Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Is language creative enough?

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Mary, Very interesting post. Certainly Bohm was on the edge of the next step, whatever that might be.Ironically, Bohm suffered from depression in his later
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 16, 2010

      Very interesting post. Certainly Bohm was on the edge of the next step, whatever that might be.Ironically, Bohm suffered from depression in his later years. That reminds me of our recent discussion of Nietzsche and his problems in his later years.Suppsedly, as Netzsche went mad he left a note signed"The crucified one". Certainly, the myth of the crucifiction describes the human condition, of a relatively high capacity to reason and imagine encased in a body subject to age, disease, being eaten, tortured etc.

      Near the end of his life, Bohm began to experience a recurrence of depression which he had suffered at earlier times in his life. He was admitted to the Maudsley Hospital in South London on 10 May 1991. His condition worsened and it was decided that the only thing that might help him was electroconvulsive therapy. Bohm's wife consulted psychiatrist David Shainberg, Bohm's long-time friend and collaborator, who agreed that electroconvulsive treatments were probably his only option. Bohm showed marked improvement from the treatments and was released on 29 August. However, his depression returned and was treated with medication.

      Here is another quote by Bohm.

      Thought as a System
      Bohm was alarmed by what he considered an increasing imbalance of not only 'man' and nature, but among peoples, as well as people, themselves. Bohm: "So one begins to wonder what is going to happen to the human race. Technology keeps on advancing with greater and greater power, either for good or for destruction." He goes on to ask:

      What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%.

      In Bohm's view:

      ...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us. Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence"

      I certainly agree with Bohm, Einstein etc that the most important challenge for humanity is to transform our minds to be fit masters of the rapidly evolving technology.

      Again, I compliment you on a very interesting post.

      I will close with a short poem from my website www.thecoolcat.net

      Tossing and Turning

      Tossing and turning, waking up from a long slumber.

      Getting hip to being more than just a number.

      Getting hip to trees being more than just lumber.

      Rising and falling, starting and stalling.

      Is it the New Age or Armageddon, that we hear calling?

      Groovy man

      by the Cool Cat



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Mary
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:37 AM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Is language creative enough?

      Einstein said that unless humans develop a different way of thinking, they won't survive. According to Lee Nichol, David Bohm "often invoked Alfred Korzybski's observation that any object of thought (including, for Bohm, thought itself) is both `more than what we think, and different.' None the less, as we do rely to a great extent on images and representations, a relatively accurate map of the processes of thought, based on clear observation and sound references, is surely more desireable than a flawed map. It was Dr. Bohm's intention that Thought As A System be approached as just such a propositional map, to be tested against direct life experiences, and measured by its veracity and its usefulness in reducing conflict and sorrow in the world at large." Also Korzybski did not believe survival of the fittest applied to humans. In any event, the strongest are not the most fit for survival: those who adapt are. So in terms of language, thinking, and the individual-collective dynamic, only an agreed upon necessity and persistence for change will produce this different way. I feel strangely optimistic. Boundaries of perception, though often tainted by thinking, are open, both in spite of and because of science and philosophy. The material is all there is, but it is more than and different from how we think about it.

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
      > Mary,
      > I guess what is wrong with human conciousness is very much entwined with what is right with it. Korzybysky posited the ability of humans to create an ever increasing body of knowledge and pass it on to subsequent generations as the primary quality, which has allowed us to rise to the top of the food chain.
      > a.. Time binding: The human ability to pass information and knowledge between generations at an accelerating rate. Korzybski claimed this to be a unique capacity, separating us from other animals. Animals pass knowledge, but not at an exponential rate, that is to say, each generation of animals does things pretty much in the same way as the previous generation. For example, at one time most human societies were hunter-gatherers, but now more advanced means of food production (growing, raising, or buying) predominate. Excepting some insects (for example, ants), other animals are still looking, that is, they do not grow or raise food.
      > I guess the evolution from primate to human brought in some very useful, and interesting features like the ability to reson and imagine;but like many new features, there is still many bugs in the system.
      > Peace,
      > Tom
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Mary
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 11:49 AM
      > Subject: [existlist] Is language creative enough?
      > It seems language has failed to adequately explain time. Language and neurochemistry necessarily but unfortunately keep the past in the present, restricting the possibility of experiencing the undivided, unconditioned present where creative solutions might arrive.
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.