What do you think?
Rate this book
On Dialogue
Never before has there been a greater need for deeper listening and more open communication to cope with the complex problems facing our organizations, businesses and societies. Renowned scientist David Bohm believed there was a better way for humanity to discover meaning and to achieve harmony. He identified creative dialogue, a sharing of assumptions and understanding, as a means by which the individual, and society as a whole, can learn more about themselves and others, and achieve a renewed sense of purpose.
144 pages, Paperback
First published October 31, 1996
247 people are currently reading
2,507 people want to read
About the author
David Bohm
61 books429 followersDavid Joseph Bohm (December 20, 1917 – October 27, 1992) was an American scientist who has been described as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century and who contributed innovative and unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, neuropsychology and the philosophy of mind.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 121 reviews
February 4, 2017
Mind, blown. This was game changing and paradigm shifting. I love books that make me look at something that I thought I had fully understood from a completely different angle. It’s like taking a knockout punch from an angle you just didn’t expect to get hit from to using a boxing analogy. It’s about having dialogues as supposed to discussing things. Interestingly Bohm talked about the link between the word percussion, concussion and discussion – all hitting type activities. A discussion then becoming something that you hit from different angles where as a dialogue being almost a scarf that you put your thoughts on and then wrap between yourself and the other person you are talking to; you don’t pull or tear or hit this scarf. You wear it and take time to digest the warmth of the others' words. You may not agree with them but you stay in the moment and put analysis and point making to one side and take time to really absorb the message the other person is trying to say. It reminded me of Fernando Flores’ quote about the art of listening being about nurturing and growing a figurative flower that grows between you and the other; at the end of each conversation have you listened to the extent that the flower has grown or shrunk? How has the other person who is supposedly listening to you helped this little rose between you grown or shrunk?
Bohm was a physicist that worked with Einstein and come up with lots of other theories related to crazy physics stuff that is way beyond my limited ken but this really hit the mark – yes this could go a long way ... from solving the Palestinian peace process challenge to solving the challenges you may have with your partner.
Here are some of the best bits from the book:
• Bohm talked about communication being like a couple out in the middle of nowhere, lost but each with the same map (language) but on different parts of the terrain (context). They are talking but from different points of view and trying to locate one another in the process.
• “Everything requires attention, really. If we ran machines without paying attention to them, they would break down. Our thought, too, is a process, and it requires attention, otherwise it's going to go wrong.”
• “During the past few decades, modern technology, with radio, TV, air travel, and satellites, has woven a network of communication which puts each part of the world in to almost instant contact with all the other parts. Yet, in spite of this world-wide system of linkages, there is, at this very moment, a general feeling that communication is breaking down everywhere, on an unparalleled scale”
• “The hunter-gatherers have typically lived in groups of twenty to forty. Agricultural group units are much larger. Now, from time to time that tribe met like this in a circle. They just talked and talked and talked, apparently to no purpose. They made no decisions. There was no leader. And everybody could participate. There may have been wise men or wise women who were listened to a bit more–the older ones–but everybody could talk. The meeting went on, until it finally seemed to stop for no reason at all and the group dispersed. Yet after that, everybody seemed to know what to do, because they understood each other so well. Then they could get together in smaller groups and do something or decide things.”
• “‘Is it absolutely necessary? So much is being destroyed just because we have this notion of it being absolutely necessary.’ Now if you can question it and say, ‘Is it absolutely necessary?’ then at some point it may loosen up. People may say, ‘Well, maybe it’s not absolutely necessary.’ Then the whole thing becomes easier, and it becomes possible to let that conflict go and to explore new notions of what is necessary, creatively. The dialogue can then enter a creative new area.””
• PROPRIOCEPTION - “We come back to the realization that the thing which has gone wrong with thought is basically, as I said before, that it does things and then says or implies that it didn’t do them—that they took place independently, and that they constitute “problems.” Whereas what you really have to do is stop thinking that way so that you can stop creating that problem. The problem is insoluble as long as you keep on producing it all the time by your thought. Thought has to be in some sense aware of its consequences, and presently thought is not sufficiently aware of its consequences. In neurophysiology it is called proprioception, about the body.”
• “The object of a dialogue is not to analyse things, or to win an argument, or to exchange opinions. Rather, it is to spend your onions and to look at the opinions. TO LISTEN TO EVERYBODY'S OPINIONS, TO SUSPEND THEM, AND TO SEE WHAT ALL THAT MEANS. If we can see what all of our opinions mean, then we are sharing a common content, even if we don't agree entirely. If we can see them all, we may then move more creatively in different direction …. If each of us in this room is suspending then we are all doing the same thing. We are looking at everything together. the content of our consciousness is essentially the same"
• "If you know a person very well, you may pass him on the street and say, "I saw him." If you are asked what the person was wearing, however, you may not know, because you didn't really look. You were not sensitive to all that, because you saw that person through the screen of thought. And that was not sensitivity.”
• “Thought pervades us. It’s similar to a virus—somehow this is a disease of thought, of knowledge, of information, spreading all over the world. The more computers, radio and television we have the faster it spreads.So the kind of thoughts that’s going on all around begins to take over in every one of us without our even noticing it its spreading like a virus and each one of us is nourishing that virus.”
• “You say I am going to look at myself inwardly but the assumptions are not looked at”
• “If somebody says something to you causing you to react 2 / 3 seconds later a needle jerks - it takes that time for the impulse to work to work its way down from the brain through the nervous system … now the person said something to you 2 /3 seconds ago but you don’t see the connection. You don’t connect it and you say “there is a deep gut feeling which is a sign that I’m justified in being angry” you use the feeling to justify the anger and you say “here is an independent gut feeling which shows that I’m perceiving something. it shows that my anger is right.” Which is a clear indicator of wrongunism.
Bohm was a physicist that worked with Einstein and come up with lots of other theories related to crazy physics stuff that is way beyond my limited ken but this really hit the mark – yes this could go a long way ... from solving the Palestinian peace process challenge to solving the challenges you may have with your partner.
Here are some of the best bits from the book:
• Bohm talked about communication being like a couple out in the middle of nowhere, lost but each with the same map (language) but on different parts of the terrain (context). They are talking but from different points of view and trying to locate one another in the process.
• “Everything requires attention, really. If we ran machines without paying attention to them, they would break down. Our thought, too, is a process, and it requires attention, otherwise it's going to go wrong.”
• “During the past few decades, modern technology, with radio, TV, air travel, and satellites, has woven a network of communication which puts each part of the world in to almost instant contact with all the other parts. Yet, in spite of this world-wide system of linkages, there is, at this very moment, a general feeling that communication is breaking down everywhere, on an unparalleled scale”
• “The hunter-gatherers have typically lived in groups of twenty to forty. Agricultural group units are much larger. Now, from time to time that tribe met like this in a circle. They just talked and talked and talked, apparently to no purpose. They made no decisions. There was no leader. And everybody could participate. There may have been wise men or wise women who were listened to a bit more–the older ones–but everybody could talk. The meeting went on, until it finally seemed to stop for no reason at all and the group dispersed. Yet after that, everybody seemed to know what to do, because they understood each other so well. Then they could get together in smaller groups and do something or decide things.”
• “‘Is it absolutely necessary? So much is being destroyed just because we have this notion of it being absolutely necessary.’ Now if you can question it and say, ‘Is it absolutely necessary?’ then at some point it may loosen up. People may say, ‘Well, maybe it’s not absolutely necessary.’ Then the whole thing becomes easier, and it becomes possible to let that conflict go and to explore new notions of what is necessary, creatively. The dialogue can then enter a creative new area.””
• PROPRIOCEPTION - “We come back to the realization that the thing which has gone wrong with thought is basically, as I said before, that it does things and then says or implies that it didn’t do them—that they took place independently, and that they constitute “problems.” Whereas what you really have to do is stop thinking that way so that you can stop creating that problem. The problem is insoluble as long as you keep on producing it all the time by your thought. Thought has to be in some sense aware of its consequences, and presently thought is not sufficiently aware of its consequences. In neurophysiology it is called proprioception, about the body.”
• “The object of a dialogue is not to analyse things, or to win an argument, or to exchange opinions. Rather, it is to spend your onions and to look at the opinions. TO LISTEN TO EVERYBODY'S OPINIONS, TO SUSPEND THEM, AND TO SEE WHAT ALL THAT MEANS. If we can see what all of our opinions mean, then we are sharing a common content, even if we don't agree entirely. If we can see them all, we may then move more creatively in different direction …. If each of us in this room is suspending then we are all doing the same thing. We are looking at everything together. the content of our consciousness is essentially the same"
• "If you know a person very well, you may pass him on the street and say, "I saw him." If you are asked what the person was wearing, however, you may not know, because you didn't really look. You were not sensitive to all that, because you saw that person through the screen of thought. And that was not sensitivity.”
• “Thought pervades us. It’s similar to a virus—somehow this is a disease of thought, of knowledge, of information, spreading all over the world. The more computers, radio and television we have the faster it spreads.So the kind of thoughts that’s going on all around begins to take over in every one of us without our even noticing it its spreading like a virus and each one of us is nourishing that virus.”
• “You say I am going to look at myself inwardly but the assumptions are not looked at”
• “If somebody says something to you causing you to react 2 / 3 seconds later a needle jerks - it takes that time for the impulse to work to work its way down from the brain through the nervous system … now the person said something to you 2 /3 seconds ago but you don’t see the connection. You don’t connect it and you say “there is a deep gut feeling which is a sign that I’m justified in being angry” you use the feeling to justify the anger and you say “here is an independent gut feeling which shows that I’m perceiving something. it shows that my anger is right.” Which is a clear indicator of wrongunism.
April 13, 2014
David Bohm, the author of “On Dialogue,” was apparently recognized as one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the twentieth century. Despite my background in physics, I’d never heard of his contributions to the field, and I’d certainly never heard of his contributions to other fields, including … well, whatever you could call this book. Is it philosophy? Communications? I know it’s not an attempt at literary theory, but some of it seems to resemble it. It fancies itself a visionary way of reimagining and reawakening the power of human communication, but much of it sounds like New Age occultism – spooky and obscurantist, weird and much of it frankly unfounded.
Bohm thinks that following his recommendations will result in a kind of enhanced, unbiased conversation (which he insists on calling “dialogue”) between people that will help foster a common sense of humanity, and that our dialogue with one another has been irrevocably tainted by personal ambition and unexamined prejudices. Because we have these presuppositions, we can only engage in “conversations” (which is somehow very different from dialogue, which is the idealized type of human interaction). How conversation is different from dialogue is never really discussed. The way we can reestablish this most meaningful type of human connection is by letting go of these ambitions and prejudices.
He says that dialogue should ideally begin with no set purpose, no leader, and no hidden assumptions or opinions which will only serve to make you defensive during the course of the dialogue. Now, gentle reader, there is a difference between suspending opinions which might be culturally or religiously biased, which is something I would completely understand doing to open a dialogue fully up, and what Bohm is asking us to do in this book. He seems to want us to sit and listen to absolutely anyone say anything they sincerely believe. But the problem with sincerity is this: it and four dollars will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Considering that Bohm is a scientist and is ostensibly on the hunt for something resembling truth about the physical world, this is somewhat disheartening to read. Do I need to suspend my judgments about the absurdity of Holocaust denial when I speak to someone who actually denies historical reality? Or fail to adduce the evidence that the Earth is roughly spherical to a flat Earther while engaged in a conversation with one? For someone who thinks that the scientific endeavor is something other than an utterly futile one, how can someone genuinely think these things? To request that we listen to varying opinions, measure their respective amounts of evidence, and adopt the one that has the most explanatory power all the while maintaining a cool head about those who have very different ideas from our own is a very good idea. Actually engaging people with ridiculous, patently false ideas is another. Not only is it silly, but it’s dangerous. There are some people who should be disabused of their false ideas. In fact, if that’s not the main point of dialogue, it should be one of its major reasons for existing. To say that dialogue shouldn’t be used for the purpose of convincing people of things we know to be true is detrimental to the idea of any kind of human interaction, especially if you believe that some things are true and some things aren’t.
This is mostly a collection of ad hoc work, with only a couple of pieces having been previously published elsewhere. Most of what I spoke about above is found in the first piece, “On Dialogue.” The subsequent pieces serve to expound upon the first in minor, tangential ways, and none of them seemed as egregious as what was set forward in the first piece. If this is the kind of uncritical work that Bohm is known for, I think I can safely bypass his other stuff and regard him for what he is: a physicist who should stick to doing what he knows best.
Bohm thinks that following his recommendations will result in a kind of enhanced, unbiased conversation (which he insists on calling “dialogue”) between people that will help foster a common sense of humanity, and that our dialogue with one another has been irrevocably tainted by personal ambition and unexamined prejudices. Because we have these presuppositions, we can only engage in “conversations” (which is somehow very different from dialogue, which is the idealized type of human interaction). How conversation is different from dialogue is never really discussed. The way we can reestablish this most meaningful type of human connection is by letting go of these ambitions and prejudices.
He says that dialogue should ideally begin with no set purpose, no leader, and no hidden assumptions or opinions which will only serve to make you defensive during the course of the dialogue. Now, gentle reader, there is a difference between suspending opinions which might be culturally or religiously biased, which is something I would completely understand doing to open a dialogue fully up, and what Bohm is asking us to do in this book. He seems to want us to sit and listen to absolutely anyone say anything they sincerely believe. But the problem with sincerity is this: it and four dollars will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Considering that Bohm is a scientist and is ostensibly on the hunt for something resembling truth about the physical world, this is somewhat disheartening to read. Do I need to suspend my judgments about the absurdity of Holocaust denial when I speak to someone who actually denies historical reality? Or fail to adduce the evidence that the Earth is roughly spherical to a flat Earther while engaged in a conversation with one? For someone who thinks that the scientific endeavor is something other than an utterly futile one, how can someone genuinely think these things? To request that we listen to varying opinions, measure their respective amounts of evidence, and adopt the one that has the most explanatory power all the while maintaining a cool head about those who have very different ideas from our own is a very good idea. Actually engaging people with ridiculous, patently false ideas is another. Not only is it silly, but it’s dangerous. There are some people who should be disabused of their false ideas. In fact, if that’s not the main point of dialogue, it should be one of its major reasons for existing. To say that dialogue shouldn’t be used for the purpose of convincing people of things we know to be true is detrimental to the idea of any kind of human interaction, especially if you believe that some things are true and some things aren’t.
This is mostly a collection of ad hoc work, with only a couple of pieces having been previously published elsewhere. Most of what I spoke about above is found in the first piece, “On Dialogue.” The subsequent pieces serve to expound upon the first in minor, tangential ways, and none of them seemed as egregious as what was set forward in the first piece. If this is the kind of uncritical work that Bohm is known for, I think I can safely bypass his other stuff and regard him for what he is: a physicist who should stick to doing what he knows best.
November 28, 2019
By some strike of fortune I happen to have skimmed part of another one of Bohm’s books and as such I am slightly introduced to his manner of thought - which lets me know I dont know what I am reading. While I have a temptation to speak, I will wait until I have read a bit more of his writings to throughly analyze his thinking. What I can say for now is that his writings appear to convey a deeper underlying philosophical framework on the nature of reality as a whole (yes, that grand) and as such I can say a very limited set of things on this exact book despite that I have an impression that I understand what he is saying.
From an initial impression, it seems that this book is on discovering the nature of truth via open discussion. He seems to believe that fundamentally if people were to talk and listen to one another that all disagreements would be resolved. He further things that innovation in science, politics, technology and whatever have you in social structures comes about from a smooth transition of information between parties. This is not cybernetics.
There is something deeper going on here.
He at times uses words like fragments and references his other books- which makes me believe Im not getting the full picture
Nevertheless there is a truth in his words and an idealistic naïveté which I must elaborate on.
The truth exists in that honest communication would resolve a great deal of issues that we presently have within the world - assuming of course that the parties have the proper information of course. If it were the case for example that congress or some other body of polity were to talk out their disagreements they may be able to find a practical resolution. Of course issues in communication leading to conflict exist not only on the political level but down to our day to day interpersonal relationships. Witha. Country abound in an expanding divorce rate one may for ask how many marriages would be saved for example if the could could simply talk it out?
Which of course leads to where he is, in my view, naive. Can open communication answer all questions and always bring about peace?
This is something im not so sure about. Bohm presents an example of where he thinks communication could have aided a relationship : between Einstein and Bohr.
It is well known by many physicists and historians thereof that Bohr advocated a Copenhagen interpretation of the universe (or one indeterminate) while Einstein stood by a mechanical view of the universe. Einstein, it is said, maintained the universe must be deterministic. He held by the tradition of the western determinist like Laplace- that if all the particles and their forces of the known universe were to be placed on a page - a sufficiently complex mathematician could espouse their history and future.
Bohr stood by that modern quantum mechanics have changed this, and shown it to be incorrect, while Einstein maintained in his classically spinozian way that “God does not play dice with the universe”.
Bohm (an acquaintance of the two- albeit one that was superficial )maps the decay of their relationship as they were unable to reconcile their differences. He suggests- if they were only able to talk it out they would find peace.
Which makes one wonder. Are there times where dialogue breaks down- in where two groups, or two people can no longer speak without fighting and disagreeing fundamentally. What then do we do? He seems to think peace will be find and a truth may come about, I do not think this is always the case. If so there may be hope for such institutions as the American bipartisan state which finds themselves in a whirlwind of conflict. I hope he is correct.
But then again, as I mentioned in the start I don’t truly understand bohm.
This serves to be a thought provoking book and I advocate anyone interested in the nature of communication give it a read
From an initial impression, it seems that this book is on discovering the nature of truth via open discussion. He seems to believe that fundamentally if people were to talk and listen to one another that all disagreements would be resolved. He further things that innovation in science, politics, technology and whatever have you in social structures comes about from a smooth transition of information between parties. This is not cybernetics.
There is something deeper going on here.
He at times uses words like fragments and references his other books- which makes me believe Im not getting the full picture
Nevertheless there is a truth in his words and an idealistic naïveté which I must elaborate on.
The truth exists in that honest communication would resolve a great deal of issues that we presently have within the world - assuming of course that the parties have the proper information of course. If it were the case for example that congress or some other body of polity were to talk out their disagreements they may be able to find a practical resolution. Of course issues in communication leading to conflict exist not only on the political level but down to our day to day interpersonal relationships. Witha. Country abound in an expanding divorce rate one may for ask how many marriages would be saved for example if the could could simply talk it out?
Which of course leads to where he is, in my view, naive. Can open communication answer all questions and always bring about peace?
This is something im not so sure about. Bohm presents an example of where he thinks communication could have aided a relationship : between Einstein and Bohr.
It is well known by many physicists and historians thereof that Bohr advocated a Copenhagen interpretation of the universe (or one indeterminate) while Einstein stood by a mechanical view of the universe. Einstein, it is said, maintained the universe must be deterministic. He held by the tradition of the western determinist like Laplace- that if all the particles and their forces of the known universe were to be placed on a page - a sufficiently complex mathematician could espouse their history and future.
Bohr stood by that modern quantum mechanics have changed this, and shown it to be incorrect, while Einstein maintained in his classically spinozian way that “God does not play dice with the universe”.
Bohm (an acquaintance of the two- albeit one that was superficial )maps the decay of their relationship as they were unable to reconcile their differences. He suggests- if they were only able to talk it out they would find peace.
Which makes one wonder. Are there times where dialogue breaks down- in where two groups, or two people can no longer speak without fighting and disagreeing fundamentally. What then do we do? He seems to think peace will be find and a truth may come about, I do not think this is always the case. If so there may be hope for such institutions as the American bipartisan state which finds themselves in a whirlwind of conflict. I hope he is correct.
But then again, as I mentioned in the start I don’t truly understand bohm.
This serves to be a thought provoking book and I advocate anyone interested in the nature of communication give it a read
October 11, 2020
This is an oft cited, highly revered classic.
I���ve been meaning to read it for a long time.
And as is the case with so many classics.
It was WAY ahead of its time.
And so.
I can forgive the prolix and groping nature of the text.
And yes.
The core insight of the book is simple and profound.
That being.
There is a form of dialog that lacks agenda beyond connection, communication and honest exploration.
It’s transformative and healing.
It’s the fundament of authentically good therapy.
And when done well, it’s a genuine spiritual practice.
That being said.
Throughout much of this text.
The honest reader may find that they simply have no fucking idea what the actual fuck Bohm is fucking yammering about.
If you’re an educated reader in the domains of behavioral neuroscience, and cognitive psychology, you’re apt to be very frustrated by many of the claims.
Yes it’s an older text.
But frankly speaking.
Bohm was a physicist.
And much of the text deals with psychological and philosophical matters.
While he does an admirable job.
He’s a curious, creative and strong critical thinker.
The insights lack the discipline and clarity of a skillful and trained philosopher or psychologist.
This review is sure to draw ire (if anyone actually reads it).
I’m super sorry if I offend.
And in the high likelihood I’m missing something.
Please straighten me out.
Anyway.
I’m giving it a 3⭐️⭐️⭐️ until otherwise convinced.
Sorry about it 😕
I���ve been meaning to read it for a long time.
And as is the case with so many classics.
It was WAY ahead of its time.
And so.
I can forgive the prolix and groping nature of the text.
And yes.
The core insight of the book is simple and profound.
That being.
There is a form of dialog that lacks agenda beyond connection, communication and honest exploration.
It’s transformative and healing.
It’s the fundament of authentically good therapy.
And when done well, it’s a genuine spiritual practice.
That being said.
Throughout much of this text.
The honest reader may find that they simply have no fucking idea what the actual fuck Bohm is fucking yammering about.
If you’re an educated reader in the domains of behavioral neuroscience, and cognitive psychology, you’re apt to be very frustrated by many of the claims.
Yes it’s an older text.
But frankly speaking.
Bohm was a physicist.
And much of the text deals with psychological and philosophical matters.
While he does an admirable job.
He’s a curious, creative and strong critical thinker.
The insights lack the discipline and clarity of a skillful and trained philosopher or psychologist.
This review is sure to draw ire (if anyone actually reads it).
I’m super sorry if I offend.
And in the high likelihood I’m missing something.
Please straighten me out.
Anyway.
I’m giving it a 3⭐️⭐️⭐️ until otherwise convinced.
Sorry about it 😕
March 10, 2016
This is a difficult book to classify. Although its written by a physicist, its really about the nature of being a human individual attempting to understand how to fit into the world.
Bohm at times, reaches into a near mystical state, not really scientific but more philosophical and religious when he describes how our expectations characterize our experience. He could be more philosophically explicit, but this may detract from what is already a very succinct text.
By extension these ideas can be related to the way in which groups also reason out ideology.
Nonetheless Bohm suggests using a group calibration of thought in order to bring about awareness as to how our experiential underpinnings force us to view the world in a way that is not our own. We often live our lives according to ideas we got from somewhere else. Sometimes they are misunderstandings that we extrapolate as morals. Other times they are partial ideas adopted from some authority figure in our past. Either way the worlds we construct are often inappropriate or at least misleading as to the full context of where we are and what we are doing. As a result, we are often at the mercy of thought itself -- we live in a world not constructed for us (for our benefit) and yet we constantly construct this world even identifying completely with it for the purposes of finding our place... a place that may not be to our benefit.
Often individuals deal with situations by reacting to their thought and the switching the order of their thinking. Their reactions become justifications for the thought they originally had, even though their justifications are reactionary. This is both the subject of Kant's Critique of Judgement (teleological thinking) and what Nietzsche was attempting to outline in his books about culture. Deleuze in Nietzsche and Philosophy shows more directly how Nietzsche considered culture to be created nearly of completely reactive forces... impulses and ideas that would limit our ability to be active so that we can be in service to a greater null. We become domesticated through out ideas and then cannot create a new world.
Bohm isn't proposing an overman kind of resolution. Instead he believes we should speak with others in a rigid methodology utilizing dialogue in order to come to understand the underpinnings of our reactive assumptions. When we can successfully pull them out we will see how irrational our assumptions are, and we can begin to create a new community. For a community is not founded on imposing will but by the collective synthesis of a completely new common will. When we find where we can identify with one another we will come that much close to healing the world we live in. Especially with politics as it is today and with communication how it is, we do not talk with those outside our group because we seek to enforce the veracity of our ideas. In such a forced presentation no one listens. We lose the ability to be a nation or a whole group and with that loss of communication we lose not only community but our shared lifeworld -- which requires a collective goal for everyone.
Very interesting book. Bohm is equally hard on scientists as they also present teleological thinking when it suits their favorite theories. I heartily recommend this tiny book to everyone!
Bohm at times, reaches into a near mystical state, not really scientific but more philosophical and religious when he describes how our expectations characterize our experience. He could be more philosophically explicit, but this may detract from what is already a very succinct text.
By extension these ideas can be related to the way in which groups also reason out ideology.
Nonetheless Bohm suggests using a group calibration of thought in order to bring about awareness as to how our experiential underpinnings force us to view the world in a way that is not our own. We often live our lives according to ideas we got from somewhere else. Sometimes they are misunderstandings that we extrapolate as morals. Other times they are partial ideas adopted from some authority figure in our past. Either way the worlds we construct are often inappropriate or at least misleading as to the full context of where we are and what we are doing. As a result, we are often at the mercy of thought itself -- we live in a world not constructed for us (for our benefit) and yet we constantly construct this world even identifying completely with it for the purposes of finding our place... a place that may not be to our benefit.
Often individuals deal with situations by reacting to their thought and the switching the order of their thinking. Their reactions become justifications for the thought they originally had, even though their justifications are reactionary. This is both the subject of Kant's Critique of Judgement (teleological thinking) and what Nietzsche was attempting to outline in his books about culture. Deleuze in Nietzsche and Philosophy shows more directly how Nietzsche considered culture to be created nearly of completely reactive forces... impulses and ideas that would limit our ability to be active so that we can be in service to a greater null. We become domesticated through out ideas and then cannot create a new world.
Bohm isn't proposing an overman kind of resolution. Instead he believes we should speak with others in a rigid methodology utilizing dialogue in order to come to understand the underpinnings of our reactive assumptions. When we can successfully pull them out we will see how irrational our assumptions are, and we can begin to create a new community. For a community is not founded on imposing will but by the collective synthesis of a completely new common will. When we find where we can identify with one another we will come that much close to healing the world we live in. Especially with politics as it is today and with communication how it is, we do not talk with those outside our group because we seek to enforce the veracity of our ideas. In such a forced presentation no one listens. We lose the ability to be a nation or a whole group and with that loss of communication we lose not only community but our shared lifeworld -- which requires a collective goal for everyone.
Very interesting book. Bohm is equally hard on scientists as they also present teleological thinking when it suits their favorite theories. I heartily recommend this tiny book to everyone!
March 11, 2018
ผมคิดว่าเนื้อหาที่เกี่ยวข้องกับชื่อของหนังสือจริง ๆ คือ บทที่ 1-2 ซึ่งกล่าวถึงแนวคิดและกระบวนการ Dialouge นอกนั้นเหมือนเป็นการพูดถึงมุมมองของโบห์มในเรื่องความคิดและเรื่องอื่น ๆ ทำให้อ่านแล้ว รู้สึกว่าเนื้อหาไม่ค่อยกลมกลืนเท่าไหร่ และค่อนข้างมีความซับซ้อน ในประเด็นที่เกี่ยวข้องกับธรรมชาติและผลกระทบของความคิดนี้ ผมคิดว่างานของกฤษณมูรติอธิบายได้ง่ายและชัดเจนกว่า อย่างไรก็ตาม มันอาจไม่ใช่จุดมุ่งหมายหลักของหนังสือเล่มนี้ แต่หากมองว่าจุดมุ่งหมายหลักคือการนำเสนอเกี่ยวกับ Dialouge ก็ยังทำได้ไม่ค่อยชัดเจนนักอยู่ดี
July 16, 2020
Need more time and more basic knowledge, this book was very tough. Yet I think it was quite interesting despite the fact that I didn't even understand how can "a dialogue" work especially in such specific situation. By the way, Bohm's explanation on the relation between a 'tacit knowledge' and our actions was so touching.
If I say that this book "convinced" me to keep on examining my "self"... Did Bohm achieve his aims?
If I say that this book "convinced" me to keep on examining my "self"... Did Bohm achieve his aims?
February 9, 2024
Highly recommended.
October 23, 2015
اين نوشته ها به جان نفوذ مي كند. دوست داشتم همه اين كتاب را بخوانند.به هر كس كه ميرسم، با اشتياق ميگويم كه بخواندش ولي جز اندكي عموما توجهي نمي كنند. و اين خود چقدر به مطالب كتاب نزديك است. وقتي خوانده باشيش و ديگران اشتياقت را درك نكنند كه چقدر دوست داري بخوانندش، درد بسيار دارد. اين كتاب كوچك يادت ميدهد چگونه درون خودت سفر كني خودت را خالصانه از منظر يك سوم شخص بنگري و خودت را و نگاهت را به هستي بپالايي. جايگاهت را در هستي مي يابي انگار و ياد ميگيري كه چگونه نگاه كني، بينديشي و خلاق باشي.
September 17, 2018
The book is Interesting because Bohm analyses the way we think, or, to be more precise, the way we think that we think. He introduces the concept: proprioception. That means selfperception. Peoples lack proprioception about the way we think.
He proposes the idea of an open dialogue. This is different from the way most peoples discuss with each other. What we should try to do is to understand each others presuppositions. That is not easy but we could start by trying, over and over again.
He proposes the idea of an open dialogue. This is different from the way most peoples discuss with each other. What we should try to do is to understand each others presuppositions. That is not easy but we could start by trying, over and over again.
January 23, 2013
Immensely important to the future of humanity. If we can't dialogue ... we will continue a downward spiral in our humanity towards each other and the planet.
May 12, 2023
"When we see a “problem,” whether pollution, carbon dioxide, or whatever, we then say, “We have got to solve that problem.” But we are constantly producing that sort of problem—not just that particular problem, but that sort of problem—by the way we go on with our thought. If we keep on thinking that the world is there solely for our convenience, then we are going to exploit it in some other way, and we are going to make another problem somewhere. [...]
The point is: thought produces results, but thought says it didn’t do it. And that is a problem. The trouble is that some of those results that thought produces are considered to be very important and valuable. Thought produced the nation, and it says that the nation has an extremely high value, a supreme value, which overrides almost everything else. The same may be said about religion. Therefore, freedom of thought is interfered with, because if the nation has high value it is necessary to continue to think that the nation has high value. Therefore you’ve got to create a pressure to think that way. You’ve got to have an impulse, and make sure everybody has got the impulse, to go on thinking that way about his nation, his religion, his family, or whatever it is that he gives high value. He’s got to defend it." pg. 10-11
"In fact, the problems we have been discussing are basically all due to this lack of proprioception. The point of suspension is to help make proprioception possible, to create a mirror so that you can see the results of your thought. You have it inside yourself because your body acts as a mirror and you can see tensions arising in the body. Also other people are a mirror, the group is a mirror. You have to see your intention." pg. 25
"Love will go away if we can’t communicate and share meaning. The love between Einstein and Bohr gradually evaporated because they could not communicate. However, if we can really communicate, then we will have fellowship, participation, friendship, and love, growing and growing. That would be the way. The question is really: do you see the necessity of this process? That’s the key question. If you see that it is absolutely necessary, then you have to do something. And perhaps in dialogue, when we have this very high energy of coherence, it might bring us beyond just being a group that could solve social problems." pg. 47
"Imagine a stream which is being polluted near the source. The people downstream don’t know about that, so they start removing bits of pollution, trying to purify their water, but perhaps introducing more pollution of another kind as they do so. What has to be done, therefore; is to see this whole stream, and get to the source of it. Somewhere, at the source of thought, it is being polluted—that is the suggestion." pg. 50
"We have the sense that we “know” all sorts of things. But we could say that perhaps it is not “we,” but knowledge itself which knows all sorts of things. The suggestion is that knowledge—which is thought—is moving autonomously: it passes from one person to another. There is a whole pool of knowledge for the whole human race, like different computers that share a pool of knowledge. This pool of thought has been developing for many thousands of years, and it is full of all sorts of content. This knowledge, or thought, knows all of that content, but it doesn’t know what it is doing. This knowledge knows itself wrongly: it knows itself as doing nothing. It therefore says, “I am not responsible for any of these problems. I’m just here for you to use."" pg. 52
"This tacit, concrete process is actual knowledge, and it may be coherent or not. In the case of riding a bicycle, if you don’t know how to ride, then the knowledge isn’t right—the tacit knowledge is not coherent in the context of trying to ride the bike, and you don’t get the intended result. The incoherence becomes clear—you fall when you want to ride. Physically, tacit knowledge is where the action is coming from. And physical change depends on changing the tacit response.
Therefore, changing the abstract thought is one step, but unless it also changes the way the body responds, it won’t be enough." pg. 79
"Participatory thought is a different way of perceiving and thinking, and that is the way we were for more or less a million years. In the last five thousand years we have turned it around, and our present language says, "That’s all nonsense. We won’t pay attention to that at all." This kind of thought, which we largely favor nowadays, has been called "literal thought." [...]
Owen Barfield has compared such literal thought to idol worship. If you make an idol, it may stand in at first for some force which is greater than itself, or for some spiritual energy. But gradually the idol is taken to be it—literally; and therefore you give supreme value to that object. We could say that in a way we are worshiping our words and our thoughts, insofar as they claim to be descriptions or statements about reality just as it is. [...]
Cultures that used a great deal of participatory thought probably also used literal thought for practical activities, but the things that deeply mattered to them mostly involved participatory thought. [...]
We are then doing exactly that kind of thought. We say, "I am my country. When you cross that boundary, you have hit me." We do a great deal of that kind of thought, but we claim we are not doing it. Literal thought claims we are not doing it at all. Therefore, it is incoherent. Explicitly we have given supreme value to literal thought, while in fact we are also tacitly giving supreme value to participatory thought. So it’s all very muddled. Literal thought took over in conscious awareness and made technology possible, and in many ways it was of tremendous advantage to do that. At the same time, participatory thought somehow went into the shade; it got eclipsed, but it remained underground. [...]
But participatory thought has some aspects that are very inadequate, or even dangerous. For example, in some tribes, the word for “human being” was the same as the word for a member of that tribe. When they met another tribe, the very word suggested that the other tribe was not human. [...] Another example would be the beer cellars in the time of Hitler’s Germany. People would sit in the beer cellars and sing, with great participation and comradeship, "We’re all friends together, we’re going to go out and conquer the world and it will all be wonderful." But when it came to the action, it wasn’t so wonderful." pg. 85-87
"Living in ordinary society, you may give priority to money, to your country, or to whatever else you may be doing. You have all sorts of things to which you could give priority, and different people do it differently. However, if you give first priority to only those things, then you cannot be giving it to what may be unlimited. Your brain is effectively saying that there isn’t any such thing as the unlimited." pg. 92
The point is: thought produces results, but thought says it didn’t do it. And that is a problem. The trouble is that some of those results that thought produces are considered to be very important and valuable. Thought produced the nation, and it says that the nation has an extremely high value, a supreme value, which overrides almost everything else. The same may be said about religion. Therefore, freedom of thought is interfered with, because if the nation has high value it is necessary to continue to think that the nation has high value. Therefore you’ve got to create a pressure to think that way. You’ve got to have an impulse, and make sure everybody has got the impulse, to go on thinking that way about his nation, his religion, his family, or whatever it is that he gives high value. He’s got to defend it." pg. 10-11
"In fact, the problems we have been discussing are basically all due to this lack of proprioception. The point of suspension is to help make proprioception possible, to create a mirror so that you can see the results of your thought. You have it inside yourself because your body acts as a mirror and you can see tensions arising in the body. Also other people are a mirror, the group is a mirror. You have to see your intention." pg. 25
"Love will go away if we can’t communicate and share meaning. The love between Einstein and Bohr gradually evaporated because they could not communicate. However, if we can really communicate, then we will have fellowship, participation, friendship, and love, growing and growing. That would be the way. The question is really: do you see the necessity of this process? That’s the key question. If you see that it is absolutely necessary, then you have to do something. And perhaps in dialogue, when we have this very high energy of coherence, it might bring us beyond just being a group that could solve social problems." pg. 47
"Imagine a stream which is being polluted near the source. The people downstream don’t know about that, so they start removing bits of pollution, trying to purify their water, but perhaps introducing more pollution of another kind as they do so. What has to be done, therefore; is to see this whole stream, and get to the source of it. Somewhere, at the source of thought, it is being polluted—that is the suggestion." pg. 50
"We have the sense that we “know” all sorts of things. But we could say that perhaps it is not “we,” but knowledge itself which knows all sorts of things. The suggestion is that knowledge—which is thought—is moving autonomously: it passes from one person to another. There is a whole pool of knowledge for the whole human race, like different computers that share a pool of knowledge. This pool of thought has been developing for many thousands of years, and it is full of all sorts of content. This knowledge, or thought, knows all of that content, but it doesn’t know what it is doing. This knowledge knows itself wrongly: it knows itself as doing nothing. It therefore says, “I am not responsible for any of these problems. I’m just here for you to use."" pg. 52
"This tacit, concrete process is actual knowledge, and it may be coherent or not. In the case of riding a bicycle, if you don’t know how to ride, then the knowledge isn’t right—the tacit knowledge is not coherent in the context of trying to ride the bike, and you don’t get the intended result. The incoherence becomes clear—you fall when you want to ride. Physically, tacit knowledge is where the action is coming from. And physical change depends on changing the tacit response.
Therefore, changing the abstract thought is one step, but unless it also changes the way the body responds, it won’t be enough." pg. 79
"Participatory thought is a different way of perceiving and thinking, and that is the way we were for more or less a million years. In the last five thousand years we have turned it around, and our present language says, "That’s all nonsense. We won’t pay attention to that at all." This kind of thought, which we largely favor nowadays, has been called "literal thought." [...]
Owen Barfield has compared such literal thought to idol worship. If you make an idol, it may stand in at first for some force which is greater than itself, or for some spiritual energy. But gradually the idol is taken to be it—literally; and therefore you give supreme value to that object. We could say that in a way we are worshiping our words and our thoughts, insofar as they claim to be descriptions or statements about reality just as it is. [...]
Cultures that used a great deal of participatory thought probably also used literal thought for practical activities, but the things that deeply mattered to them mostly involved participatory thought. [...]
We are then doing exactly that kind of thought. We say, "I am my country. When you cross that boundary, you have hit me." We do a great deal of that kind of thought, but we claim we are not doing it. Literal thought claims we are not doing it at all. Therefore, it is incoherent. Explicitly we have given supreme value to literal thought, while in fact we are also tacitly giving supreme value to participatory thought. So it’s all very muddled. Literal thought took over in conscious awareness and made technology possible, and in many ways it was of tremendous advantage to do that. At the same time, participatory thought somehow went into the shade; it got eclipsed, but it remained underground. [...]
But participatory thought has some aspects that are very inadequate, or even dangerous. For example, in some tribes, the word for “human being” was the same as the word for a member of that tribe. When they met another tribe, the very word suggested that the other tribe was not human. [...] Another example would be the beer cellars in the time of Hitler’s Germany. People would sit in the beer cellars and sing, with great participation and comradeship, "We’re all friends together, we’re going to go out and conquer the world and it will all be wonderful." But when it came to the action, it wasn’t so wonderful." pg. 85-87
"Living in ordinary society, you may give priority to money, to your country, or to whatever else you may be doing. You have all sorts of things to which you could give priority, and different people do it differently. However, if you give first priority to only those things, then you cannot be giving it to what may be unlimited. Your brain is effectively saying that there isn’t any such thing as the unlimited." pg. 92
February 2, 2025
A JMD recommendation. I think I liked it and I think I learned some stuff. Delves into how we think and how the way we think is part of our destruction.
Still don’t know how I feel about the way it was written and I am unsure if I feel 100% about the conclusion it comes to so here are some quotes I underlined in lieu of any any other thoughts I had about this book:
“I think one of the fundamental mistakes of the human race has been to say that when you have finished with a thought, it’s gone”
“Hide them in the looker, and the looker will never find them”
“THAT is the fact: that we don’t see the fact”
“This deep stricter of thought is what is common … we will have to come to see that the content of thought and the deep structure are not really separate”
Still don’t know how I feel about the way it was written and I am unsure if I feel 100% about the conclusion it comes to so here are some quotes I underlined in lieu of any any other thoughts I had about this book:
“I think one of the fundamental mistakes of the human race has been to say that when you have finished with a thought, it’s gone”
“Hide them in the looker, and the looker will never find them”
“THAT is the fact: that we don’t see the fact”
“This deep stricter of thought is what is common … we will have to come to see that the content of thought and the deep structure are not really separate”
April 8, 2023
Best read of this year. Bohm gets at the need to create "empty place" using participitory thinking and proprioception (observation without an observer), to solve all the problems thought creates and then tries to solve, by giving attention to thoughts processes and assumptions and their connection to real world problems; and by creating open space to dialogue beyond the finite (thought/memory) to the limitless (no thought) - an approach that fosters subject to subject relating and in a surprisingly practical way leaves room to simply talk without any ideas or agendas or even leaders and includes various views and assumptions, yet still manages to get somewhere "new."
January 3, 2025
Interesting foundational read on what dialogue actually is from a physicist, which gives it an interesting twist, though the book is very abstract. I had to work very hard in order to understand what in particular the author meant by his descriptions. Examples were simply lacking. Also, the book feels a bit outdated, currently there's plenty of science describing in far better detail what David Bohm anticipated (mostly correctly).
March 16, 2025
Als ik slechts één boek zou mogen aanbevelen, dan zou dit het boek zijn wat ik iedereen zou toewensen.
Neem je tijd, leg het even weg en lees het nog eens tot het bij je binnenkomt.
Het heeft mijn kijk naar hoe we communiceren met elkaar en waar dit vandaan komt weer een verdieping gegeven. Woorden en uitleg waar ik jaren naar opzoek ben geweest.
Ik heb het boek in het Engels en Nederlands gelezen. De vertaling is erg goed en ik raadt voor de Nederlands onder ons de vertaling te lezen.
Neem je tijd, leg het even weg en lees het nog eens tot het bij je binnenkomt.
Het heeft mijn kijk naar hoe we communiceren met elkaar en waar dit vandaan komt weer een verdieping gegeven. Woorden en uitleg waar ik jaren naar opzoek ben geweest.
Ik heb het boek in het Engels en Nederlands gelezen. De vertaling is erg goed en ik raadt voor de Nederlands onder ons de vertaling te lezen.
December 17, 2021
There were some interesting ideas, but unfortunately a good deal of what Bohm is trying to convey (and/or possibly how he’s trying to convey it) is over my head at this particular time.
This is something I will revisit one day, and I’m hopeful that I will be able to glean more from it then.
This is something I will revisit one day, and I’m hopeful that I will be able to glean more from it then.
July 30, 2017
This is one of the best books I've ever read. A friend recommended it to me based on my interest in Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication, and just like that book, this one has been incredibly helpful to me.
Bohm seemed to draw on a wide range of information, so that what he said connected with diverse areas of religion, philosophy, and science, but his writing was simple enough that no background was needed. He adopted a conversational tone that made some complex ideas as clear as they could be. I also liked that the book is intended to be a practical guide—how to begin a dialogue group, how to work through difficulties, how to maintain a “spirit of dialogue,” and so on.
I think the biggest challenge I’ve seen to Bohm’s vision of dialogue goes something like this: Why should I sit in a room and listen to someone who believes/thinks X? From what I gather, there are two main answers to the question. First, sitting in dialogue involves the inner work of watching our own thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations when our assumptions are challenged, until we see the absurdity and reductive currents of our own thoughts. Second, sitting in dialogue involves the outer work of making space for shared consciousness, even when what is shared is anger or hatred, so that the group can learn to look at something together and follow thought to its place of incoherence and collapse.
Sharing space with people who are angry and deluded doesn’t sound like fun, does it? But the point is that we’re already participating in anger and delusion in this way, we’re just not wanting to see it. We want to believe that our thoughts are giving us objective information about reality, but this isn’t the way thought works—it’s much more impulsive and limited than we realize. So a spirit of dialogue is necessary in order to come to a more open attention. If we can pay attention to the whole picture, we might begin to see things in more creative, hopeful ways. And if we pay attention in dialogue with others, then we might see surprising transformation in our world.
Bohm seemed to draw on a wide range of information, so that what he said connected with diverse areas of religion, philosophy, and science, but his writing was simple enough that no background was needed. He adopted a conversational tone that made some complex ideas as clear as they could be. I also liked that the book is intended to be a practical guide—how to begin a dialogue group, how to work through difficulties, how to maintain a “spirit of dialogue,” and so on.
I think the biggest challenge I’ve seen to Bohm’s vision of dialogue goes something like this: Why should I sit in a room and listen to someone who believes/thinks X? From what I gather, there are two main answers to the question. First, sitting in dialogue involves the inner work of watching our own thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations when our assumptions are challenged, until we see the absurdity and reductive currents of our own thoughts. Second, sitting in dialogue involves the outer work of making space for shared consciousness, even when what is shared is anger or hatred, so that the group can learn to look at something together and follow thought to its place of incoherence and collapse.
Sharing space with people who are angry and deluded doesn’t sound like fun, does it? But the point is that we’re already participating in anger and delusion in this way, we’re just not wanting to see it. We want to believe that our thoughts are giving us objective information about reality, but this isn’t the way thought works—it’s much more impulsive and limited than we realize. So a spirit of dialogue is necessary in order to come to a more open attention. If we can pay attention to the whole picture, we might begin to see things in more creative, hopeful ways. And if we pay attention in dialogue with others, then we might see surprising transformation in our world.
Read
May 30, 2024“Dialogue is really aimed at going into the whole thought process and changing the way the thought process occurs collectively. We haven’t really paid much attention to thought as a process. We have engaged in thoughts, but we have only paid attention to the content, not to the process. Why does thought require attention? Everything requires attention, really. If we ran machines without paying attention to them, they would break down. Our thought, too, is a process, and it requires attention, otherwise it's going to go wrong.”
A theoretical foundation and philosophical exploration of communication and dialogue. Told from an anthropological lens, Bohm explains the technical processes at work when humans (attempt to) communicate with one another. Essentially, Bohm argues that the only way to be able to truly communicate with one another and to come to a mutual understanding, versus a push-and-pull of trying to get the other person to see things your particular way, is through deep self awareness and self reflection.
One must remain self-aware of the fact that every person carries assumptions, opinions, and biases that are wholly theirs due to their lived experience in the world, and that when these assumptions are questioned or attacked, the person feels that they themselves are under attack and become violent. To successfully communicate, all parties must suspend these biases and assumptions to work together and come to a mutual, middle-ground understanding that pulls them both out of their assumptions and together into a greater truth. It is useful to also be aware of the proprioception of thought. If we could bring our awareness to the actual anatomy of a thought and its technical happenings, we would be able to recognize its limitations and it would push us forward into better dialogue and communication.
Written generously and with hope for us humans and our future.
A theoretical foundation and philosophical exploration of communication and dialogue. Told from an anthropological lens, Bohm explains the technical processes at work when humans (attempt to) communicate with one another. Essentially, Bohm argues that the only way to be able to truly communicate with one another and to come to a mutual understanding, versus a push-and-pull of trying to get the other person to see things your particular way, is through deep self awareness and self reflection.
One must remain self-aware of the fact that every person carries assumptions, opinions, and biases that are wholly theirs due to their lived experience in the world, and that when these assumptions are questioned or attacked, the person feels that they themselves are under attack and become violent. To successfully communicate, all parties must suspend these biases and assumptions to work together and come to a mutual, middle-ground understanding that pulls them both out of their assumptions and together into a greater truth. It is useful to also be aware of the proprioception of thought. If we could bring our awareness to the actual anatomy of a thought and its technical happenings, we would be able to recognize its limitations and it would push us forward into better dialogue and communication.
Written generously and with hope for us humans and our future.
January 5, 2023
On Quaker Meetings and Mosh Pits
“It is necessary to share meaning. A society is a link of relationships among people and institutions, so that we can live together. But it only works if we have a culture - which implies that we share meaning; i.e. significance, purpose and value. Otherwise it falls apart.” -Bohn
Bohn’s goal = a transformation of consciousness (both the individual and collective)
I am a big fan of physics. The most philosophical and mystical, yet also most fundamental and grounded, of the sciences. Physics’ central question is what is this stuff? We poke and prod both the universe and consciousness to determine what is this stuff that makes the universe.
David Bohn is a bit of a misfit and contrarian. I really enjoy his books on a number of topics. This one, On Dialogue, is not an explanation of how to listen and speak better (that was my assumption) but rather it proposes an interesting idea. I’ll put it in problem/solution form.
Problem: We talk too much past each other. We focus too much on getting things done, accomplishing shit. We don’t have enough leisurely shared time. Without leisurely shared time, we lack common viewpoints. Without common viewpoints, there is no shared culture. Without shared culture, we all scream at each other like the comment section. Eventually societies collapse.
Solution: Gather in circles just to chat. No facilitator needed (eventually). No decisions should be allowed or next steps proposed. Just gather and chat. It will create oneness. Over time, that will change collective thought and incline us towards mutual peace instead of collective hatred.
Note, Bohn was flagging the alarm in 1995. In 1995, cable television existed. Meaning basically a total of 150 channels that you can watch. With the black mirrors we call phones, there are now about 2 billion different channels. The problem he identified has increased. The solution is not readily apparent.
So maybe we should gather in circles just to chat. It’s an interesting idea. Frankly it reminds me of two very, very different things: Quaker meetings and mosh pits.
Quaker meetings are basically what Bohn proposes, just with more of a focus on quiet time.You circle up and meditate. Sometimes people chime in. You focus on the quiet, together, and it creates a kind of spiritual peace at the individual level and a sense of unity at the group level. Try it out sometime.
Mosh pits are not quite as calm as a Quaker meeting, but they have a sense of the oneness Bohn describes. The rapture of live music, when we return to our more primitive and childlike selves and jump and dance together. Do it right and the ground shakes. Happens at sporting events as well. It happens when we are comfortable enough to drop the veil of the individual ego and just let go. It also happens during sex, so they say ; ) Bohn is correct we do not experience this collective oneness enough. We should do so more often.
Ultimately we do need to be together. One day I think we’ll awaken from this hangover caused by the glare of the black mirrors and put them down. We need to recreate shared values and time and moments where we learn how to better communicate. Circle up.
Quotes
Everything requires attention, really. If we ran machines without paying attention to them, they would break down. Our thought, too, is a process, and it requires attention, otherwise it's going to go wrong.
It is clear that if we are to live in harmony with ourselves and with nature, we need to be able to communicate freely n a creative movement in which no one permanently holds to or otherwise defends his own ideas. Why then is it so difficult actually to bring about such communication? 5
In dialogue, nobody is trying to win…in the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. That is crucial. Otherwise we are not free…Our purpose is to communicate coherently in truth, if you want to call that a purpose. 19
It is necessary to share meaning. A society is a link of relationships among people and institutions, so that we can live together. But it only works if we have a culture - which implies that we share meaning; ie significance, purpose and value. Otherwise it falls apart. Our society is incoherent, and doesn’t do that very well; it hasn’t for a long time, if it ever did. The different assumptions that people have are tactically affection the whole meaning of what we are doing. 22
We could say that hate is a neurophysiological, chemical disturbance of a very powerful kind, which is now endemic in the world. Wherever you look, you see people hating each other. 36
The point is we would establish, on another level, a kind of bon, which is called impersonal fellowship. You don’t have to know each other. In England, for example, the football crowds prefer not to have seats in their football stands, but just to stand bunch against each other. In those crowds very few people know each other, but they still feel something - that contact - which is missing in their ordinary personal relations. And in war many people feel that there’s a kind of comradeship which they miss in peacetime. It’s the same sort of thing - that close connection, that fellowship, that mutual participation. I think people find this lacking in our society, which glorifies the separate individual. 37
Thought pervades us. It’s similar to a virus - somehow this is a disease of thought, of knowledge, of information, spreading all over the world. The more computers, radio, and televisions we have, the faster it spreads. So the kind of thought that’s going on all around us begins to take over in every one of us, without our ever noticing it. It’s spreading like a virus and each one of us is nourishing that virus. 58
The connection to the cosmic dimension seems to be rather lost. But I think that people want to come back into that cosmic dimension. It is an essential dimension of the human being, along with the individual and the collective dimensions. 104
This cynicism and pessimism about the human race, which has its points. But this cynicism can easily become false. The human race also has great possibilities, which are being destroyed by some rather trivial things. 108
“It is necessary to share meaning. A society is a link of relationships among people and institutions, so that we can live together. But it only works if we have a culture - which implies that we share meaning; i.e. significance, purpose and value. Otherwise it falls apart.” -Bohn
Bohn’s goal = a transformation of consciousness (both the individual and collective)
I am a big fan of physics. The most philosophical and mystical, yet also most fundamental and grounded, of the sciences. Physics’ central question is what is this stuff? We poke and prod both the universe and consciousness to determine what is this stuff that makes the universe.
David Bohn is a bit of a misfit and contrarian. I really enjoy his books on a number of topics. This one, On Dialogue, is not an explanation of how to listen and speak better (that was my assumption) but rather it proposes an interesting idea. I’ll put it in problem/solution form.
Problem: We talk too much past each other. We focus too much on getting things done, accomplishing shit. We don’t have enough leisurely shared time. Without leisurely shared time, we lack common viewpoints. Without common viewpoints, there is no shared culture. Without shared culture, we all scream at each other like the comment section. Eventually societies collapse.
Solution: Gather in circles just to chat. No facilitator needed (eventually). No decisions should be allowed or next steps proposed. Just gather and chat. It will create oneness. Over time, that will change collective thought and incline us towards mutual peace instead of collective hatred.
Note, Bohn was flagging the alarm in 1995. In 1995, cable television existed. Meaning basically a total of 150 channels that you can watch. With the black mirrors we call phones, there are now about 2 billion different channels. The problem he identified has increased. The solution is not readily apparent.
So maybe we should gather in circles just to chat. It’s an interesting idea. Frankly it reminds me of two very, very different things: Quaker meetings and mosh pits.
Quaker meetings are basically what Bohn proposes, just with more of a focus on quiet time.You circle up and meditate. Sometimes people chime in. You focus on the quiet, together, and it creates a kind of spiritual peace at the individual level and a sense of unity at the group level. Try it out sometime.
Mosh pits are not quite as calm as a Quaker meeting, but they have a sense of the oneness Bohn describes. The rapture of live music, when we return to our more primitive and childlike selves and jump and dance together. Do it right and the ground shakes. Happens at sporting events as well. It happens when we are comfortable enough to drop the veil of the individual ego and just let go. It also happens during sex, so they say ; ) Bohn is correct we do not experience this collective oneness enough. We should do so more often.
Ultimately we do need to be together. One day I think we’ll awaken from this hangover caused by the glare of the black mirrors and put them down. We need to recreate shared values and time and moments where we learn how to better communicate. Circle up.
Quotes
Everything requires attention, really. If we ran machines without paying attention to them, they would break down. Our thought, too, is a process, and it requires attention, otherwise it's going to go wrong.
It is clear that if we are to live in harmony with ourselves and with nature, we need to be able to communicate freely n a creative movement in which no one permanently holds to or otherwise defends his own ideas. Why then is it so difficult actually to bring about such communication? 5
In dialogue, nobody is trying to win…in the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. That is crucial. Otherwise we are not free…Our purpose is to communicate coherently in truth, if you want to call that a purpose. 19
It is necessary to share meaning. A society is a link of relationships among people and institutions, so that we can live together. But it only works if we have a culture - which implies that we share meaning; ie significance, purpose and value. Otherwise it falls apart. Our society is incoherent, and doesn’t do that very well; it hasn’t for a long time, if it ever did. The different assumptions that people have are tactically affection the whole meaning of what we are doing. 22
We could say that hate is a neurophysiological, chemical disturbance of a very powerful kind, which is now endemic in the world. Wherever you look, you see people hating each other. 36
The point is we would establish, on another level, a kind of bon, which is called impersonal fellowship. You don’t have to know each other. In England, for example, the football crowds prefer not to have seats in their football stands, but just to stand bunch against each other. In those crowds very few people know each other, but they still feel something - that contact - which is missing in their ordinary personal relations. And in war many people feel that there’s a kind of comradeship which they miss in peacetime. It’s the same sort of thing - that close connection, that fellowship, that mutual participation. I think people find this lacking in our society, which glorifies the separate individual. 37
Thought pervades us. It’s similar to a virus - somehow this is a disease of thought, of knowledge, of information, spreading all over the world. The more computers, radio, and televisions we have, the faster it spreads. So the kind of thought that’s going on all around us begins to take over in every one of us, without our ever noticing it. It’s spreading like a virus and each one of us is nourishing that virus. 58
The connection to the cosmic dimension seems to be rather lost. But I think that people want to come back into that cosmic dimension. It is an essential dimension of the human being, along with the individual and the collective dimensions. 104
This cynicism and pessimism about the human race, which has its points. But this cynicism can easily become false. The human race also has great possibilities, which are being destroyed by some rather trivial things. 108
May 27, 2008
David Bohm was a physicist by trade, but a man who had the capacity to abstract what he learned from his work into the larger arena of meaningful living. To read Bohm is to learn to think and talk again. His way of being in the world doesn't allow for a person to avoid participating or being changed by that participation.
In Peter Senge's intro (xiii) to this work, he draws on Bohm's words:
"A different kind of consciousness is possible among us, a PARTICIPATORY CONSCIOUSNESS." In genuine dialogue, "each person is partcipating, is partaking of the whole meaning of the group and also taking part in it.... If we separate ourselves from whatever is within the whole, we cannot take part in it...
This book is powerful, transformative - read at risk of being changed.
In Peter Senge's intro (xiii) to this work, he draws on Bohm's words:
"A different kind of consciousness is possible among us, a PARTICIPATORY CONSCIOUSNESS." In genuine dialogue, "each person is partcipating, is partaking of the whole meaning of the group and also taking part in it.... If we separate ourselves from whatever is within the whole, we cannot take part in it...
This book is powerful, transformative - read at risk of being changed.
March 5, 2019
This book talks about topics much more profound than the title suggests. About the nature of perception, thought, society and Identity or 'self'. And how this is of increasing relevance in today's homogenous world and societal thinking with all the problems resulting from that way of thinking - from uncontrolled nationalism to environmental degradation. But these are just some of the implications of the way we approach our thoughts, and how that results in a messy and incoherent collaborative style of working as a society. Finally, what dialogue is and its place in all of this.
A fascinating book. This will probably be the first audiobook that I'll reread right away.
A fascinating book. This will probably be the first audiobook that I'll reread right away.
June 3, 2009
this book is a thin collection of essays, and seeming transcriptions of talks, collected and published posthumously. the major concepts of the book are not terribly complicated, especially compared to wholeness and the implicate order by the same author. consequently, i severely underestimated this book, and got blown away in chapter three to such an extent that i had to put the book down for a week, and try the chapter again.
this is a book about how we all think, together, and how we can try to improve that process. the ideas are simple, but challenging.
this is a book about how we all think, together, and how we can try to improve that process. the ideas are simple, but challenging.
April 13, 2008
Physicist David Bohm provides a uniquely european and scientific perspective into the paradoxes of identity which most westerners know only indirectly through translations and interpretations of asian scripture.
Bohm suggests a mechanism for exploring thought and perhaps even solving global problems through dialogue in which groups of people suspend and examine their assumptions about who they are and what they believe.
Bohm suggests a mechanism for exploring thought and perhaps even solving global problems through dialogue in which groups of people suspend and examine their assumptions about who they are and what they believe.
January 5, 2025
This book was so dense in how it was written it was really hard to stay engaged and finish. It looked like a quick read but the level of writing made it hard to digest. That being said, Bohm had a lot of great points and takeaways. I think I would have gotten more out of it if the writing was easier to digest.
Quotes/Key Thoughts/Notes:
Notes
_____________________
* One meaning of “to communicate” is “to make something common”, to convey information or knowledge from one person to another in an accurate a way as possible
* Learn to listen freely, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other; Be interested primarily in truth and coherence
* Dialogue: A stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us; This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which may emerge some new understanding
* In a dialogue, there is no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular view prevail.
* Dialogue goes into the process of thought behind our assumptions, not just the assumptions themselves
* If the opinion is right, it doesn’t need such a reaction, and if it is wrong, then why would you defend it?
* Our thought is a process that requires attention otherwise it can (and will) breakdown
* We are often unconsciously defending our opinions
* Very often when you don’t give space in a group, everyone jumps in right away with whatever he has in his mind and if you stop to think about one point by the time, you have thought about it, the group has moved on. We must give space for each person to talk.
* When you have anger, it has a reason, or a cause. It builds into an energy, and then it’s looking for an occasion to discharge. An energy without a reason.
* Dialogue may not be concerned directly with truth; it may arrive at truth, but it is concerned with meaning.
Key takeaways
* The key to improving communication is to learn to listen.
* Dialogue v. Discussion; We want to promote dialogue
* An opinion is an assumption
Quotes
“ Our habits are so strong to defend our view, to agree with views that correspond with our own, and to disagree with those that differ, that simply allowing diverse views to stand can be almost impossibly difficult” (pg. ix).
“The thing that mostly gets in the way of dialogue is holding to assumptions and opinions, and defending them” (pg. ix).
“It is clear that if we are to live in harmony with ourselves and with nature, we need to be able to communicate freely in a creative movement in which no one permanently holds to or otherwise defends his own ideas” (pg.4)
“If the opinion is right, it doesn’t need such a reaction[to defend], and if it is wrong, then why would you defend it?” (pg. 10)
“ The object of a dialogue is not to analyze things, or to win an argument, or to exchange opinions. Rather, it is to suspend your opinions to look at the opinions to listen to everybody’s opinions, to suspend them to see what all that means.”
“if something is right, you don’t need to be persuaded. if someone has to persuade you, then there is probably some doubt to it“
“intelligence requires that you don’t defend an assumption”
“I think a great deal of what goes on in society could be described that way; that it may well be fatal, but it’s not serious”
“ If we suspend anger, then we are going to see the anger has certain thoughts, and assumptions that keep it going.”
I’m saying that it is necessary to share meaning; create a culture that implies that we share meeting i.e. significance, purpose and value. Page 22.
Suspend assumptions so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. This allows for each person to become a mirror for another person. The effect you have on the other person is a mirror and also the effect the other person has on you. by suspending assumptions, you hold it back and reflect it back. Think of a suspended assumption as it being suspended in front of you so that you can look at it sort of reflected back as if you were in front of a mirror. This way you can see things you wouldn’t have if you simply carried out that anger or if you had suppressed and said “I’m not angry” or “I shouldn’t be angry “
Page 23
If someone has an assumption that seems to be outrageous to you. The natural response might be to get angry or get excited or to react in some other way, but suppose you suspend that activity. You may not have even known that you had an assumption it was only because he came up with the opposite one that you find out that you have one. This all allows for people to realize what is on each other’s minds without coming to any conclusions or judgments. Page 23–24.
The goal is to keep the dialogue at a level where the opinions come out, but where you can look at them. If temperatures do rise in those who are not completely caught up in their particular opinion should come in and diffuse the situation a bit so that people can look at it. It mustn’t go so far that you can’t look at it. You have to see the other person hostility provoke your own. That’s all part of the observation, the suspension. You become more familiar with how thought works. Page 24.
Sometimes, without our noticing it, we accept absurd problems with false or self-contradictory presuppositions. Page 71
Quotes/Key Thoughts/Notes:
Notes
_____________________
* One meaning of “to communicate” is “to make something common”, to convey information or knowledge from one person to another in an accurate a way as possible
* Learn to listen freely, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other; Be interested primarily in truth and coherence
* Dialogue: A stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us; This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which may emerge some new understanding
* In a dialogue, there is no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular view prevail.
* Dialogue goes into the process of thought behind our assumptions, not just the assumptions themselves
* If the opinion is right, it doesn’t need such a reaction, and if it is wrong, then why would you defend it?
* Our thought is a process that requires attention otherwise it can (and will) breakdown
* We are often unconsciously defending our opinions
* Very often when you don’t give space in a group, everyone jumps in right away with whatever he has in his mind and if you stop to think about one point by the time, you have thought about it, the group has moved on. We must give space for each person to talk.
* When you have anger, it has a reason, or a cause. It builds into an energy, and then it’s looking for an occasion to discharge. An energy without a reason.
* Dialogue may not be concerned directly with truth; it may arrive at truth, but it is concerned with meaning.
Key takeaways
* The key to improving communication is to learn to listen.
* Dialogue v. Discussion; We want to promote dialogue
* An opinion is an assumption
Quotes
“ Our habits are so strong to defend our view, to agree with views that correspond with our own, and to disagree with those that differ, that simply allowing diverse views to stand can be almost impossibly difficult” (pg. ix).
“The thing that mostly gets in the way of dialogue is holding to assumptions and opinions, and defending them” (pg. ix).
“It is clear that if we are to live in harmony with ourselves and with nature, we need to be able to communicate freely in a creative movement in which no one permanently holds to or otherwise defends his own ideas” (pg.4)
“If the opinion is right, it doesn’t need such a reaction[to defend], and if it is wrong, then why would you defend it?” (pg. 10)
“ The object of a dialogue is not to analyze things, or to win an argument, or to exchange opinions. Rather, it is to suspend your opinions to look at the opinions to listen to everybody’s opinions, to suspend them to see what all that means.”
“if something is right, you don’t need to be persuaded. if someone has to persuade you, then there is probably some doubt to it“
“intelligence requires that you don’t defend an assumption”
“I think a great deal of what goes on in society could be described that way; that it may well be fatal, but it’s not serious”
“ If we suspend anger, then we are going to see the anger has certain thoughts, and assumptions that keep it going.”
I’m saying that it is necessary to share meaning; create a culture that implies that we share meeting i.e. significance, purpose and value. Page 22.
Suspend assumptions so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. This allows for each person to become a mirror for another person. The effect you have on the other person is a mirror and also the effect the other person has on you. by suspending assumptions, you hold it back and reflect it back. Think of a suspended assumption as it being suspended in front of you so that you can look at it sort of reflected back as if you were in front of a mirror. This way you can see things you wouldn’t have if you simply carried out that anger or if you had suppressed and said “I’m not angry” or “I shouldn’t be angry “
Page 23
If someone has an assumption that seems to be outrageous to you. The natural response might be to get angry or get excited or to react in some other way, but suppose you suspend that activity. You may not have even known that you had an assumption it was only because he came up with the opposite one that you find out that you have one. This all allows for people to realize what is on each other’s minds without coming to any conclusions or judgments. Page 23–24.
The goal is to keep the dialogue at a level where the opinions come out, but where you can look at them. If temperatures do rise in those who are not completely caught up in their particular opinion should come in and diffuse the situation a bit so that people can look at it. It mustn’t go so far that you can’t look at it. You have to see the other person hostility provoke your own. That’s all part of the observation, the suspension. You become more familiar with how thought works. Page 24.
Sometimes, without our noticing it, we accept absurd problems with false or self-contradictory presuppositions. Page 71
January 29, 2008
A seminal work on the dynamics of human dialogue by one of the most original thinkers of the 20th century.
May 19, 2008
This was very dry to me. I think Bohm is a physics professor writing about dialogue. What Jim Knight wrote in his book really sums up Bohms points concisely.
December 30, 2008
A great collection of thought-provoking articles from a Western scientist on the nature of consciousness and the possibilities dialogue might open up for it's development.
January 25, 2025
This was recommended by a super smart acquaintance and her description made this intriguing. The reading of it I found less so. Bohm was most important physicists of the 20th century. I found the contents of this book are known to anyone with an interest in Psychodyanamic Psychotherapy in the way that ‘Dialogue’ should be conducted. You are not trying to find out what is ‘right’, rather than what is ‘helpful’. The content was familiar to me from previous reading.
The first 20% of the book is filler, in the form of forwards and acknowledgements. It was here I found the most useful statement. “As Chilean biologist Humerto Maturana says ‘when one human being tells another human what is real, what they are actually doing is making a demand for obedience. They are asserting that they have a privileged view of reality’” (p 6). I find it more helpful to make the effort to understand why someone thinks something, rather than whether it is ‘right or wrong’. This encapsulated the spirit of what Bohm was getting at and how I attempt to approach therapeutic conversations.
Bohm also contradicted himself when he wrote about his concern for ecological issues. Bohm made an assumption that if only the Presidents and Prime Ministers understood the Ecological Problem, they would act. As if this was a problem of understanding. I think this was a short sighted and naive view. I believe the Presidents and Prime Ministers have advisers and are aware of the problems, but not just those problems. They have other problems which compete for their attention and interest. There is greater complexity of the world than just the ecological. People live in a complex world of economies and families and have competing interests for limited resources. The Ecologist are blind to the economic imperatives of the rest of the community. This reflected Bohm belief he understood the light, whilst others were in the dark. If he had read more Psycho-dynamic theory he would have understood that integration of the psyche which require both dark and light. This point seemed to allude Bohm.
Reading this quote, I was reminded of the heuristic ‘their are more differences with groups, than between them’: “The same thing happens in physics. If you try to measure one atom exactly, you can’t do it – it participates. But if you take a statistical array of atoms, you can get an average that is objective. It comes out the same no matter who does it, or when. The average comes out, but the individual atom does not. And in society you can also get average behaviors, which are often predictable. But they are not very significant, compared with the thing that really moves us and makes the society come into being” (p 90). A lot of sociological studies tell you a lot about groups, and little about individuals. The opposite is true that phenomenological studies tell you a lot about an individual that does not reliably correlate to the groups you have them represent. That is why stereotypes are not a good thing to base assumptions on, whilst also being aware that there is an ‘average’ truth basis to the same stereotypes. You are much better off engaging with a dialogue with the individual you interact with rather than doing research and reading of the group you believe they represent.
I would not spend the time reading the book again. There are better books that are well written about the subject matter. Bohm did not sing to me. Maybe my super smart acquaintance should have written her own book, as she made this sound more interesting than it was. She sang to me.
The first 20% of the book is filler, in the form of forwards and acknowledgements. It was here I found the most useful statement. “As Chilean biologist Humerto Maturana says ‘when one human being tells another human what is real, what they are actually doing is making a demand for obedience. They are asserting that they have a privileged view of reality’” (p 6). I find it more helpful to make the effort to understand why someone thinks something, rather than whether it is ‘right or wrong’. This encapsulated the spirit of what Bohm was getting at and how I attempt to approach therapeutic conversations.
Bohm also contradicted himself when he wrote about his concern for ecological issues. Bohm made an assumption that if only the Presidents and Prime Ministers understood the Ecological Problem, they would act. As if this was a problem of understanding. I think this was a short sighted and naive view. I believe the Presidents and Prime Ministers have advisers and are aware of the problems, but not just those problems. They have other problems which compete for their attention and interest. There is greater complexity of the world than just the ecological. People live in a complex world of economies and families and have competing interests for limited resources. The Ecologist are blind to the economic imperatives of the rest of the community. This reflected Bohm belief he understood the light, whilst others were in the dark. If he had read more Psycho-dynamic theory he would have understood that integration of the psyche which require both dark and light. This point seemed to allude Bohm.
Reading this quote, I was reminded of the heuristic ‘their are more differences with groups, than between them’: “The same thing happens in physics. If you try to measure one atom exactly, you can’t do it – it participates. But if you take a statistical array of atoms, you can get an average that is objective. It comes out the same no matter who does it, or when. The average comes out, but the individual atom does not. And in society you can also get average behaviors, which are often predictable. But they are not very significant, compared with the thing that really moves us and makes the society come into being” (p 90). A lot of sociological studies tell you a lot about groups, and little about individuals. The opposite is true that phenomenological studies tell you a lot about an individual that does not reliably correlate to the groups you have them represent. That is why stereotypes are not a good thing to base assumptions on, whilst also being aware that there is an ‘average’ truth basis to the same stereotypes. You are much better off engaging with a dialogue with the individual you interact with rather than doing research and reading of the group you believe they represent.
I would not spend the time reading the book again. There are better books that are well written about the subject matter. Bohm did not sing to me. Maybe my super smart acquaintance should have written her own book, as she made this sound more interesting than it was. She sang to me.
Read
September 29, 2021A quite marvelous human being, it seems. Am still learning about him. His PhD supervisor was Robert Oppenheim. His work contributed to The Bomb, but against his will ... strange story, that. Later, in the dark times after WWII he refused to testify against his friends and associates ... iitegrity can be an undoing. A man as interested in art as in science, as much in the human heart as in the heart of reality, it isn't anything of leap to see what he was trying to do with this Dialogue, though the how we still have to discover with every dialogue we have.
What has been crucial for me is to listen not only to the content of what he's saying but as much if not more to what he is communicating. Opinions, especially those strongly held, often communicate fear, distrust, a will to power over ... and under that, other clear but tacit influences personally / culturally held. What I hear in Bohm's words is a mind capable of many dimensions and freshness, and a nonviolent heart. I also see -- with him -- a universe of mind-blowing beauty. Here, especially, I find if I am too quick to think, that thinking impedes my capacity to perceive. From the perspective of perception, thinking feels a lot like too-tight shoes.
This work seems creative, and open, invitational rather than an end point ... more akin of The Tao te Ching, Whitman, and night skies than of splitting atoms (and hairs) by which to "save" the world.
I'm grateful for this invitation, as too aware of the level of the inner openness and rigor it demands. Who knows yet how many years it is ahead of its time.
What has been crucial for me is to listen not only to the content of what he's saying but as much if not more to what he is communicating. Opinions, especially those strongly held, often communicate fear, distrust, a will to power over ... and under that, other clear but tacit influences personally / culturally held. What I hear in Bohm's words is a mind capable of many dimensions and freshness, and a nonviolent heart. I also see -- with him -- a universe of mind-blowing beauty. Here, especially, I find if I am too quick to think, that thinking impedes my capacity to perceive. From the perspective of perception, thinking feels a lot like too-tight shoes.
This work seems creative, and open, invitational rather than an end point ... more akin of The Tao te Ching, Whitman, and night skies than of splitting atoms (and hairs) by which to "save" the world.
I'm grateful for this invitation, as too aware of the level of the inner openness and rigor it demands. Who knows yet how many years it is ahead of its time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 121 reviews