiveness.
> (pat)
>
> ————
> I sense a connection between these two comments that I cannot quite
> name. I
> am wondering if there is a relationship between “thought and it’s
> INTERACTION with feelings” and “AWARENESS that thoughts are not
> ‘mine.‘”
> Could this interaction between thought (object) and feeling
> (non-object), in
> the context of awareness or space consciousness be a form of inner
> dialogue
> or proprioception in action?
>
> Regina
>
>
> >From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
> >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
> >Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:15:10 +0200 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
> >
> >
> >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> > >Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see how the
> > >"chemistry" and the "neurophysiology" of thought [as a system]
> > >comes into play?
> > >
> > >"Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" have to do with feelings, the
> > >feelings that are stirred by thoughts. If there is an awareness
> > >that feelings are stirred by thoughts (rather than by actual
> danger),
> > >along with an Awareness that thoughts are not "mine," chances
> > >are better that they can be "handled." But more, they can
> actually
> > >be welcomed.
> >
> >
> >No doubt, chemistry and neurophysiology play an essential role in
> the
> >production of feelings but I think there is more to it than just
> that.
> >Feelings can be stirred up by thoughts but that too is only part of
> it.
> >Thoughts and feelings can be viewed as a chemical/neurophysiologal
> process,
> >but that is the material aspect of the system. I tend to think that
> this
> >material process (chemistry and neurophysiology) constitutes the
> technical
> >implementation of a deeper meaning. I.e the material process
> implements the
> >deeper meaning, possibly one can derive that meaning from looking
> at the
> >material process, but the meaning is the driving factor. In this
> sense, I
> >would say the meaning is primary, and the material process is
> secondary. If
> >we see a material process then we should look for the meaning, what
> it is
> >supposed to be implementing.
> >
> >Material processes can also be stimulated artificially, but then it
> may not
> >be implementing anything meaningful. If we just stimulate material
> >processes
> >in order to get the feelings then we may be missing the point or
> the
> >purpose
> >of the system as a whole. So, I agree that material processes are
> essential
> >parts of the whole thing but still the meaning comes first.
> >In my view, a feeling is not the purpose in and of itself, but
> rather it is
> >a symptom or an expression of something else. At the same time it
> >constitutes the meaning that drives the next process, etc. It's a
> dual role
> >enabling cascading chain reactions. This leads us to consider the
> equally
> >dual role of thought and it's interaction with feelings, but i
> think I will
> >leave that for some other time...
> >
> >william
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Oct 24 18:09:51 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Oct 25 19:11:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061024.120953.2116.38.ae.dropper@juno.com>
, along with an awareness that thoughts are not "mine
I really have trouble with this. How can thoughts I think not be mine?
At
this moment, for me, that would be a rationalization that could lead to
my
not taking responsibility for my actions. k
I was lying in bed last night remembering having said the above and saw
the response:
"Of course these thoughts are mine, if someone else were in the room they
would be thinking different thoughts, "theirs," and they most likely
wouldn't know the
content of what I am thinking."
... and remembering
as well, the kind of back door [after having passed down the meandering
garden path] process that leads to the understanding of bohm's
"collective thought."
There are several steps/questions suitable to this process.
Are there any thoughts that pass through awareness (like the highlighted
one above for instance, the one 'you' may be thinking of as "mine") that
are not, either a common thought, or, one that cannot be reduced to a
common thought [based on a common assumption]?
enough for now
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/5cab5a35/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Oct 24 17:26:10 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Oct 25 19:11:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061024.120953.2116.37.ae.dropper@juno.com>
"Home" says it all. When I first ran into bohm's stuff there was
immediate
recognition. And, confirmation that had come from nowhere else (even
though
immersed in philosophical studies and exploration my whole life), that
looking at thought for the source of suffering, conflict, violence
[take your pick], was the truly fruitful way to proceed.
But it was much more. Because Bohm provided the tools to
go much deeper than would ever have been possible
on my own.
And if that was not enough, his work provided
group potential - the chance that this intimate
enterprise, this private intimacy, might be
shared with others. I am reminded of my
"Hermits Unite" button that has been
on the wall (all but forgotten) for 30
years.
pat
No wonder I'm at home with Bohm's ideas. I've been doing it all my life!
k
On 10/24/06 5:37 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> On 24 Oct 2006, at 03:31, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>> It wasn't dialog that broke me out of the blinders my family put me
>> in. It was a lot of hard living and interacting with other ethnic
>> groups that did it. k
>
> This, done with an open mind and heart was/is a form of dialogue,
> that pretty much parallels David Bohm's project.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/768c85ec/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Oct 24 18:56:27 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Oct 25 19:57:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061024.125627.2116.39.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Thought cannot be the whole because it is just a representation, an
abstraction. There is a difference between dividing and fragmenting.
Thought may divide in the sense of marking parts of a whole - such as
smashing the gears of a watch, Or thought may fragment - such as
smashing
the watch with a hammer.
Thought As a System
Love the quotes. Page numbers would be good. Trying to find the one above
-
doesn't quite make sense.
pat
From w at david-bohm.net Tue Oct 24 19:04:12 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Wed Oct 25 20:05:42 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <20061024.120953.2116.37.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <453E478C.00000D.03736@VAIO-584793128F>
> Could this interaction between thought (object) and feeling (non-object),
in
> the context of awareness or space consciousness be a form of inner
dialogue
> or proprioception in action?
>
> Regina
Actually, I don't see a very big difference between thoughts and feelings.
These two words seem to point to essentially the same thing, called by
different names. The word 'feeling' seems to emphasize the more "natural" or
down to earth aspect, while the word 'thought' seem to emphasize the more
abstract" or intellectual side of it. It seems very different, but in both
cases the general principle is the same. We should really have one word that
categorizes both aspects under the same name. So it's not so much an
interaction between thoughts and feelings but it is an ongoing process with
different phases where occasionally 'thought' emerges as the dominant aspect
while at the next moment it blends into a 'feeling', etc.
The main thing, as I see it, is the 'image' that is made on the fly as
things happen. The image is the result of what happens, but that same image
also determines what happens next. It's is an ongoing chain of events, like
the weather; it doesn't really have a beginning or an end but it is just,
well... Going on.
The essential bit is the image: this is the "realization" of the meaning.
The meaning is "realized" (virtually) into an image, and the response is
towards that image. In other words; no image, no response. The image is not
necessarily visual, but it is more general and can include other forms of
input. So 'image' is perhaps not the best word but I don't know of a better
one. Personally, I prefer to think in terms of 'virtual reality', if that
means anything to you. We don't respond to actual reality directly but to
the virtual reality in the mind, which can differ from person to person, and
from one moment to the next. This explains, for instance, how the perceived
reality can change instantly when we suddenly realize a mistake.
William
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/d930a252/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 24 19:08:30 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 25 20:09:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <20061024.125627.2116.39.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C163C0CE.3A45%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
p. 115.
On 10/24/06 12:56 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Thought cannot be the whole because it is just a representation, an
> abstraction. There is a difference between dividing and fragmenting.
> Thought may divide in the sense of marking parts of a whole - such as
> smashing the gears of a watch, Or thought may fragment - such as
> smashing
> the watch with a hammer.
>
> Thought As a System
>
> Love the quotes. Page numbers would be good. Trying to find the one above
> -
> doesn't quite make sense.
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 24 19:10:35 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 25 20:11:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <20061024.120953.2116.38.ae.dropper@juno.com>
References: <20061024.120953.2116.38.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <4D0003A4-2BD0-480A-9437-6C9D62707436@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Think collective thought. Then consider that all thought or its
content unfolds from the collective. Hang on to that idea for a bit.
And think: the language itself is the medium for most of our thought
as are all the rules, truths, and necessities that were drummed into
us almost from birth, if not earlier. So you might have to say that
there is only collective thought.
What I know or what I think, is an arrangement drawn from all of the
above. And even the arrangement iis probably is not unique. Starting
from this point of view, the ownership of ideas becomes more like an
obstacle because, if there is only collective thought, then all our
different thoughts display a variety of arrangements that can be made
out of the initial bits of information and with this in mind it
becomes easier to work together to create even better arrangements.
And, on rare occasions these arrangements fall into a shape that may
never have appeared before, and we can call them creativity. But it
belongs to us all.
It is largely as a result of the fact that thoughts have become like
commodities in our culture that we want to protect our ownership of
them. If we gave our teachers he right answers we were rewarded, and
punished for giving the wrong ones or, worse. not knowing. It not a
very long jumb to the place where we now have laws that protect
intellectual property even though most of it is made up initially of
26 letters or 12 tones or three primary colours and even larger
blocks of these can be found elsewhere.
Of course, there are also other ways of looking at this.
don
On 24 Oct 2006, at 17:09, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
> , along with an awareness that thoughts are not "mine
>
> I really have trouble with this. How can thoughts I think not be
> mine? At
> this moment, for me, that would be a rationalization that could
> lead to my
> not taking responsibility for my actions. k
>
> I was lying in bed last night remembering having said the above and
> saw the response:
> "Of course these thoughts are mine, if someone else were in the
> room they would be thinking different thoughts, "theirs," and they
> most likely wouldn't know the
> content of what I am thinking."
>
> ... and remembering
> as well, the kind of back door [after having passed down the
> meandering garden path] process that leads to the understanding of
> bohm's "collective thought."
>
> There are several steps/questions suitable to this process.
>
> Are there any thoughts that pass through awareness (like the
> highlighted one above for instance, the one 'you' may be thinking
> of as "mine") that are not, either a common thought, or, one that
> cannot be reduced to a common thought [based on a common assumption]?
>
> enough for now
>
> pat
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 19:17:05 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 20:17:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <9C5291A4-3BA7-46D5-8DE1-E32A363DAD82@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F15A1FF6DD5F15E2E0C20FEA5010@phx.gbl>
yes, that's consonant with the ideas in "On Dialog and Its Application", and
I can see its necessity. But I also found the following (Pat, from several
different pages) in the same "On Dialog" excerpt:
If people could stay with power, violence, hate, or whatever it is, all the
way to the end, then it would sort of collapse...I think this new approach
could open the way to changing the whole world situation...and the further
this attitude could spread, the more I think it could hepl to bring
order...this notion of dialog and common consciousness suggests there is
some way out of our collective difficulties...we should keep in mind,
nonetheless, that the dialog..is not only directed at solving the ills of
society...
I'm suggesting that there is the possibility for a transformation of the
nature of consciousness, both individually and collectively, and that
whether this can be solved culturally and socially depends on dialog.
That's what we're exploring.
It would be rare for anyone of the people I grew up with to participate in a
group with our purposes. The only one who comes to mind is former governor
Leron Collins who was considered a trator in many circles. How would one
deal with that? I see dialog as our only hope. k
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:34:49 +0100
>
>I can empathise with your frustration. I have often said, though, that the
>activity of dialogue, which means listening to and empathising with the
>other person's point of view, while still not letting go of your own
>(suspension) does have an effect. But this effect isn't a linear thing
>where one or the other of you change your tune or that you come to some
>sort of synthesis, but rather that your other conversations and
>relationships, in you everyday life become a little clearer and more
>coherent, sort of as a side-effect of this way of relating.
>
>don
>On 24 Oct 2006, at 03:18, Morgan Jett wrote:
>
>>There has to be something more. I can dialog all year with a person who
>>believes in segregation and white supremacy, and the only thing I'll get
>>out of it is frustration. I already know the arguments. I grew up with
>>them. And the other person is highly unlikely to change his/er views,
>>either. I'm a child of the segregated South. Been there, done that many
>>times. Benet in his poem "John Brown" called for "...a crack in time."
>>The Supreme Court decision simply made them put a different mask on it.
>>It hasn't gone anywhere. k
>>
>>
>>>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>>>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:14:43 +0100
>>>
>>>
>>>On 23 Oct 2006, at 20:41, Morgan Jett wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see
>>>>how the "chemistry" and the "neurophysiology"
>>>>of thought [as a system] comes into play?
>>>>
>>>>We have alll that there is - the brain/body and symbols, of which word
>>>>language and imagination are two components. It seems to me it's what
>>>>we do with it that counts. Are dialog and critical thinking the only
>>>>tools? How do those tools bypass mechanical conditioning? The
>>>>executive function of the brain is part of the system, too. How do we
>>>>get around that? Do we need to? Are those moments of insight a
>>>>breaking free of such tyranny? Is it that we simply don't have enough
>>>>"scientific" information to go on? Is intuition free of the tyranny?
>>>> k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>My best guess is that because dialogue necessitates more than one
>>>participant, the meaning unfolds between them and can reveal something
>>>beyond what might be expressed by either one individually. A single
>>>person cannot, except in rare instances, get beyond the mechanical, and
>>>even when she does there is no immediate feedback because the system is
>>>too limited, to specifically conditioned. But when there are two or
>>>more participating the meanings can blend and float freely and
>>>unfold, possibly, into more than the sum of their parts. The
>>>connections within a single brain can only do so much, but two or more
>>>might transcend these limits and, in the "space between", there is the
>>>possibility for something new.
>>>
>>>Although I am not a lover of religion, I am reminded of Jesus's comment
>>>that "when two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am with you."
>>>Maybe those guys were on to something.
>>>
>>>don
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>info:
>>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>dialogue facilitator:
>>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
>>http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?
>>href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/
>>friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 19:22:07 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 20:22:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <453DE7AE.00000B.03736@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F11131DC1F9FCD9DC80F5B7A5010@phx.gbl>
I would say the meaning is primary, and the material process is secondary.
Everything you say makes sense to me. But where does "meaning" come from?
There's something behind all this that I can't yet articulate. I just know
there's more. k
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:15:10 +0200 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> >Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see how the
> >"chemistry" and the "neurophysiology" of thought [as a system]
> >comes into play?
> >
> >"Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" have to do with feelings, the
> >feelings that are stirred by thoughts. If there is an awareness
> >that feelings are stirred by thoughts (rather than by actual danger),
> >along with an Awareness that thoughts are not "mine," chances
> >are better that they can be "handled." But more, they can actually
> >be welcomed.
>
>
>No doubt, chemistry and neurophysiology play an essential role in the
>production of feelings but I think there is more to it than just that.
>Feelings can be stirred up by thoughts but that too is only part of it.
>Thoughts and feelings can be viewed as a chemical/neurophysiologal process,
>but that is the material aspect of the system. I tend to think that this
>material process (chemistry and neurophysiology) constitutes the technical
>implementation of a deeper meaning. I.e the material process implements the
>deeper meaning, possibly one can derive that meaning from looking at the
>material process, but the meaning is the driving factor. In this sense, I
>would say the meaning is primary, and the material process is secondary. If
>we see a material process then we should look for the meaning, what it is
>supposed to be implementing.
>
>Material processes can also be stimulated artificially, but then it may not
>be implementing anything meaningful. If we just stimulate material
>processes
>in order to get the feelings then we may be missing the point or the
>purpose
>of the system as a whole. So, I agree that material processes are essential
>parts of the whole thing but still the meaning comes first.
>In my view, a feeling is not the purpose in and of itself, but rather it is
>a symptom or an expression of something else. At the same time it
>constitutes the meaning that drives the next process, etc. It's a dual role
>enabling cascading chain reactions. This leads us to consider the equally
>dual role of thought and it's interaction with feelings, but i think I will
>leave that for some other time...
>
>william
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 19:27:26 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 20:27:59 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <20061024.120953.2116.37.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F10ECC141BA8FBFEC77FA6AA5010@phx.gbl>
I'm with you! k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:26:10 -0400
>
>"Home" says it all. When I first ran into bohm's stuff there was
>immediate
>recognition. And, confirmation that had come from nowhere else (even
>though
>immersed in philosophical studies and exploration my whole life), that
>looking at thought for the source of suffering, conflict, violence
>[take your pick], was the truly fruitful way to proceed.
>
>But it was much more. Because Bohm provided the tools to
>go much deeper than would ever have been possible
>on my own.
>
>And if that was not enough, his work provided
>group potential - the chance that this intimate
>enterprise, this private intimacy, might be
>shared with others. I am reminded of my
>"Hermits Unite" button that has been
>on the wall (all but forgotten) for 30
>years.
>
>pat
>
>
>
>No wonder I'm at home with Bohm's ideas. I've been doing it all my life!
> k
>
>
>On 10/24/06 5:37 AM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
> >
> > On 24 Oct 2006, at 03:31, Morgan Jett wrote:
> >
> >> It wasn't dialog that broke me out of the blinders my family put me
> >> in. It was a lot of hard living and interacting with other ethnic
> >> groups that did it. k
> >
> > This, done with an open mind and heart was/is a form of dialogue,
> > that pretty much parallels David Bohm's project.
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 19:29:12 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 20:29:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <20061024.120953.2116.38.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F259AD46767E3DC6F74E59BA5010@phx.gbl>
Are there any thoughts that pass through awareness (like the highlighted one
above for instance, the one 'you' may be thinking of as "mine") that are
not, either a common thought, or, one that cannot be reduced to a common
thought [based on a common assumption]?
Food for thought, Pat. k
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:09:51 -0400
>
>, along with an awareness that thoughts are not "mine
>
>I really have trouble with this. How can thoughts I think not be mine?
>At
>this moment, for me, that would be a rationalization that could lead to
>my
>not taking responsibility for my actions. k
>
>I was lying in bed last night remembering having said the above and saw
>the response:
>"Of course these thoughts are mine, if someone else were in the room they
>would be thinking different thoughts, "theirs," and they most likely
>wouldn't know the
>content of what I am thinking."
>
>... and remembering
>as well, the kind of back door [after having passed down the meandering
>garden path] process that leads to the understanding of bohm's
>"collective thought."
>
>There are several steps/questions suitable to this process.
>
>Are there any thoughts that pass through awareness (like the highlighted
>one above for instance, the one 'you' may be thinking of as "mine") that
>are not, either a common thought, or, one that cannot be reduced to a
>common thought [based on a common assumption]?
>
>enough for now
>
>pat
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
trip!
http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 19:33:46 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 20:34:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <20061024.083136.332.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F883E3D80662AC50D7A8C5A5010@phx.gbl>
It seems rare for people to be able to question or suspect our own
thinking strategies in this "meta" reframing way, without undermining our
sense of self in my subculture, it seems. But I believe the ability to
question one's own means of carrying out intentions is a sign of a
strength of character.
Fran - Pema Chodron has a lot to contribute on identity - a world in flux
means no fixed identity. The notion of a fixed identity is a problem she
deals with extensively. I found her ideas very enlightening. k
>From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:31:03 -0700
>
>Yes. There is something quirky that goes on when our perception
>interprets meaning. Humans seem to imperatively send ourselves a message
>of a result or conclusion so quickly. Why so quick and needfully is this
>done? How does it serve us for humans to be designed to be that fearful
>or driven? If there is a habit in place that can go into action to
>respond to our instantaneous interpretations or conclusions (and once the
>order of "go" is allowed,) humans act so automatically! This sense as if
>the action is "going off by itself" is such a common experience. We seem
>to always follows an already defined habitual course of what we assume is
>a suitable response. How do people ever learn new things since this is
>such a characteristic!
>
>If someone does not allow themselves to make a conclusion or an
>interpretation, and instead "suspend" this habitual response and the
>order to now go into action, habitual responses can be put on "pause."
>Doing this has an advantage, it makes it possible to choose how you
>prefer to react and definitely gives you more options beyond how your
>assumptions and conclusions will allow you to react. Once you interrupt
>this Perception-Interpretation = Response process you can do at least
>three other possibilities: you can choose to can gain more data before
>you make an interpretation or conclusion, you can choose to do something
>else more appropriate or just choose to not react indefinitely.
>
>But this takes quite a bit of training and skill to be able to do,
>because the justified necessity for these habits have often been
>imperatively shaped and installed.
>
>It seems rare for people to be able to question or suspect our own
>thinking strategies in this "meta" reframing way, without undermining our
>sense of self in my subculture, it seems. But I believe the ability to
>question one's own means of carrying out intentions is a sign of a
>strength of character.
>
>Instead most of us only sense what is bothering us - the negative
>problems. We don't seem to ask the right questions about how we got to
>where we are - which is what Dialogue seems to do for us and what I teach
>people by using Alexander Technique. Many people don't ask themselves any
>questions!
>
>Perhaps this is because we as humans are not made to sense our own innate
>habitual programming that is "doing" something - we just use it. But I
>can't believe that we humans have a design flaw that freezes us
>indecisively as we age as more habits combine with other contradicting
>directives.
>
>I'm wondering if suspecting the assumptions and content of the original
>conclusions themselves (as well as the strategy that is being used to
>respond to it, which is what I have described here) would be even more
>useful than going to the trouble of suspending the reaction.
>
>I guess that is the approach of psychology - to find the erroneous
>assumptions behind behavior that is no longer serving you adequately. But
>somehow, I wonder if someone else has combined the two... I'll look
>around.
>- Franis
>
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:12:39 -0400 "Regina Bensch-Coe"
><benschcoe@hotmail.com> writes:
> > This leads us to consider the equally dual role of thought and it’s
> > interaction with feelings (william)
> >
> > If there is an awareness that feelings are stirred by thoughts
> > (rather than
> > by actual danger), along with an awareness that thoughts are not
> > "mine,"
> > chances are better that they can be "handled." But more, they can
> > actually
> > be welcomed. This is a far cry from both suppression & and
> > defensiveness.
> > (pat)
> >
> > ————
> > I sense a connection between these two comments that I cannot quite
> > name. I
> > am wondering if there is a relationship between “thought and it’s
> > INTERACTION with feelings” and “AWARENESS that thoughts are not
> > ‘mine.‘”
> > Could this interaction between thought (object) and feeling
> > (non-object), in
> > the context of awareness or space consciousness be a form of inner
> > dialogue
> > or proprioception in action?
> >
> > Regina
> >
> >
> > >From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
> > >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > >To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
> > >Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:15:10 +0200 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
> > >
> > >
> > >From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> > > >Why was it so important to Bohm to begin to see how the
> > > >"chemistry" and the "neurophysiology" of thought [as a system]
> > > >comes into play?
> > > >
> > > >"Chemistry" & "Neurophysiology" have to do with feelings, the
> > > >feelings that are stirred by thoughts. If there is an awareness
> > > >that feelings are stirred by thoughts (rather than by actual
> > danger),
> > > >along with an Awareness that thoughts are not "mine," chances
> > > >are better that they can be "handled." But more, they can
> > actually
> > > >be welcomed.
> > >
> > >
> > >No doubt, chemistry and neurophysiology play an essential role in
> > the
> > >production of feelings but I think there is more to it than just
> > that.
> > >Feelings can be stirred up by thoughts but that too is only part of
> > it.
> > >Thoughts and feelings can be viewed as a chemical/neurophysiologal
> > process,
> > >but that is the material aspect of the system. I tend to think that
> > this
> > >material process (chemistry and neurophysiology) constitutes the
> > technical
> > >implementation of a deeper meaning. I.e the material process
> > implements the
> > >deeper meaning, possibly one can derive that meaning from looking
> > at the
> > >material process, but the meaning is the driving factor. In this
> > sense, I
> > >would say the meaning is primary, and the material process is
> > secondary. If
> > >we see a material process then we should look for the meaning, what
> > it is
> > >supposed to be implementing.
> > >
> > >Material processes can also be stimulated artificially, but then it
> > may not
> > >be implementing anything meaningful. If we just stimulate material
> > >processes
> > >in order to get the feelings then we may be missing the point or
> > the
> > >purpose
> > >of the system as a whole. So, I agree that material processes are
> > essential
> > >parts of the whole thing but still the meaning comes first.
> > >In my view, a feeling is not the purpose in and of itself, but
> > rather it is
> > >a symptom or an expression of something else. At the same time it
> > >constitutes the meaning that drives the next process, etc. It's a
> > dual role
> > >enabling cascading chain reactions. This leads us to consider the
> > equally
> > >dual role of thought and it's interaction with feelings, but i
> > think I will
> > >leave that for some other time...
> > >
> > >william
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 19:41:28 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 20:42:04 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <4D0003A4-2BD0-480A-9437-6C9D62707436@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F6ECC0F7C18AF6CF834F5EA5010@phx.gbl>
That's really beautiful, Don. In music, we call it "theme and variations".
And of course each composer inherits the collective thought of all who went
before him/er plus contemporaries. But each composer put together these
elements in a new way. Even when the musical composition is not called
"theme and variations", those strategies are employed.
I love Bohms' pov that we are all creative. I always worked and taught from
that assumption. k
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:10:35 +0100
>
>Think collective thought. Then consider that all thought or its content
>unfolds from the collective. Hang on to that idea for a bit. And think:
>the language itself is the medium for most of our thought as are all the
>rules, truths, and necessities that were drummed into us almost from
>birth, if not earlier. So you might have to say that there is only
>collective thought.
>
>What I know or what I think, is an arrangement drawn from all of the
>above. And even the arrangement iis probably is not unique. Starting from
>this point of view, the ownership of ideas becomes more like an obstacle
>because, if there is only collective thought, then all our different
>thoughts display a variety of arrangements that can be made out of the
>initial bits of information and with this in mind it becomes easier to
>work together to create even better arrangements. And, on rare occasions
>these arrangements fall into a shape that may never have appeared before,
>and we can call them creativity. But it belongs to us all.
>
>It is largely as a result of the fact that thoughts have become like
>commodities in our culture that we want to protect our ownership of them.
>If we gave our teachers he right answers we were rewarded, and punished
>for giving the wrong ones or, worse. not knowing. It not a very long jumb
>to the place where we now have laws that protect intellectual property
>even though most of it is made up initially of 26 letters or 12 tones or
>three primary colours and even larger blocks of these can be found
>elsewhere.
>
>Of course, there are also other ways of looking at this.
>
>don
>
>
>
>On 24 Oct 2006, at 17:09, ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>
>>, along with an awareness that thoughts are not "mine
>>
>>I really have trouble with this. How can thoughts I think not be mine?
>>At
>>this moment, for me, that would be a rationalization that could lead to
>>my
>>not taking responsibility for my actions. k
>>
>>I was lying in bed last night remembering having said the above and saw
>>the response:
>>"Of course these thoughts are mine, if someone else were in the room they
>>would be thinking different thoughts, "theirs," and they most likely
>>wouldn't know the
>>content of what I am thinking."
>>
>>... and remembering
>>as well, the kind of back door [after having passed down the meandering
>>garden path] process that leads to the understanding of bohm's
>>"collective thought."
>>
>>There are several steps/questions suitable to this process.
>>
>>Are there any thoughts that pass through awareness (like the highlighted
>>one above for instance, the one 'you' may be thinking of as "mine") that
>>are not, either a common thought, or, one that cannot be reduced to a
>>common thought [based on a common assumption]?
>>
>>enough for now
>>
>>pat
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Oct 24 19:58:15 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Oct 25 21:06:25 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061024.140533.2116.43.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Thanks kathryn. The line that goes "such as smashing the gears of a
watch"
should read "such as distinguishing the various gears of a watch"
pat
p. 115.
On 10/24/06 12:56 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Thought cannot be the whole because it is just a representation, an
> abstraction. There is a difference between dividing and fragmenting.
> Thought may divide in the sense of marking parts of a whole - such as
> smashing the gears of a watch, Or thought may fragment - such as
> smashing
> the watch with a hammer.
>
> Thought As a System
>
> Love the quotes. Page numbers would be good. Trying to find the one
above
> -
> doesn't quite make sense.
>
> pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/c6ce2722/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Oct 24 19:49:34 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Oct 25 21:06:26 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
Message-ID: <20061024.140533.2116.42.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Yes. There is something quirky that goes on when our perception
interprets meaning. Humans seem to imperatively send ourselves a message
of a result or conclusion so quickly. Why so quick and needfully is this
done? How does it serve us for humans to be designed to be that fearful
or driven? If there is a habit in place that can go into action to
respond to our instantaneous interpretations or conclusions (and once the
order of "go" is allowed,) humans act so automatically! This sense as if
the action is "going off by itself" is such a common experience. We seem
to always follows an already defined habitual course of what we assume is
a suitable response. How do people ever learn new things since this is
such a characteristic!
If someone does not allow themselves to make a conclusion or an
interpretation, and instead "suspend" this habitual response and the
order to now go into action, habitual responses can be put on "pause."
Doing this has an advantage, it makes it possible to choose how you
prefer to react and definitely gives you more options beyond how your
assumptions and conclusions will allow you to react. Once you interrupt
this Perception-Interpretation = Response process you can do at least
three other possibilities: you can choose to can gain more data before
you make an interpretation or conclusion, you can choose to do something
else more appropriate or just choose to not react indefinitely.
But this takes quite a bit of training and skill to be able to do,
because the justified necessity for these habits have often been
imperatively shaped and installed.
It seems rare for people to be able to question or suspect our own
thinking strategies in this "meta" reframing way, without undermining our
sense of self in my subculture, it seems. But I believe the ability to
question one's own means of carrying out intentions is a sign of a
strength of character.
Instead most of us only sense what is bothering us - the negative
problems. We don't seem to ask the right questions about how we got to
where we are - which is what Dialogue seems to do for us and what I teach
people by using Alexander Technique. Many people don't ask themselves any
questions!
Perhaps this is because we as humans are not made to sense our own innate
habitual programming that is "doing" something - we just use it. But I
can't believe that we humans have a design flaw that freezes us
indecisively as we age as more habits combine with other contradicting
directives.
I'm wondering if suspecting the assumptions and content of the original
conclusions themselves (as well as the strategy that is being used to
respond to it, which is what I have described here) would be even more
useful than going to the trouble of suspending the reaction.
I guess that is the approach of psychology - to find the erroneous
assumptions behind behavior that is no longer serving you adequately. But
somehow, I wonder if someone else has combined the two... I'll look
around.
- Franis
"Suspension" sort of "proceeds" in this direction:
Suspension of action based on the reflex to act
[speech is considered to be "action" here]. A dialogue
group setting enforces this "suspension" to a significant degree
because speech is inhibited when someone else is talking. But, of
course, 'inner' speech is not necessarily inhibited while someone
else is talking - quite the contrary in fact.
So there is one meaning of "suspension." Putting action
on hold. Suspended animation. Not always of course, but this refers
to the easy capacity to do so.
But then there is the part about inquiry which is
about noticing the feelings that appear that would have
turned into actions [including speech]. And especially
noticing feelings of defense (although feelings of excitement
of any sort can be followed to implicit assumptions). Inquiry
necessitates putting the [defended] assumption into its
most succinct, representative words, and then this assumption
is possibly suspended ('given' an "open" quality, open for "something
more
and something different" to emerge), which is the alternative
to defense (and repression, which is the passive form of defense).
The found assumption is given to inquiry as to its appropriateness
or relevance or absolute truth. (An assumption silently ACTS in the
system AS absolute truth).
So "suspension" (Ala bohm) is both the capacity for
suspension of actions and perhaps reactions (although
reactions, being reflexive, are not really suspendable -
but, they are observable, which is a part of the capacity
for suspension of action), AND, these reflexes too, will
lessen in concert with the development of proprioceptive
awareness.
And the capacity to "suspend" (bring from the implicit
to the explicit) assumptions [conclusions, convictions], and
submit them to inquiry regarding their absolute "truth"
(is the second part of "suspension Ala bohm).
And having said all that, the reminder comes that
"suspension" seems actually to be an aspect of
proprioception of thought - it doesn't seem to
be a 'willful' undertaking. Not directly anyway.
It seems to come from awareness and understanding.
A byproduct maybe. It may start with a recognition
that it occurs spontaneously at times. Group awareness
can seem to escalate such personal awareness. Don't really know
though. Group intentionality, no matter what the specific intention [if
any
overt specificity is possible!] seems to be a generally inhibiting factor
(in terms of acting on reflexes).
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/c8f0fed2/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 24 20:21:01 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 25 21:21:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <20061024.140533.2116.43.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C163D1CD.3A51%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Yep, you?re right.
On 10/24/06 1:58 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
> Thanks kathryn. The line that goes "such as smashing the gears of a watch"
> should read "such as distinguishing the various gears of a watch"
>
> pat
>
>
> p. 115.
>
>
> On 10/24/06 12:56 PM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> > Thought cannot be the whole because it is just a representation, an
>> > abstraction. There is a difference between dividing and fragmenting.
>> > Thought may divide in the sense of marking parts of a whole - such as
>> > smashing the gears of a watch, Or thought may fragment - such as
>> > smashing
>> > the watch with a hammer.
>> >
>> > Thought As a System
>> >
>> > Love the quotes. Page numbers would be good. Trying to find the one above
>> > -
>> > doesn't quite make sense.
>> >
>> > pat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/6d495142/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Tue Oct 24 20:32:20 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Wed Oct 25 21:35:20 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <BAY22-F11131DC1F9FCD9DC80F5B7A5010@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <453E5C34.00000F.03736@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Morgan Jett
>...But where does "meaning" come from?
We have discussed 'meaning' a while ago. If you are new on the list, perhaps
you can find it in the archive. Everybody has a different idea of meaning.
It is very indvidual. My preferred notion of meaning is to view it as
something that is created "on the run" as part of perception. The same thing
can mean different things to different people, or different to the same
person but at other times. The main point is that it is not an ontic
property of anything. It is not part of physical reality and does not exist
in space or time. It is purely a "virtual reality" in the mind of the
observer.
In this connection, i also have the view that an observer is not only a
human being but everything is an observer in some sense. Everything can be
observed by other things, and can observe other things. Thus everything is
meaningful as well as capable of creating meaning. It should be possible to
redefine physics in terms of observing and being observed.
If you take this view then meaning becomes the 'cement' that holds the
universe together. It would make meaning the essence of existence. Things
exist only because they mean something, in other words everything exist by
its meaning. Nothing can exist without meaning. Existence and meaning are
virtually the same.
William
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/15447b2e/attachment.html
From griffyn23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 20:38:20 2006
From: griffyn23 at hotmail.com (Morgan Jett)
Date: Wed Oct 25 21:38:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <453E5C34.00000F.03736@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <BAY22-F42E9728C8CE08FEE19CB2A5010@phx.gbl>
We have discussed 'meaning' a while ago.
If that is what you mean by "meaning", that's not what I'm getting at.
There is something more, and it has to do with process, I think. When I can
articulate it, I'll post it.
Thanks for your response. k
>From: "william" <w@david-bohm.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:32:20 +0200 (Westeuropäische Normalzeit)
>
>From: Morgan Jett
> >...But where does "meaning" come from?
>
>We have discussed 'meaning' a while ago. If you are new on the list,
>perhaps
>you can find it in the archive. Everybody has a different idea of meaning.
>It is very indvidual. My preferred notion of meaning is to view it as
>something that is created "on the run" as part of perception. The same
>thing
>can mean different things to different people, or different to the same
>person but at other times. The main point is that it is not an ontic
>property of anything. It is not part of physical reality and does not exist
>in space or time. It is purely a "virtual reality" in the mind of the
>observer.
>In this connection, i also have the view that an observer is not only a
>human being but everything is an observer in some sense. Everything can be
>observed by other things, and can observe other things. Thus everything is
>meaningful as well as capable of creating meaning. It should be possible to
>redefine physics in terms of observing and being observed.
>If you take this view then meaning becomes the 'cement' that holds the
>universe together. It would make meaning the essence of existence. Things
>exist only because they mean something, in other words everything exist by
>its meaning. Nothing can exist without meaning. Existence and meaning are
>virtually the same.
>William
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 24 20:57:20 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Oct 25 21:57:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <453E5C34.00000F.03736@VAIO-584793128F>
References: <BAY22-F11131DC1F9FCD9DC80F5B7A5010@phx.gbl>
<453E5C34.00000F.03736@VAIO-584793128F>
Message-ID: <1B5D8BAE-599B-451A-B6C1-14A6335A4E59@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 24 Oct 2006, at 19:32, william wrote:
> If you take this view then meaning becomes the 'cement' that holds
> the universe together. It would make meaning the essence of
> existence. Things exist only because they mean something, in other
> words everything exist by its meaning. Nothing can exist without
> meaning. Existence and meaning are virtually the same.
it seems inconsistent to say that meaning is only virtual and to then
say the above. Matter or material is just as virtual as meaning, and
for that matter, so is energy. If energy is bound up in matter it is
only potential not active or actual energy. You might say, and I
think, if this isn't closer to Bohm, it is closer to my view, that
meaning is the totality and everything else is an abstraction - even
space and time.
We do attribute meanings to various objects of our perception but
without an implicit meaning there would be nothing to attribute these
meaning to. Now if this sounds pretty mystical, then all I can say
is, so is a lot of quantum theory. Perhaps what we call reality is
itself pretty mystical from the quantum point of view.
don
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/ce8a032c/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Oct 24 21:11:09 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Oct 25 22:11:41 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
In-Reply-To: <1B5D8BAE-599B-451A-B6C1-14A6335A4E59@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C163DD8D.3A55%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
How do you see the laws of thermodynamics in relationship to this? k
On 10/24/06 2:57 PM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 24 Oct 2006, at 19:32, william wrote:
>
>> If you take this view then meaning becomes the 'cement' that holds the
>> universe together. It would make meaning the essence of existence. Things
>> exist only because they mean something, in other words everything exist by
>> its meaning. Nothing can exist without meaning. Existence and meaning are
>> virtually the same.
>
> it seems inconsistent to say that meaning is only virtual and to then say the
> above. Matter or material is just as virtual as meaning, and for that matter,
> so is energy. If energy is bound up in matter it is only potential? not active
> or actual energy. You might say, and I think, if this isn't closer to Bohm, it
> is closer to my view, that meaning is the totality and everything else is an
> abstraction - even space and time.
>
> We do attribute meanings to various objects of our perception but without an
> implicit meaning there would be nothing to attribute these meaning to. Now if
> this sounds pretty mystical, then all I can say is, so is a lot of quantum
> theory. Perhaps what we call reality is itself pretty mystical from the
> quantum point of view.
>
> don
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/c44b8883/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Tue Oct 24 21:52:37 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Wed Oct 25 23:05:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <C163DD8D.3A55%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <453E6F04.000001.03760@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Kathryn Arizmendi
>How do you see the laws of thermodynamics in relationship to this?
Well, the law of thermodynamics is physics. If we re-invent physics in terms
of observation (observing and being observed) then we could say that some
elements like each other and feel attracted, while others don't like each
other and feel repulsed. Now if those elements who are attracted to each
move towards each other, and those who don't like each move away from each
other, then we get the same result as those "laws". In this view you don't
need to assume some mysterious force (such as gravity or magnetism) that
pulls or pushes elements around; instead they move on their own accord using
their own intelligence. Furthermore, they could do otherwise if they feel
rebellious.
William
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/722557b0/attachment.html
From w at david-bohm.net Tue Oct 24 22:04:19 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Wed Oct 25 23:05:39 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Fragmentation
References: <1B5D8BAE-599B-451A-B6C1-14A6335A4E59@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <453E71C3.000003.03760@VAIO-584793128F>
From: Don Factor
>We do attribute meanings to various objects of our perception but
>without an implicit meaning there would be nothing to attribute these
>meaning to.
Why not? You can attribute a meaning to something that is already meaningful
in some other way. In fact, this would be inevitable. If it exists then it
is already meaningful, otherwise it wouldn't exist. When you assign
additional meanings then it would exist even more. You could think of an
order of meaning...
william
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061024/d865d25d/attachment.html