"wired reality" (8 replies)

Quote
Lifework of Prof David Bohm by Will keepin

Prof David Bohm

Extract:

Thoughts about Thinking
Before delving into Bohm's substantive contributions to science, I will touch briefly on his ideas
about language and thought. In his penchant for precision, Bohm analyzed ways that our
language deceives us about the true nature of reality. We generally consider ordinary language
to be a neutral medium for communication that does not restrict our world view in any way.
Yet Bohm showed that language imposes strong, subtle pressures to see the world as
fragmented and static. He emphasized that thought tends to create fixed structures in the mind,
which can make dynamic entities seem to be static. To illustrate with an example, we know
upon reflection that all manifest objects are in a state of constant flux and change. So there is
really no such thing as a thing; all objects are dynamic processes rather than static forms. To put
it crudely, one could say that nouns do not really exist, only verbs exist. A noun is just a "slow"
verb; that is, it refers to a process that is progressing so slowly so as to appear static. For
example, the paper on which this text is printed appears to have a stable existence, but we know
that it is, at all times including this very moment, changing and evolving towards dust. Hence
paper would more accurately be called papering--to emphasize that it is always and inevitably a
dynamic process undergoing perpetual change. Bohm experimented with restructuring
language in this dynamic mode, which he called the rheomode, in an effort to more accurately
reflect in language the true dynamic nature of reality.
A primary tenet of Bohm's thinking is that all of reality is dynamic process. Included in this is
the very process of thinking about the nature of reality. If we split thought off from reality, as
we are conditioned to do, and then speak of our thought about reality, we have created a
fragmentary view in which knowledge and reality are separate. Knowledge is then in danger of
becoming static and somehow exempt from the conditions of reality. Bohm emphasizes that "a
major source of fragmentation is the presupposition that the process of thought is sufficiently
separate from and independent of its content, to allow us generally to carry out clear, orderly,
rational thinking, which can properly judge this content as correct or incorrect, rational or
irrational, fragmentary or whole, etc." (Bohm 1980, 18). In his writing and talks, he was fond of
referring to A. Korzybski's admonition that whatever we say a thing is, it is not that. It is both
different from that, and more than that (Korzybski 1950).
The artificial separation of process and content in knowledge becomes especially problematic in
systems of thought that seek to encompass the totality of existence (as do grand unified theories
in physics, for example). As Bohm notes (Bohm 1980), it then becomes quite easy to slip into
the trap of tacitly treating such a view as originating independently of thought, thus
implying that its content actually is the whole of reality. From this point on, one will see,
in the whole field accessible to one, no room for change in the overall order, as given by
one's notions of totality, which indeed must now seem to encompass all that is possible
or even thinkable. . . To adopt such an attitude will evidently tend to prevent that free
movement of the mind needed for clarity of perception, and so will contribute to a
pervasive distortion and confusion, extending into every aspect of experience. (p. 62)
Bohm goes on to suggest that the movement of thought is a kind of artistic process that yields
ever-changing form and content. He intimates that "there can no more be an ultimate form of
such thought that there could be an ultimate poem (that would make all further poems
unnecessary)" (p. 63). Indeed, imagine a Grand Unified Symphony that encompassed all
possible symphonies--past, present, and future--thereby rendering all further musical
composition redundant and unnecessary. The idea is preposterous, and yet many physicists,
not recognizing their theories as art forms, strive for just such an ultimate scientific theory. In
truth, science is essentially a creative art form that paints dynamic portraits of the natural
world, using the human intellect as its canvas and the tools of reason as it palette. Bohm was
rare among physicists in recognizing this, and he exhibited commensurate humility in the
interpretation and extrapolation of his theories.