[Rebecca]

Thank you for posting the invitation to explore dialogue. I was just reading “Sunday Afternoon” from the book Thought as System:

“Every assumption is implicitly a reflex and a set of intentions. And just as happens with the individual, so it moves out into the group. Each person is affected by the other people’s thoughts, so that the reflexes of one person become the reflexes of the other. If one person is angry, the other is angry. It all spreads.” (1994, p. 195)

Bohm then talks about seeing a deeper meaning. I was wondering what others’ experience of deeper meaning in this context would be like.

Bohm, D. (1994). Thought as a system. Taylor & Francis Group.

[Rebecca]

I was just reading Mary Settegast’s (2001) book, Mona Lisa’s Moustache: Making Sense of a Dissolving World. Here she says, “Ultimately, Bohm believes, the entire universe–including human beings, their laboratories, and observing instruments–must be understood as a single undivided whole, in which analysis into separate and independently existing parts would have no fundamental status: ‘What is implied by this proposal is that what we call empty space contains an immense background of energy, and that matter as we know it is a small, ‘quantized’ wavelike excitation on top of this background, rather like a tiny ripple on a vast sea.'” (p. 47)

[Paul]

I like your comments Rebecca. This would make a great discussion for a Monday evening.

Thanks,

Paul

[Rebecca]

I usually work at that time, but needless to say, you are welcome to the topic. I always appreciate when Bohm’s work pops up in a book I’m reading. Here is a quote from Edward C. Whitmont’s The Alchemy of Healing: Psyche and Soma: “Jung was the first modern psychologist to describe synchronicity as a commonly occurring event pattern in which animate and inanimate objects behave as though dramatizing our inner psycho-dynamics on the stage of external events. Synchronicity might be seen as the manifestation of a unitary reality that is ‘shape, nothing but shape’ (Erwin Schrodinger, Science and Humanism, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 1951, pp. 20-21), or as quantum potential (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987). This shape ‘intends’ to ‘inform’…” (1993, p.19)