Bohm: Well let's come back to the nonmanifest implicate order of consciousness. In the nonmanifest order, all is one. You see, there is no separation in space and time, In ordinary matter, this is so and it's equally so or even more so for this subtle matter which is consciousness. Therefore, if we are separate it is because we are sticking largely to the manifest world as the basic reality, where the whole point of the manifest world is to have separate units. I mean relatively so anyway, separate but interacting and so on. Now, in nonmanifest reality it's all interpenetrating, interconnected in one. So we say deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This, we say, is a virtual certainty because even matter is one in the vacuum; and if we don't see this it's because we are blinding ourselves to it.
Weber: And, therefore, you are saying it's we who construct space and time, really, in the Kantian sense and beyond Kant even?
Bohm:Yes, space and time are constructed by us for our convenience although they are created in such a way that when we're doing it right, it really is convenient. The word convenient is based on "coming together", "convene", to come together. Now, our conventions are convenient, and that is not purely subjective, they actually fit the reality of matter. So conventions are not just an arbitrary choice made to please us, to gratify us, but rather they are conventions which are convenient, which fit matter as it is. And now, we are saying space and time is a convenient order for a certain range of purposes.
Weber: In the manifest?
Bohm: In the manifest.
Weber: But you're saying it has no place in the non-manifest.
Bohm: It is not the fundamental order. It's only place in the nommanifest...it has a place, but only as a relationship. It has a certain place but it is not the fundamental place.
Weber: It's this n-1 and n-2 that you spoke about earlier?
Bohm: Yes that's right.
Weber: But in actuality, in the nonmanifest, you say mankind's consciousness or mind is one. And you mean this quite literally, not metaphorically or poetically.
Bohm: No, it is one consciousness, and you can see as evidence of this that the basic problems of mankind are one. You see they're the same: namely fear, jealousy, hope, confusion, you know the problem of isolation and so on. If you go around you will see that deep down all the problems are the same.
Weber: So it's a universal stratum of some sort.
Bohm: Yes, we may say that these problems originate in the consciousness of mankind and manifest in each individual. You see, each individual manifests the consciousness of mankind. That is what I say.
Weber: Because he is, in a way, that consciousness.
Bohm: He is that manifestation.
Weber: And as he perceives himself, in the manifest, he's isolated himself out, he's made himself an abstraction.
Bohm: Yes, if he says that manifestation is independently existent, it's like saying the cloud exists on its own apart from the air.
Weber: Or the particle without the whole ocean, the whole background?
Bohm: Or the ink droplet without the whole background.
Weber: So the individual, as he thinks of himself, is but the overt manifestation just as the chair is, of that underlying background?
Bohm: Yes, as the chair is, and the mountain, because they're a manifestation of the deeper energy, a deeper order, a deeper reality which is not manifest.
Weber: And you're saying this is not mysticism, it's good physics.
Bohm: Well, I'm saying that it's more consistent with physics than any other view that I know.
Weber: If one really were to take this seriously in one's daily life, how differently would one interact with another human being?
Bohm: Well it would be a tremendous change, but you see, to do this we have to get clear of the recording in the brain of this other view which has been deeply recorded in the material structure of the brain. We could call that the corruption of mankind, that the brain and the consciousness and deeper levels, not only in the manifest levels of the brain but the nonmanifest, that there has been left this pollution, which is this whole view which leads to all this violence, corruption, disorder, self-deception. See, you could say that almost all of mankind's thought is aimed at self-deception, which momentarily relieves pressures arising from this way of thinking, of being separate, and it produces pressures. When a person is under pressure, any thought that comes in to relieve that pressure will be accepted as true. But immediately that leads to some more pressure because it's wrong and then you take another thought to relieve that thought.
Weber: It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Bohm: Yes, and that has been the major way. If you watch how international negotiations go on you see no truth whatsover there. It's entirely the result of pressures: fear, gain, greed, compromise, trade-offs, pressures to achieve and what not. You accept as true any statement that will relieve that pressure. And then in the next statement that's overturned and people will take another one....It happens in families obviously. People are compelled in the family to state things which the pressure of the family says are true. It happens in organizations, in institutions.
(from "The Holographic Paradigm and other Paradoxes", a compilation of interviews and other tidbits. Interview with physicist David Bohm.)
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Newborns instantly show emotion, fear being a big one. Is that something a newborn manifests and why? If it's an illusion.
How should we treat our fellow men if life is an illusion. If we are all of one consciousness then death does not exist, and looking out for one's self is also looking out for one's mate. There is no individuality and no free-will.
Why do we manifest an egocentric, cruel, viscious reality, if the nonmanifest reality is so much greater?
Finally, how does this correlate to physics at all?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Newborns instantly show emotion, fear being a big one. Is that something a newborn manifests and why? If it's an illusion.
I don't see our capacity for assessing our environment as an illusion. The key is, when we move beyond our programmed limited patterns, we learn to use our emotional intelligence in life affirming ways that don't create the common delusion and falsehood most people labour under.
How should we treat our fellow men if life is an illusion. If we are all of one consciousness then death does not exist, and looking out for one's self is also looking out for one's mate. There is no individuality and no free-will.
I understand we are each possessed with Will that precedes what we are. This will is purposeful. Each exact moment of each illusion is a virtua-meaningful-experience. For a purpose. Good, bad, or indifferent. When we go beyond the programming and align with our ground state, we align with our purpose. We recognize other is ourselves. We do best to learn to be as honest and authentic as we can. Otherwise, we literally only hurt ourselves. For example, we hurt ourselves because we are all one, but to our petty small-minded self, when we hurt other, we literally hook ourselves into a 3-d experience where the outcome is pain or some form of discordant experience for us, that causes stress and discomfort. Until we are conditioned otherwise, or fall out of the game of life some other way, through maladpation. Death is very real in our experience. From a deeper view, it can be seen as an illusion.
Why do we manifest an egocentric, cruel, viscious reality, if the nonmanifest reality is so much greater?
I don't know.
Finally, how does this correlate to physics at all?
This is the cutting edge philosophical level we are at at this point. Our systems are all interactive, and therefore as we learn new science paradigms it reflects in the philosophical ones and vice versa. As our science discerns new differentiations, our philosphies do also. Keep in mind that all science is strung together with theories also that stem from what our philosophical awareness can support.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My initial hypothesis was that people would convince themselves that placing the lie at place 1 or place 4, first or last, on the list would make the answer too obvious. So, probablistically, the answers would usually be either 2 or 3. As it turns out this held true for the entire thread, as short-lived as it was.
I only participated in a few, but I'll explain how I got my answers.
i own a bible and read it
my razor blades came individually wrapped
i didn't have a shower this morning
i just burnt some CDs for a friend
So what I assumed here was that answers 1 and 4 are least likely. Answer 2 is something I can't imagine conjuring as a lie, so I figured it must be true. That left me with answer 3. Also considering that all the other answers are somewhat unusual, or out of the every day, while answer 3 seems too normal to be a lie. I figured this is what catefrances had "chosen" as the lie. It's much easier to turn an everyday thing into a lie, then it is to conjure something unusual and except it to be overlooked. If I had just guessed, I would have said answer 2 "my razor blades came individually wrapped".
I like the movie The Green Mile
I like the movie Predator
I like the movie Casino Royale
I like the movie Gross Pointe Blank
For this one, I used a very simple statistical study. IMDB.com. I got the user ratings for all the movies and immediately eliminated answers 1 and 4, as they had high user ratings and was in accordance with my initial hypothesis. So, I looked up the plot outline for all the movies, stuck choosing between answers 2 and 3. I found answer 3 followed the same plot outline as answers 1 and 4, although it's user rating was relatively low. So I chose answer 2 and was correct. Had I just guessed, I would have said answer 1 cause it sounds lame.
I would suggest that CJMST3K has done something in their life they wanted a second chance for. Perhaps never got it. And also has a liking for James Bondish movies. Based on CJMST3K's perference in movies.
There are indications in every action that speak loudly about a person's psyche. Perhaps I am wrong about some things, but in general, probability was in my favor.
I don't mean this to be "deep" or whatever. Just pointing out how predictable people are in general. I thought about what I would have given as answers, and I couldn't come up with something that would be beyond this kind of analysis.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
My opinion concerning free thinking, and I love the idea of free thinking, is that there are no barriers, no limits. Free will, well, you have to have no barriers literally and metaphorically to act on free will, but free thinking is nothing but your open imaginative conciousness. Take a trip with your thoughts and be free. Of course it's important to be able to subtract yourself from what society, the media, and the gov't tells you also, since all of that clouds judgement.
I'm interested in your reason for bringing up barriers in the first place. I know that freedom is the absence of restraint and free will surely follows some sort of similar dictum, however, free thinking is just as it sounds...it isn't even constrained by imagination, if you can imagine that.
I'm interested in your reason for bringing up barriers in the first place. I know that freedom is the absence of restraint and free will surely follows some sort of similar dictum, however, free thinking is just as it sounds...it isn't even constrained by imagination, if you can imagine that.
Don't mean to put you on the spot or anything like that. I just thought your post was the most well-thought out of this whole thread.
I don't see our capacity for assessing our environment as an illusion. The key is, when we move beyond our programmed limited patterns, we learn to use our emotional intelligence in life affirming ways that don't create the common delusion and falsehood most people labour under.
I understand we are each possessed with Will that precedes what we are. This will is purposeful. Each exact moment of each illusion is a virtua-meaningful-experience. For a purpose. Good, bad, or indifferent. When we go beyond the programming and align with our ground state, we align with our purpose. We recognize other is ourselves. We do best to learn to be as honest and authentic as we can. Otherwise, we literally only hurt ourselves. For example, we hurt ourselves because we are all one, but to our petty small-minded self, when we hurt other, we literally hook ourselves into a 3-d experience where the outcome is pain or some form of discordant experience for us, that causes stress and discomfort. Until we are conditioned otherwise, or fall out of the game of life some other way, through maladpation. Death is very real in our experience. From a deeper view, it can be seen as an illusion.
I don't know.
This is the cutting edge philosophical level we are at at this point. Our systems are all interactive, and therefore as we learn new science paradigms it reflects in the philosophical ones and vice versa. As our science discerns new differentiations, our philosphies do also. Keep in mind that all science is strung together with theories also that stem from what our philosophical awareness can support.
Comments
Weber: And, therefore, you are saying it's we who construct space and time, really, in the Kantian sense and beyond Kant even?
Bohm:Yes, space and time are constructed by us for our convenience although they are created in such a way that when we're doing it right, it really is convenient. The word convenient is based on "coming together", "convene", to come together. Now, our conventions are convenient, and that is not purely subjective, they actually fit the reality of matter. So conventions are not just an arbitrary choice made to please us, to gratify us, but rather they are conventions which are convenient, which fit matter as it is. And now, we are saying space and time is a convenient order for a certain range of purposes.
Weber: In the manifest?
Bohm: In the manifest.
Weber: But you're saying it has no place in the non-manifest.
Bohm: It is not the fundamental order. It's only place in the nommanifest...it has a place, but only as a relationship. It has a certain place but it is not the fundamental place.
Weber: It's this n-1 and n-2 that you spoke about earlier?
Bohm: Yes that's right.
Weber: But in actuality, in the nonmanifest, you say mankind's consciousness or mind is one. And you mean this quite literally, not metaphorically or poetically.
Bohm: No, it is one consciousness, and you can see as evidence of this that the basic problems of mankind are one. You see they're the same: namely fear, jealousy, hope, confusion, you know the problem of isolation and so on. If you go around you will see that deep down all the problems are the same.
Weber: So it's a universal stratum of some sort.
Bohm: Yes, we may say that these problems originate in the consciousness of mankind and manifest in each individual. You see, each individual manifests the consciousness of mankind. That is what I say.
Weber: Because he is, in a way, that consciousness.
Bohm: He is that manifestation.
Weber: And as he perceives himself, in the manifest, he's isolated himself out, he's made himself an abstraction.
Bohm: Yes, if he says that manifestation is independently existent, it's like saying the cloud exists on its own apart from the air.
Weber: Or the particle without the whole ocean, the whole background?
Bohm: Or the ink droplet without the whole background.
Weber: So the individual, as he thinks of himself, is but the overt manifestation just as the chair is, of that underlying background?
Bohm: Yes, as the chair is, and the mountain, because they're a manifestation of the deeper energy, a deeper order, a deeper reality which is not manifest.
Weber: And you're saying this is not mysticism, it's good physics.
Bohm: Well, I'm saying that it's more consistent with physics than any other view that I know.
Weber: If one really were to take this seriously in one's daily life, how differently would one interact with another human being?
Bohm: Well it would be a tremendous change, but you see, to do this we have to get clear of the recording in the brain of this other view which has been deeply recorded in the material structure of the brain. We could call that the corruption of mankind, that the brain and the consciousness and deeper levels, not only in the manifest levels of the brain but the nonmanifest, that there has been left this pollution, which is this whole view which leads to all this violence, corruption, disorder, self-deception. See, you could say that almost all of mankind's thought is aimed at self-deception, which momentarily relieves pressures arising from this way of thinking, of being separate, and it produces pressures. When a person is under pressure, any thought that comes in to relieve that pressure will be accepted as true. But immediately that leads to some more pressure because it's wrong and then you take another thought to relieve that thought.
Weber: It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Bohm: Yes, and that has been the major way. If you watch how international negotiations go on you see no truth whatsover there. It's entirely the result of pressures: fear, gain, greed, compromise, trade-offs, pressures to achieve and what not. You accept as true any statement that will relieve that pressure. And then in the next statement that's overturned and people will take another one....It happens in families obviously. People are compelled in the family to state things which the pressure of the family says are true. It happens in organizations, in institutions.
(from "The Holographic Paradigm and other Paradoxes", a compilation of interviews and other tidbits. Interview with physicist David Bohm.)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Newborns instantly show emotion, fear being a big one. Is that something a newborn manifests and why? If it's an illusion.
How should we treat our fellow men if life is an illusion. If we are all of one consciousness then death does not exist, and looking out for one's self is also looking out for one's mate. There is no individuality and no free-will.
Why do we manifest an egocentric, cruel, viscious reality, if the nonmanifest reality is so much greater?
Finally, how does this correlate to physics at all?
I understand we are each possessed with Will that precedes what we are. This will is purposeful. Each exact moment of each illusion is a virtua-meaningful-experience. For a purpose. Good, bad, or indifferent. When we go beyond the programming and align with our ground state, we align with our purpose. We recognize other is ourselves. We do best to learn to be as honest and authentic as we can. Otherwise, we literally only hurt ourselves. For example, we hurt ourselves because we are all one, but to our petty small-minded self, when we hurt other, we literally hook ourselves into a 3-d experience where the outcome is pain or some form of discordant experience for us, that causes stress and discomfort. Until we are conditioned otherwise, or fall out of the game of life some other way, through maladpation. Death is very real in our experience. From a deeper view, it can be seen as an illusion.
I don't know.
This is the cutting edge philosophical level we are at at this point. Our systems are all interactive, and therefore as we learn new science paradigms it reflects in the philosophical ones and vice versa. As our science discerns new differentiations, our philosphies do also. Keep in mind that all science is strung together with theories also that stem from what our philosophical awareness can support.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
3 Truths and 1 Lie
My initial hypothesis was that people would convince themselves that placing the lie at place 1 or place 4, first or last, on the list would make the answer too obvious. So, probablistically, the answers would usually be either 2 or 3. As it turns out this held true for the entire thread, as short-lived as it was.
I only participated in a few, but I'll explain how I got my answers.
So what I assumed here was that answers 1 and 4 are least likely. Answer 2 is something I can't imagine conjuring as a lie, so I figured it must be true. That left me with answer 3. Also considering that all the other answers are somewhat unusual, or out of the every day, while answer 3 seems too normal to be a lie. I figured this is what catefrances had "chosen" as the lie. It's much easier to turn an everyday thing into a lie, then it is to conjure something unusual and except it to be overlooked. If I had just guessed, I would have said answer 2 "my razor blades came individually wrapped".
For this one, I used a very simple statistical study. IMDB.com. I got the user ratings for all the movies and immediately eliminated answers 1 and 4, as they had high user ratings and was in accordance with my initial hypothesis. So, I looked up the plot outline for all the movies, stuck choosing between answers 2 and 3. I found answer 3 followed the same plot outline as answers 1 and 4, although it's user rating was relatively low. So I chose answer 2 and was correct. Had I just guessed, I would have said answer 1 cause it sounds lame.
I would suggest that CJMST3K has done something in their life they wanted a second chance for. Perhaps never got it. And also has a liking for James Bondish movies. Based on CJMST3K's perference in movies.
There are indications in every action that speak loudly about a person's psyche. Perhaps I am wrong about some things, but in general, probability was in my favor.
I don't mean this to be "deep" or whatever. Just pointing out how predictable people are in general. I thought about what I would have given as answers, and I couldn't come up with something that would be beyond this kind of analysis.
I'm interested in your reason for bringing up barriers in the first place. I know that freedom is the absence of restraint and free will surely follows some sort of similar dictum, however, free thinking is just as it sounds...it isn't even constrained by imagination, if you can imagine that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Don't mean to put you on the spot or anything like that. I just thought your post was the most well-thought out of this whole thread.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I've pooped once or twice since this began.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.