Watch "The Hidden Order of the Universe – David Bohm" on YouTube

[Rob LO]

https://youtube.com/shorts/YXIdMnUrHv4?is=ADoDUn6_JVGDBmvs 

listen <=> silent 

Seems apt for last night's discussion at Zoomsters

🙏💙🙏

R³

[Paul Rezendes]

Rob L O,

Thanks for sharing that. Boy, could I resonate with it. Basically, it’s the way it all seems to me. I think Bohm had a big impact on my life.

🕊

Paul

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAPa3K%2B5S3DOEQWnOqzd2P_-nutDrAHNaoS_tojL2s6pn-%2Bdb7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Rob, All,

Thanks for sharing this Rob. It is so succinct and clearly shared, that nothing more need be said. Saying this, it touches on, for me, these two aspects that have come up in my own living. When there are two perspectives that seem wholly incompatible yet each accurate in their own contexts, it implies something deeper is holding them simultaneously without contradiction. So the seeming two are actually not separate or divided at all. Bohm keeps pointing to this throughout his brief exposition.

It is revealing how we tend to look at everything, as separate parts or aspects. Uniqueness does not imply divided, at least from here.

Thanks again, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/B3BDAF95-9495-4AFD-88D3-4ED0FF7B93A3%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Another one from David Bohm:

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoDcjzb8MPXqE5iTqcXVcjWDDvOSvM9tgqLJH%2BS9gztmPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Beautiful and comprehensive, Paul, thanks. Really worth sharing.

Nuff said, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/E3DD8331-1080-45C6-A712-8738A3AC31AE%40paulrezendes.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Paul Rob Dan

I have been listening to Bohm and trying to make sure I understand what he means by Creative Intelligence.

My understanding is that thought is largely mechanical. It is the movement of memory, knowledge, experience, and conditioning. Thought can endlessly analyze, compare, and rearrange its contents, but it remains confined within the limits of what it already knows.

Bohm seems to suggest that Creative Intelligence is something entirely different from thought. It does not arise from memory, conditioning, or accumulated knowledge. It is a different order of intelligence altogether.

What interests me is Bohm’s suggestion that thought cannot free itself from its own conditioning. Yet he also seems to suggest that when the movement of thought is seen clearly, Creative Intelligence can operate. In that seeing, conditioned patterns may begin to dissolve—not through effort, control, or the adoption of new beliefs, but through insight itself.

If I am understanding him correctly, freedom is not a matter of improving thought, but of seeing thought so completely that a deeper intelligence can act.

This leaves me wondering whether there is really anything to do other than pay close attention to the movement of the mind.

I would be interested in hearing how others understand Bohm’s use of the term Creative Intelligence.

Jeff Angelson

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 12:07 PM Paul Rezendes <pho...@paulrezendes.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/E3DD8331-1080-45C6-A712-8738A3AC31AE%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Jeff,

It seems to me that creative intelligence permeates the whole field of all potential. It is not a result of anything happening. Nothing needs to be done; it is already there. I think he calls it creative intelligence because it is what is creating. Note that he said it changes the condition. It is its own action.

Just my take on it.

Paul

On Jun 19, 2026, at 1:58 PM, Jeffrey Angelson <jeff.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

Paul Rob Dan

I have been listening to Bohm and trying to make sure I understand what he means by Creative Intelligence.

My understanding is that thought is largely mechanical. It is the movement of memory, knowledge, experience, and conditioning. Thought can endlessly analyze, compare, and rearrange its contents, but it remains confined within the limits of what it already knows.

Bohm seems to suggest that Creative Intelligence is something entirely different from thought. It does not arise from memory, conditioning, or accumulated knowledge. It is a different order of intelligence altogether.

What interests me is Bohm’s suggestion that thought cannot free itself from its own conditioning. Yet he also seems to suggest that when the movement of thought is seen clearly, Creative Intelligence can operate. In that seeing, conditioned patterns may begin to dissolve—not through effort, control, or the adoption of new beliefs, but through insight itself.

If I am understanding him correctly, freedom is not a matter of improving thought, but of seeing thought so completely that a deeper intelligence can act.

This leaves me wondering whether there is really anything to do other than pay close attention to the movement of the mind.

I would be interested in hearing how others understand Bohm’s use of the term Creative Intelligence.

Jeff Angelson

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 12:07 PM Paul Rezendes <pho...@paulrezendes.com> wrote:

Another one from David Bohm:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCRY48Xk%2BQJVWiadJ5Wd38jEWRSSVw2JUyF5TsVLbFGTpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sunhee Kim]

Paul,

Agreed fully :) 

It is already everywhere and nothing needs to be done. 

Perhaps it is better not to hold on to another concept, whether the mind understands it or not.  It seems to me that ‘creative intelligence’ is merely a pointer, a term used to indicate something that cannot truly be captured by a name or concept. 

Warmly,

Sunee

On Jun 19, 2026, at 1:23 PM, Paul Rezendes <pho...@paulrezendes.com> wrote:

Jeff,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/789684CD-CDAD-461D-B467-4330826F1870%40paulrezendes.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Jeff, Diehards

I haven’t read Bohm for a while but your reading sounds right to me. As does Bohm’s explanation itself. The essence of truth and beauty lie outside the purview of thought, entertaining though it is. 

I did enjoy the snippet Rob sent out of Bohm’s explanation of wholeness, in his inimitable style, almost apologetic. The absence of arrogance in one so brilliant is beautiful. 

Janet A

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/789684CD-CDAD-461D-B467-4330826F1870%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Sunhee, yes!

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/10FFFE91-02F2-4B6B-B527-8BCF1622B9AE%40gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Jeff and All,

I don't have much to add to what you and others shared here about Bohm's interview. Just that the very exposing/revealing of thought moving (now in the moment, immediate without distance) is already this intelligence acting (imho). It is here in the midst of all of thought's moving, always, never away or somewhere else. All right here..... As you say, nothing to be "done" to get to what is already happening and present right now. Intelligence is revealing our looking for something else etc, as it might be moving now. We may be looking for something as if it exists in time and space, when intelligence is not of time nor space.

It seems to me there can be a resting in what is as it might be happening right now, in whatever form or lack thereof. It doesn't matter what it is, conflict, beauty, all of it and nothing at all.

Sorry for going on here, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/E4D6304E-A3F2-404C-9A5F-BBCA84615D30%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Dan,

I thought that was very well articulated. Thanks.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoBy6Uvboa5m8M%2B45y3VfG6QziLcm0VF7M0wd%2BYKGYa4zA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Janet Asiain]

Diehards

All this thought-watching seems to imbue it with substance that it didn’t really have, maybe?

Honestly most of my thoughts have become too boring to watch — and probably to read —

Janet A

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoBy6Uvboa5m8M%2B45y3VfG6QziLcm0VF7M0wd%2BYKGYa4zA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Thanks Paul and Janet. 

Janet, thoughts include all the sensations and feelings that go along with them. Feels pretty rich to me, actually. But just my view. 

-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP6Jy%2Bp46NtHs56bpiYFJ-2rAegiqmf%2BoG_%2Bk2Ndgrf8Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Sorry, just to add. This all referring to our very experiencing, the reality we are living in, it seems to me. Our consciousness.....

-Dan

[Janet Asiain]

Of course I know you mean the process not the content — but as it never ends, that gets “boring” too. I wonder what K and others meant by being free of thought. Obviously not being without thought. But free in what sense? Conscious awareness of either process or content? 

Janet A

[Janet Asiain]

Dan, 

From that perspective, no, not “boring” at all. In fact it’s the whole shebang. But I don’t know that others are using that definition when they speak about thought. And I still don’t want to “watch.”  I want experience to flow without analysis. (The analysis is what I was calling “thought” but that’s just one kind of it, the conceptualizing thing — that’s what’s gotten boring)

Janet

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoDpw2rRmLgAB2C7frMev2X96sQbgfSHHJi5og21dyR0gQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rani Madhavapeddi]

I like the way he separates - 

To ‘see’ thought for what it is, and see it  through an ‘intelligence’ that is not within the framework of our mind, memory, concepts beliefs framework. 

ThanksPaul 

Love peace and joy! 

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel

On Jun 19, 2026, at 2:57 PM, Janet Asiain <janet...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP7F3zv-iHfm%3Dr2OGWV4Av3r_iTkcsB9FbNs4d9XC80mLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

lol 😂 I can relate. 

Jeff Angelson

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP6Jy%2Bp46NtHs56bpiYFJ-2rAegiqmf%2BoG_%2Bk2Ndgrf8Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Janet, it also includes feeling bored. Nothing is outside it.

-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCRitXuiDsgubB1foYPt0Yxn9YWoMvz44wutGVSU4Ck6QQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Janet All

I think he means we can invite thoughts in but we don’t have them for dinner  also we don’t assume they are true and know they aren’t ours  That which experiences the thought falls away  

Jeff Angelson

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP7F3zv-iHfm%3Dr2OGWV4Av3r_iTkcsB9FbNs4d9XC80mLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Sorry Janet, I  missed your follow up email. 

And maybe there is actually no one watching,  But there my be a moving with whatever is moving that is not separate and without any words.

Just my take on it. The revealing of all this is showing up as well, perhaps. 

-Dan

-Dan

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Janet, All,

Sorry once again Janet, I've been coming in and out here. I just wanted to add that I hear you when you speak about watching etc, as if it becomes an activity unto itself, almost like a task to be followed to reach understanding. What all this seems to reflect to me is freedom. Freedom in which all of our consciousness is free to flow and be revealed as it might, in which there is freedom to rest in the entire happening, as resting might occur without any control. Not sure this comes across, but there is freedom in which all that we are is free to be itself fully.

Again, my take, and thanks for indulging me here.  -Dan

[Janet Asiain]

Dan, Diehards

Well clearly if there’s watching then there’s a separate watcher. I think I’m suggesting that the separation itself gets boring, or becomes irrelevant, or something. I mean it still goes on but it doesn’t seem so real anymore.

Maybe I’m just losing my mind 🤗

Janet A

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoB_R%3DuJ%3DQUW%2BO_hQkGaA5vHOzOCSU7uHOa7AhhqwT6V1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Janet All

Maybe that’s what I’ve been noticing too. Not that I find a separate watcher or don’t find one. More that the whole structure of observer and observed seems less solid than it once did. There is seeing, hearing, thinking, feeling, and life unfolding. Whether we call part of that a watcher seems less important than it used to.

Jeff Angelson

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP4t7VUBjToyLRrJDsR-Bnn6qEtxhypRTt51Wdnv3jhJtA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Separation getting boring certainly makes sense to me.

Thanks, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP4t7VUBjToyLRrJDsR-Bnn6qEtxhypRTt51Wdnv3jhJtA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rani Madhavapeddi]

We see ourselves  as a whole, then someone says you are not really you. 🫣🤔So you keep watching. Oh there is a watcher of everything this body mind does. 🧘Then there is a reunion of the watcher and doer,  everything is being done no doer. 🤯

So a realized soul and non realized soul behave exactly the same. 😃

Then you go whatever 🤣

Happy Father’s Day everyone ! 

Love peace and joy! 

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel

On Jun 19, 2026, at 4:31 PM, Janet Asiain <janet...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGdKTP4t7VUBjToyLRrJDsR-Bnn6qEtxhypRTt51Wdnv3jhJtA%40mail.gmail.com.