agree w/ you somewhat, anything of course can happen. FWIW I don't think Bohmian dialog would save anything, but you might also look at Paul Goodman (they resonate I think). Had conversations w/ Bohm at Birkbeck a couple of times in London. He sat in a high chair, I had a very comfortable one, plush, very low. So it was a typical hierarchy. Did I mention my parents introduced his parents to each other? From Wilkes-Barre; Azure and I went to his old place there, a tv repair shop. Seriously. Best, Alan
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:14 PM Max Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think even the Buddha tried to point out the insufficiency of Buddhism, > and point us to something else. Sometimes called "a finger pointing to the > moon." Why the moon? > > Impossibility is a difficult something to know for certain. > > Suppose we saw a photograph today of Bishop Tutu kissing the newest baby > of the British Royal Family. This photo could mean nothing, something > good, something bad, or many different things, granted. Suppose then, not > knowing what if anything the photo means, the Bishop mentions his book > about joy -- or gives a signed copy of the book about joy he co-wrote with > the Dalai Lama -- to the Royal Couple, inscribed to their new child. Then > the Prince could mention Parliament's program in mindfulness as it relates > to the Dalai Lama. Suppose then the Royal Couple became interested in > global initiatives around contemplation, mindfulness, peace and > reconciliation, and interfaith dialogues. Suppose then also neuroscience > made significant strides in confirming that meditation (or mindfulness, or > contemplation, or art-awareness, resting consciousness, different names are > OK) can dramatically reduce fear and improve creativity, problem-solving, > mutual respect, communication, and cooperation, by impacting the cognitive > networks of the brain, at least hypothetically. > > Suppose then, at random in various locations, some people, aware of some > of the above or not, gathered to have a "Bohmian dialogue," as described in > David Bohm's book *On Dialogue*, about the book *On Dialogue*. Bohm > suggests that such dialogues have never been the norm, but sees no reason > why they could not occur -- no reason they would be impossible. He has > seen them occur among some of the key physicists of the last century, like > Einstein and Bohr, or not occur as the case may be. He calls this attitude > "tactical optimism." The cost of such dialogues is zero, so there could be > several or many even if the chances of finding anything new and to the > purpose are low. Bohm implies that such dialogues, or information-flows, > have a special capacity for innovation because they are not predetermined, > allowing varied, diverse information to circulate in ways never seen before > and be observed doing so in ways prior observation had not. Bohm could > very well be wrong, but facing what we face today it might be worth the > couple of hours to read his book with a group. > > Suppose then, nothing at all of what I have described happens, except that > I decide to choose *On Dialogue* as my next nonfiction choice for my > actual book club, and do that, or, if my next choice is fiction, choose > *Labyrinths* by Borges. Maybe I end up choosing neither, and forget I > ever wrote this email. Or perhaps, someone has a conversation with someone > somewhere about Bohm and they call Prince Harry who founds a Dialogue UK > foundation for the increase and flourishing of mutual understanding among > all people, nations, and the natural world. Who am I to say the latter is > physically impossible? It may very well be, but I don't feel that I know > for a fact that it is. Even as just an act of art I may be entitled to > "persist in lucid awareness of the absurd." > > Or like Abbey Road says: "seems like years since it's been clear"! 🙂 > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* NetBehaviour <[email protected]> on > behalf of Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:25 PM > *To:* NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* Alan Sondheim <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [NetBehaviour] Our long global nightmare is over > > I have to say I agree with Gretta here. I don't meditate, but I read > extensively in Buddhism. There are many Buddhisms, many ways to center > onself or decenter oneself for that matter. > Networks are "about" nothing in my view; they're abstract structures which > are applicable in many ways. There's no goodness or badness in them. The > networkings of bio-geo-chemical cycles for example has been transformed by > humans and global warming is violent, people are of course dying, wars and > refugees are increasing as a result of diminished resources. > In this sense, I think mindfulness is a problem, not a solution. How we > handle ourselves and our pain and anxiety is one thing; how we talk about, > act, protest, demand, petition, act ecologically responsible, etc. is > another. One doesn't necessarily lead to another. And there's no "new birth > of genius" that I can see - instead there are strongmen, whole ecosystems > being destroyed. I am most pessimistic about this, which doesn't stop me as > Bernard Henri-Levi said years ago, from protesting with every breath, with > my fist raised in the face of catastrophe, but on a practical level I think > nothing but ecocides are in our future - and that's a word that, for me, > implies whole species burned alive, screaming with no help in sight. If we > don't start at degree zero, we kid ourselves. The nightmare is not over; > it's just beginning, even though some of us were teaching and talking about > this all the way back in the early 70s, late 60s. As far as "across all > nations" is concerned, unfortunately Trump's anti-globalist stance is > becoming increasingly prevalent. (I think all life is and has always been > intelligent, and intelligence, culture, goes "all the way down" but that's > another discussion. > So I would say, would argue, degree zero, with our backs to the wall. > Because that's what happens in fires, hurricanes, massacres, refugee camps, > prisons, floods, iceberg calvings, droughts, wars, epidemics, and so forth; > I take my lesson from the disappearance of insects. I agree with Gretta > below, perhaps I think also that individual wellness is vastly overrated; I > have friends who have been involved heavily with the Tibetan translation > project, with the Kalachakra, with the Dali Lama, and they had a rabbit > confined in a coop in their back yard, who finally died, cooped in all > weathers, and all their meditation in the world didn't review the suffering > of the animal. They didn't connect; we couldn't connect them. I have no > hope, which means that every good act that might make a difference is a > gift. > But resist! > > Best, Alan > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:57 AM Gretta Louw via NetBehaviour < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I enjoyed reading this / hoping for this, though a big part of me is not > buying the idea that we’ve woken up nor that the nightmare is over. > > I meditate myself (mostly starting out as a coping mechanism that helped > me deal with anxiety-insomnia), but also see a lot of truth in criticisms > that the mindfulness obsession of today is very much about relocating angst > about the state of the world and legitimate discontent with political, > environmental, and social injustices to tensions going on within the mind > of the individual. i.e. the system is not broken -> you’re broken. Here’s > one article I dredged up on short notice but I think not the best one: > https://theconversation.com/mcmindfulness-buddhism-as-sold-to-you-by-neoliberals-88338 > > > I think often about a talk I happened to hear by a buddhist meditation > teacher who explained that he first got into meditation - in the 60s - as a > way of dealing with his fear of dying while he was protesting the Vietnam > War. He went on to talk about how people often consider meditating an > apolitical act, or wonder how ‘just sitting’ can affect change in the > world. He said meditating is just sitting, but it matters *where* you sit. > > Some morning thoughts… > > take care all, > Gretta > > > On 25. Sep 2019, at 22:52, Max Herman via NetBehaviour < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > History is indeed a nightmare, but fortunately we have now all woken up! > > Networks are not about technology. They are about living things, first > and foremost. Plants, people, coral reefs, polar bears. These are the > real networks of value. > > The purpose of the technology networks is to serve and support the > life-networks, not to be ends in themselves and certainly not vice-versa. > Life-networks are both individuals and groups. > > Now that the nightmare is over we can focus on individual wellness via > mindfulness, natural-intelligence-positive neuroplasticity, and a new birth > of genius across all nations to save the planet and ourselves. > > It's a great time to be a living intelligence! > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > -- > *=====================================================* > > *directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel > 718-813-3285 **email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim > ut gmail.com <http://gmail.com>* > *=====================================================* > -- *=====================================================* *directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel 718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut gmail.com <http://gmail.com>* *=====================================================*
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
