David Bohm: Thought as a System
71 views
Skip to first unread message
Evgenii Rudnyi
Sep 1, 2013, 9:39:32 AM9/1/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes below to the
theme that is quite often under discussion here.
Evgenii
p. 72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even though, as I
said, that by itself won’t really change the reflexes. But if we don’t
think of it clearly then all our attempts to get into this will go
wrong. Clear thinking implies that we are in some way awakened a little
bit. Perhaps there is something beyond the reflex which is at work – in
other words, something unconditioned.”
p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If everything
is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the very fact that we are
sometimes able to see new things would suggest that there is
unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material structure of the brain is
unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”
p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the movement of
intelligence, then there is some possibility of getting into this.”
p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then it would
be foolish for us to try to do anything with the conditioning. Is that
clear?”
p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the unconditioned, then
we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we assume that there is the
unconditioned, again we are going to be stuck – we will produce an image
of the unconditioned in the system of conditioning, and mistake the
image for the unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that there may be the
unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in our
thought for possibilities.”
theme that is quite often under discussion here.
Evgenii
p. 72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even though, as I
said, that by itself won’t really change the reflexes. But if we don’t
think of it clearly then all our attempts to get into this will go
wrong. Clear thinking implies that we are in some way awakened a little
bit. Perhaps there is something beyond the reflex which is at work – in
other words, something unconditioned.”
p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If everything
is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the very fact that we are
sometimes able to see new things would suggest that there is
unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material structure of the brain is
unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”
p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the movement of
intelligence, then there is some possibility of getting into this.”
p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then it would
be foolish for us to try to do anything with the conditioning. Is that
clear?”
p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the unconditioned, then
we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we assume that there is the
unconditioned, again we are going to be stuck – we will produce an image
of the unconditioned in the system of conditioning, and mistake the
image for the unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that there may be the
unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in our
thought for possibilities.”
meekerdb
Sep 1, 2013, 3:52:10 PM9/1/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Unconditioned=random works.
Brent
On 9/1/2013 6:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes below to the theme that is
> quite often under discussion here.
>
> Evgenii
>
> p. 72 �We have to be able to think on this clearly; even though, as I said, that by
> itself won�t really change the reflexes. But if we don�t think of it clearly then all
> other words, something unconditioned.�
>
> p. 72 �The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If everything is conditioned,
> then there�s no way out. But the very fact that we are sometimes able to see new things
>
> p. 72 �If there is the unconditioned, which could be the movement of intelligence, then
> there is some possibility of getting into this.�
>
> p. 73 �If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then it would be foolish for us
> to try to do anything with the conditioning. Is that clear?�
>
> p. 72 �If we once assume that there cannot be the unconditioned, then we�re stuck. On
> mistake the image for the unconditioned. Therefore, let�s say that there may be the
>
Brent
On 9/1/2013 6:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes below to the theme that is
> quite often under discussion here.
>
> Evgenii
>
> itself won�t really change the reflexes. But if we don�t think of it clearly then all
> our attempts to get into this will go wrong. Clear thinking implies that we are in some
> way awakened a little bit. Perhaps there is something beyond the reflex which is at work
> � in
> way awakened a little bit. Perhaps there is something beyond the reflex which is at work
> other words, something unconditioned.�
>
> p. 72 �The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If everything is conditioned,
> then there�s no way out. But the very fact that we are sometimes able to see new things
> would suggest that there is unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material structure of the
> brain is unconditioned, or maybe beyond.�
>
> p. 72 �If there is the unconditioned, which could be the movement of intelligence, then
> there is some possibility of getting into this.�
>
> p. 73 �If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then it would be foolish for us
> to try to do anything with the conditioning. Is that clear?�
>
> p. 72 �If we once assume that there cannot be the unconditioned, then we�re stuck. On
> the other hand, if we assume that there is the unconditioned, again we are going to be
> stuck � we will produce an image of the unconditioned in the system of conditioning, and
> mistake the image for the unconditioned. Therefore, let�s say that there may be the
> unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in our thought for
> possibilities.�
>
Evgenii Rudnyi
Sep 2, 2013, 1:11:10 PM9/2/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:
> Unconditioned=random works.
I do not think so. I would say that
If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it
> Unconditioned=random works.
I do not think so. I would say that
If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it
would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
conditioning.
Evgenii
conditioning.
meekerdb
Sep 2, 2013, 2:41:02 PM9/2/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 9/2/2013 10:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:
>> Unconditioned=random works.
>
> I do not think so. I would say that
>
> If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it
> would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
> conditioning.
?? How do you conclude that? Just because there is something Bohm calls "the
> On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:
>> Unconditioned=random works.
>
> I do not think so. I would say that
>
> If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it
> would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
> conditioning.
unconditioned" doesn't mean there is not also conditioning, which may modify the
unconditioned (=random).
My point is just that if you go thru the excerpts below and substitute "random" for
"unconditioned" everywhere then the meaning is unchanged. Bohm says, "If everything is
conditioned there's no way out." I don't know where he thinks "out" is, but if somethings
are random then he can get there.
Brent
Evgenii Rudnyi
Sep 2, 2013, 2:57:04 PM9/2/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 02.09.2013 20:41 meekerdb said the following:
Bohm say. The answer was mine.
If I have understood Bohm correctly, he believes that we can somewhat
influence the thought process. Along this way however, I doubt that
random process will help. My logic is close to that of Rex Allen
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/5ab5303cdb696ef5
Yet, I did not want to say that this is Bohm's opinion. If I find
something to this end in his book, I will let you know.
Evgenii
> On 9/2/2013 10:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:
>>> Unconditioned=random works.
>>
>> I do not think so. I would say that
>>
>> If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it would be
>> foolish for us to try to do anything with the conditioning.
>
> ?? How do you conclude that? Just because there is something Bohm
> calls "the unconditioned" doesn't mean there is not also
> conditioning, which may modify the unconditioned (=random).
I am in the middle of the book, so I cannot tell you exactly what would
>> On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:
>>> Unconditioned=random works.
>>
>> I do not think so. I would say that
>>
>> If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it would be
>> foolish for us to try to do anything with the conditioning.
>
> ?? How do you conclude that? Just because there is something Bohm
> calls "the unconditioned" doesn't mean there is not also
> conditioning, which may modify the unconditioned (=random).
Bohm say. The answer was mine.
If I have understood Bohm correctly, he believes that we can somewhat
influence the thought process. Along this way however, I doubt that
random process will help. My logic is close to that of Rex Allen
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/5ab5303cdb696ef5
Yet, I did not want to say that this is Bohm's opinion. If I find
something to this end in his book, I will let you know.
Evgenii
John Mikes
Sep 6, 2013, 4:02:37 PM9/6/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.
Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into them. I cannot resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.
Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude - and change the continuation of anything?
It all comes from my agnosticism: we know so little and don't knwo so much. Some newer knowledge infiltrates our base - in adjusted format, of course, how our primitive mindset of today can apply it - but our knowledge-base does grow.
That means my disregard for 'older' thoughts (e.g. of yesterday...).
I am on the basis of "I don't know".
In another line there was mention of statistical analysis.
Statistics is (IMO) a no-no, it is upon our arbitrary (present?) norderlines within which we COUNT te appropriate items. As we gather new information the borderlines change and our statistics becomes irrelevant.
Analytics, however, is restricted to the (present?) inventory of structural etc. parts in our (statistically applied?) system of a presently KNOWN composition. The real results may be ingenious, but insufficient: restsricted to today's knowledge.
I leave my doubts on the 'anticipatory' for tomorrow.
Regards
John M
Evgenii
p. 72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even
though, as I said, that by itself won’t really change the
reflexes. But if we don’t think of it clearly then all our
attempts to get into this will go wrong. Clear thinking implies
that we are in some way awakened a little bit. Perhaps there is
something beyond the reflex which is at work – in other words,
something unconditioned.”
p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If
everything is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the
very fact that we are sometimes able to see new things would
suggest that there is unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material
structure of the brain is unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”
p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the
movement of intelligence, then there is some possibility of
getting into this.”
p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then
it would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
conditioning. Is that clear?”
p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the
unconditioned, then we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we
assume that there is the unconditioned, again we are going to
be stuck – we will produce an image of the unconditioned in the
system of conditioning, and mistake the image for the
unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that there may be the
unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in
our thought for possibilities.”
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
meekerdb
Sep 6, 2013, 4:53:10 PM9/6/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 9/6/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.
Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into them. I cannot resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.�
Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude - and change the continuation of anything?
They are justified by their success in prediction.� "Random" doesn't mean "anything can happen".� In the successful theories the randomness is narrowly constrained and random distributions are accurately predicted.
It all comes from my agnosticism: we know so little and don't knwo so much. Some newer knowledge infiltrates our base - in adjusted format, of course, how our primitive mindset of today can apply it - but our knowledge-base does grow.�That means my disregard for 'older' thoughts (e.g. of yesterday...).�I am on the basis of "I don't know".�
In another line there was mention of statistical analysis.�
Statistics is (IMO) a no-no, it is upon our arbitrary (present?) norderlines within which we COUNT te appropriate items. As we gather new information the borderlines change and our statistics becomes irrelevant.
It has been very successful in explaining thermodynamics by statistical mechanics.
Brent
Analytics, however, is restricted to the (present?) inventory of structural etc. parts in our (statistically applied?) system of a presently KNOWN composition. The real results may be ingenious, but insufficient: restsricted to today's knowledge.�
I leave my doubts on the 'anticipatory' for tomorrow.�
RegardsJohn M
Evgenii Rudnyi
Sep 7, 2013, 5:20:27 AM9/7/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I have finished reading the book. As usual, there is no direct answer.
Well,
p. 220 "freedom is the creative perception of a new order of necessity."
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/david-bohm
Well,
p. 220 "freedom is the creative perception of a new order of necessity."
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/david-bohm
Nicki LovesDogs
Nov 15, 2017, 11:56:33 AM11/15/17
to Everything List
Fantastic group. Been looking for people to continue those valuable conversations. I'm listening to them every single day sometimes all day long and deep into the night. Jiddu Krishnamurti is The ultimate philosopher. David Bohm is the only one during his life time who understood him.
agrays...@gmail.com
Nov 15, 2017, 4:02:10 PM11/15/17
to Everything List
On Friday, September 6, 2013 at 2:53:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 9/6/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into them. I cannot resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.�Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude - and change the continuation of anything?
They are justified by their success in prediction.� "Random" doesn't mean "anything can happen".� In the successful theories the randomness is narrowly constrained and random distributions are accurately predicted.
We've discussed this before. Yes, distributions accurately determined; individual outcomes, No. So at some point God DOES play dice with the universe. And considering that any rule determining individual outcomes would wreak havoc with physics as we know it, I think QM is "the End of the Road". Should we lament or rejoice? AG
John Clark
Nov 19, 2017, 5:49:07 PM11/19/17
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude
Easy, just change from "if X and Y then Z" to "if X and Y then usually Z". In fact that is exactly what scientists have been doing in the real world from day one.
I don't see why this bothers you so much, after all there is no logical reason ANY event must have a cause so we should count ourselves lucky that at least some of them do. And it's not as if we have a choice in the matter,
we know for a fact that the Bell inequality is violated so if you insistent determinism then thing are non-local or things don't exist in a definite state when you're not looking at them or both. And it gets worse, more recently it was discovered that the
Leggett–Garg inequality is also violated and that means those non-local forces must be even stranger, not only are they unaffected by distance and carry information faster than light but the future can change the past and the arrow of time is dead. Do you want determinism THAT bad?
> Statistics is (IMO) a no-no,
Bur statistics is necessary and it works, and that is exactly what you'd expect to happen if sometimes things are deterministic and sometimes they are not.
John K Clark
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages