Archive for January, 2006

In the Betweening: the back porch of G*d

Creativity is in the betweening. G*d is this betweening in very nature. Conversation brings us to the betweening. Bumping creates. Here is the back porch of G*d. It is not action we seek so much as creativity: something new. This is how we get to whole, an ever larger, new and fresh whole.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 24th, 2006 | No Comments »

Recklessly

If you want to be part of
life
you must
give
wildly, recklessly, extravagantly

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 23rd, 2006 | No Comments »

The necessity for fingers ever on the tuner

To our good friends–

What is earth changing is not the idea that people can change their world, but the actual trying of it. That leads to the discovery. Once people find it’s true, they can.

Do they? I don’t know. They might slip back into the old ruts. It takes energy, enormous amounts, to change things. For me, it is easier to do my old business and keep my nose to the grindstone. So it may be necessary to make special events every so often to keep people’s energy focused. For it can dampen easily and be deflected by day to day concerns, little or big. Keeping the conversation sustained may be necessary. Open space practitioners who invite the conversants to keep on may be central. Events may be the catalysts without which not.

Does that fit somewhere in the implicate order? Perhaps it says if we want to keep something (action, say) unfolded, we must keep our fingers on the tuner.

The trick it seems at the moment is to keep inviting the conversations. What matters now? Do we need actions or understanding or health or the overcoming of fear? We know. We have the ways. We are the ones needed in this hour.

We are the ones for here and now. No others.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 22nd, 2006 | No Comments »

Footprints in the Wind sm # 636

Footprints in the Windsm # 636

What would it mean to take responsibility for a life full of G*d? What would it mean to converse with and through G-d? What would it mean to see each other as sacred, as embodied love and gift? What would it look like? It would look like ordinary conversation made earnest. It would be meeting each other as persons, whole, complete, able to change us and to change the world and to change. It would be vulnerability. It would be risking our whole selves. It would be throwing away what we have and who we think we are to come new into the world.


Please pass it on.

© c 2006, Learning Works, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Easy reprint permissions: 574/291-0022, or by e-mail to mailto:Doug AT FootprintsInTheWind.com. Back issues available at http://www.FootprintsintheWind.com

Please publish in your print or electronic periodical, with the above info.
To subscribe, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” to mailto:Doug AT FootprintsInTheWind.com

Published in: FootprintsintheWind/sm | on January 22nd, 2006 | No Comments »

Out from in

This is life!
This is life!
Give yourself,
give yourself:
(some day it will be too late)
to your gathering
here you touch
life and G*d.
Give something
give the pieces of G*d
out from in your heart

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 22nd, 2006 | No Comments »

Body and soul together

Why do you want to keep body and soul together?
Perhaps each holds the other back….

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 22nd, 2006 | No Comments »

But for you

But for you, why else?
Make account of yourself:

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 22nd, 2006 | No Comments »

Action springs

Action springs from
meeting and being met

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 22nd, 2006 | No Comments »

Not power; at last

It is not power
we seek, although
that will arise and you
may come for that
We cannot say
being crazy in love…
presence…eyes…oceans…
at last we can lay down our lives….

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 22nd, 2006 | No Comments »

The implicate order, the holomovement, and our meetings

To my good friends–

Read an evocative piece this morning in Bohm and Peat’s Science, Order, and Creativity:

In essence, however, the main point of the implicate order is to turn this approach upside down, and to regard the implicate order as fundamental, while the explicate order is then understood as having unfolded from the implicate order.

This has been illustrated through the analogies of the ink droplets and of the hologram. It is possible to combine certain features of both these analogies by imagining a wave that comes to a focus in a small region of space and then disperses. This is followed by another similar wave that focuses in a slightly different position, then by another and another and so on indefinitely until a “track” is formed that resembles the path of a particle. Indeed the particles of physics are more like these dynamic structures, which are always grounded in the whole from which they unfold and into which they enfold, than like little billiard balls that are grounded only in their own localized forms.

It is necessary, however, to go further than this. Up to now particular kinds of entities, such as electrons and neutrons, have been discussed, each of which has its own implicate order. But there may be a further unknown set of entities, each having its implicate order, and beyond this there may be a common implicate order, which goes deeper and deeper without limit and is ultimately unknown. This unknown and undescribable totality will be called the holomovement. It acts as the fundamental ground of all matter. As in the case of the analogy, in which a particle is taken to be a succession of wave pulses, so each object or entity emerges as a relatively stable and constant form out of the holomovement and into the explicate order. This form is sustained by the holomovement, into which it eventually dissolves. Therefore it must be understood primarily through this holomovement. It is clear that the implicate order ultimately prevails, although it is always in an essential relationship with the explicate order.

Wow! G*d the holomovement! Persons as unfolding and enfolding! What I see is this paraphrase:

In essence, however, the main point of the implicate order is to turn this approach upside down, and to regard the implicate order as fundamental, while the explicate order is then understood as having unfolded from the implicate order.

This has been illustrated through the analogies of the ink droplets and of the hologram. It is possible to combine certain features of both these analogies by imagining a person who comes to a focus in a small region of space and then disperses. This is followed by another similar person-wave who focuses in a slightly different position, then by another and another and so on indefinitely until a “track” is formed that resembles the path of a whole person. Indeed the particles of physics are more like these dynamic structures, which are always grounded in the whole from which they unfold and into which they enfold, than like little billiard balls that are grounded only in their own localized forms.

It is necessary, however, to go further than this. Up to now particular persons have been discussed, each of whom has his or her own implicate order. But there may be a further unknown set of person- or spirit-entities, each having its implicate order, and beyond this there may be a common implicate order, which goes deeper and deeper without limit and is ultimately unknown. This unknown and undescribable totality will be called the holomovement, G*d. It acts as the fundamental ground of all matter. As in the case of the analogy, in which a person is taken to be a succession of wave pulses, so each person emerges as a relatively stable and constant form out of the holomovement and into the explicate order. This form is sustained by the holomovement, into which the person eventually dissolves. Therefore persons must be understood primarily through this holomovement. It is clear that the implicate order–what we picture as spirit–ultimately prevails, although it is always in an essential relationship with the explicate order.

So I am struggling with the birth of this concept and seeing how it fits with the creativity I see in Indra’s net, the strands sparking against each other. These strands then are the tracks about which Bohm and Peat speak, and comprise what we name as a person who exists for a number of years. Yet we see the person changing, physically, mentally and a whole many ways. The sparks are the meetings, the places where the tracks change direction. In such changing of directions, persons are tracked, but exist in actuality both in the sparks and in the implicate order. For in reality, when two persons meet, they each are a thousand persons, potential and actual. So there are a thousand-thousand-thousand potential persons who are sparked in each meeting. These persons, when they walk away, are enfolded back into the implicate order to come to the explicate again some other day, or more accurately to be available to come to the explicate order some other day. We live mainly in the explicate order, we think, for this is where our attention is, but in actuality, we live in the implicate order and are unfolding possibles.

If we see this we are about increasing the heard, from the center of the heap. There is a song in this, and I want to work on it. I hear it as honky-tonk and country-western. Can you imagine a deeply spiritual honky-tonk country-western rouser? Increasing the heard means growing it and having larger numbers both, and hopefully more than that. From the center means that the people who think they are leaders need to be enfolded back into the compost so that they too can work again. We could grow the heard, or extend it, swell, amplify. Amplifying the heard. Hmmm….

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 20th, 2006 | No Comments »

Changes you, changes me

What are you doing to change the world? Is that enough? Where are you lost enough that the world might change you? Is that enough?

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 19th, 2006 | No Comments »

We the actors upon it

Let’s see a more possible world, and we the actors upon it.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 19th, 2006 | No Comments »

No organized religion

I don’t belong to any organized religion: I’m a Lutheran.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 19th, 2006 | No Comments »

Unknowing going for G*d too

Unknowing going is a necessity: we need G*d the unknown, G*d the transformer. It is not so much that G*d transcends all creation, but that G*d transforms it, meets it, and yes, is transformed by it. For to really meet that person means to put yourself on the line and be willing to accept even crucifixion–death, annihilation, forsakenness–from that meeting. So unknowing going means that it is unknowing going for G*d too. It means that G*d is changed by us, transformed by the meeting. G*d is action, G*d is relation, G*d is the transformer. So we need to go into this meeting, not knowing what people will give us and how we will be changed coming out of it, but knowing that we will surely be changed, we will be crucified, and come out of it a new Christ, leaving the old Jesus behind.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 18th, 2006 | No Comments »

Meeting meetings….

Our work as humans, indeed our environment, is the meeting of meetings. Each of us carries around the meetings we have held, imprinted upon how we touch the world ever after, and these meetings affect our later meetings, ever wider. We are meetings of meetings. As trees are means for seeds to travel, as chickens are means for eggs to travel, as forests are means for fire to travel, so persons are means for the conversation to spread, widely, deeply.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 18th, 2006 | No Comments »

I invite people to converse.

I invite people to converse.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 18th, 2006 | No Comments »

Mining for conversation treasure

I’m mining for conversation treasure.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 18th, 2006 | No Comments »

Footprints in the Wind sm # 635

Footprints in the Windsm # 635

Years ago I glimpsed the evocative notion of unknowing going. I suppose then I saw it as a branch of bravado: we cannot see the future, but we can trust the path we are on, the way we have chosen, or the God who lays out for us our life. We best forge on.

Unknowing going has a deeper meaning: we have a need to be ever going into the unknowing. In confusion and lostness we meet G*d. It is not that we trust G*d, but that G*d’s ways are above ours: here we learn, here we grow; here we become new, beyond our imaginations.


Please pass it on.

© c 2006, Learning Works, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Easy reprint permissions: 574/291-0022, or by e-mail to mailto:Doug AT FootprintsInTheWind.com. Back issues available at http://www.FootprintsintheWind.com

Please publish in your print or electronic periodical, with the above info.
To subscribe, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” to mailto:Doug AT FootprintsInTheWind.com

Published in: FootprintsintheWind/sm | on January 18th, 2006 | No Comments »

Rumi is roomy

Rumi is roomy, yes?

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 17th, 2006 | No Comments »

Opening paths in conversation

My work is opening paths in conversation.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 17th, 2006 | No Comments »

Opening Ways

We’re less opening a space, more a way.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 16th, 2006 | No Comments »

Magic in between

There is something of magic in this space between persons: it can be alive. It can foster creativity and discovery. Here we nurture and nourish new persons into being.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 16th, 2006 | No Comments »

in giving to each other…

It is in giving to each other that we find our being.

:- Doug.

Published in: Conversations | on January 15th, 2006 | No Comments »
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com