T h e D i a l o g u e / T h e O p e n D i a l o g u e a t t h e E n d o f D i s c u s s i o n s

Transcription

1 Excerpt from the book by Samuel Widmer "Living Together - Community and Community-Making", BasicIndia 2017, pp T h e D i a l o g u e / T h e O p e n D i a l o g u e a t t h e E n d o f D i s c u s s i o n s ( S u m m a r y o f t h e B o o k b y D a v i d B o h m 1 ) David Bohm is regarded as one of the great thinkers of the twentieth century in the field of theoretical physics. He wrote many books, particularly on philosophical topics, among which Wholeness and Implicate Order occupies a prominent place. He was one of the foremost pupils of Krishnamurti. The two men engaged in many interesting dialogues that have been preserved on video. One of his chief concerns was the notion of dialogue. After David Bohm's death, Lee Nichol, who had been a member of one of Bohm's dialogue groups, published this small volume summarising David Bohm's views on dialogue. The similarity between David Bohm's ideas and the community-making ideas of Scott Peck are striking. David Bohm approached the same topic from an entirely different perspective, namely as a philosopher and scientist, and expressed it in a much more complex language. However, he arrived at the same conclusions and his different approach particularly his research on brain activity and thought is enriching. While engaging in dialogue is as old as civilisation itself, David Bohm attempted to restore the depth that it has lost in the age of communication and discussion. In Bohm's eyes, dialogue is a multilayered process that reaches far beyond our usual understanding of conversation and the exchange of ideas. Dialogue explores an unusual range of human experience: our deep-seated values, the nature and intensity of emotions, the patterns of our thought processes, the function of our memory, the significance of traditional cultural myths and the way in which our neurophysiology structures how we experience the moment. But perhaps the most important aspect is the way thought which Bohm viewed as an inherently limited medium and not as an objective reflection of reality is created and maintained on a collective level. A study of this kind cannot help but shake up our deep-seated assumptions regarding culture, meaning and identity. Thus on its deepest level dialogue is an invitation to examine the survivability of our accepted definitions of what it means to be human. It also invites us to collectively explore the potential for future human development. Bohm was profoundly concerned with the communication problem that impacts our entire modern world. He repeatedly pointed to the fact that while science allegedly seeks truth, it is often adversely influenced by personal ambition, rigidly defended theories and the weight of tradition. He also believed the general fate of humankind is entangled in a network of mutually contradictory intentions and actions. He viewed our great diversity of social and personal fragmentation as a direct outcome of this set of problems. The fundamental problem appears to be that different groups and persons are no longer able to listen to one another. That is why the participants in a dialogue do not exchange information that they already know. Instead, they join together and seek to create something new by listening to each other in a free and unbiased atmosphere without trying to influence one another. Each participant's interest is primarily 1 David Bohm Der Dialog/ Das offene Gespräch am Ende der Diskussionen On Dialogue) Klett-Cotta; 2002; (original edition: 1969, On Dialogue)

2 aimed at truth and coherence, so that he is prepared to drop old notions and intentions and, if necessary, move on to something else. If we wish to live in harmony with ourselves and with nature, Bohm said, we must be able to communicate freely within a creative movement where no one holds onto or otherwise defends his own notions. Of course, he quite naturally realised that this endeavour continually fails due to a lack of willingness and that it can only be achieved through insight. Viewed on a superficial level, dialogue is a relatively straightforward matter. A group of around fifteen to forty participants come together on a voluntary basis and sit down in a circle. After some preliminary explanations on the nature of the dialogue process, the group is confronted by the question of where to go now. Since the participants have come together without a set agenda, they usually need time to agree on an acceptable topic, which can, of course, lead to frustration. Bohm believed a dialogue companion could be useful at this early stage. Like Scott Peck, however, he also found that this support role should be done away with as soon as possible so as to allow the group to pursue its own course. Bohm put great emphasis on the etymology of the word dialogue. The Greek word dialogos is composed of the words logos, the word, and dia, through (not two!). A dialogue can be conducted by any number of persons, not just by two. Even an individual can cultivate a sort of inner dialogue with him or herself. In any case, the dialogical spirit must be present. Bohm speaks of a free flow of meaning that flows around us, through us and between us. A flow of meaning within the entire group from which, if need be, a new understanding can emerge. This insight is something new that was not present at the beginning. It is something creative. This shared meaning is the glue or cement that holds human beings and society together. Bohm compared dialogue with discussion. The word discuss means to crush, fragment, divide. This type of conversation emphasises critical analysis, where there can be many views and where everyone presents, analyses and dismantles a different opinion. The possibilities are limited and a discussion will not take us much further beyond merely establishing our own respective standpoints. The core of a discussion lies in trying to win. In a dialogue, by contrast, nobody tries to win. When one person wins, everyone wins. The spirit behind it is quite different. In a dialogue, nobody tries to score points or assert their own position. Instead, everybody wins when it is shown that one of the participants has made a mistake. There are only winners, whereas a discussion is a zero-sum game if I win, you lose. But a dialogue has more to do with sharing within a community, where we do not play against one another but with one another. In a dialogue, everybody wins. A large portion of what we call discussion is not conducted seriously. There are all kinds of things that are not regarded as negotiable and are simply not mentioned. People do not want to talk about these things. That is part of the problem. It is difficult for people to communicate because every person has different assumptions and opinions. These are fundamental assumptions, not just superficial views. We defend these assumptions, when they are challenged. Usually people cannot resist the temptation to defend their assumptions and they tend to do so in an emotional way. In a dialogue group the friction between contrary values inevitably crystallises and thus takes centre stage in the dialogue. This allows the participants to become aware of the assumptions that are active within the group, including their own. Recognising the power of these assumptions and their viral nature can lead to a new understanding of the fragmentary and selfdestructive nature of many of our thought processes. This understanding can help us drop our mutually defensive stance and make way for a feeling of natural warmth and community to spread through the group. We can also characterise these assumptions as opinions. An opinion is an assumption. Most opinions are not rational. Instead, we defend them with powerful emotional reactions. In other words, people identify with their opinions. Dialogue is designed to get to the bottom of all the compulsions lurking behind our assumptions. Dialogue is concerned with the thought processes behind the assumptions, not with the assumptions themselves. The creative potential of dialogue, its ability to unveil profound structures of consciousness, depends on sustained and earnest dedication on the part of the participants. Dialogue requires a considerable degree of awareness in order to observe the hidden implications of our assumptions and reactions and, at the same time, to sense similar patterns within the group as a whole. This sort of awareness requires no age-old wisdom or particular techniques, nor does it seek to correct anybody. This awareness is fundamentally a relaxed, non-judgemental curiosity whose chief activity is to perceive everything as

3 impartially and clearly as possible. The variety of opinions we entertain are a result of the thoughts we have thought, the experiences we have experienced, and of everything we have ever heard from others. Later on, we end up identifying with these opinions and begin to defend them. All this makes little sense. If an opinion is correct, it needs no defending, and if it is incorrect, why should we bother? However, opinions are often experienced as truths. In basic terms, dialogue is really aimed at going into the whole thought process and changing the way the thought process occurs collectively. We have not really paid much attention to thought as a process. We have engaged in thought, 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. In the realm of thought, fragmentation is always a possibility. Thought shatters everything and we lose sight of the whole. Thought causes something, but it is not aware that it is itself the source of the change. Whenever we have a problem we always believe that we have to think about it. But this is often the problem itself. This is why we have to look at thought itself. For a dialogue, people come together, who usually have different individual backgrounds and therefore possess a variety of different basic assumptions and opinions. As long as we defend these opinions, even unconsciously, no true dialogue can take place. We then attempt to convince others of our opinions and consider that to be the most natural thing in the world. In this sort of competition, the strongest will win. However, the strongest is not necessarily the person with the correct opinion. And perhaps nobody is right anyway. In the scientific world as well, we often encounter the problem that different scientists insist on holding on to their view of truth and cannot agree. Science is supposedly committed to truth and the facts. But one's own interests and assumptions can win out. Assumptions and opinions establish themselves inside people's heads like computer programmes. These programmes have their own agendas. That is why a group of between twenty and forty participants represents a microcosm of society as a whole. If only five or six people meet they can normally adapt to each other in such a way that the things that upset them or unsettle them fail to get mentioned at all. Scott Peck speaks of pseudocommunities. But many of these participants do not remain polite for long. When this happens, Scott Peck calls it the chaos phase. Twenty to forty participants represents a microculture of society, a kind of microcosm of the broader culture. Now the issue of culture, i.e. collectively shared meaning, begins to play a role. This collectively shared meaning has great power. Collective thought is more powerful than individual thought. In any case, individual thought is largely a result of collective thought and interaction with other people. Language is purely collective and most of the thoughts it contains are also. Bohm described coherent and incoherent thought. He compared thought with a ray of normal light that is not coherent, i.e. scattered, or a laser beam that is linear, i.e. coherent. He experienced normal thought in society as incoherent, meaning that it can shoot out in all different directions. Thoughts contradict and cancel each other out. If people could just think together in a coherent fashion, their thoughts would have immense power. That is his thesis. In dialogical process, this coherent movement of thought, a coherent communication movement, is created. Thought becomes coherent not only on the conscious level but also on a silent level, the level for which we have only a vague feeling. Coherence on this level is even more important. In the deep, thought is always a subtle, silent process. The silent process is communal. It is shared. Bohm was convinced that we have lost our contact to this deep, shared, silent process over the past five thousand years and must find our way back to it. We must once more develop a shared consciousness, be capable of thinking in common and learn to do what must be done in an intelligent way. In his discussions with Krishnamurti, Bohm above all learned that the problems of thought are largely of a collective and not an individual nature. In addition, the two men concerned themselves with the paradox of the observer and the observed. Bohm regarded sitting in a circle as essential to the conducting of a dialogue so as to make sure that no one was privileged and to facilitate direct communication. There should be neither a group leader nor a set agenda. As a rule, this leads at first to fears and frustrations that should, however, be overcome before long (in two hours). At the beginning, a dialogue facilitator can be helpful in keeping an eye on the group for a while and occasionally explaining what is going on. But his task largely consists of making his or her own presence superfluous. Bohm regarded it as meaningful for groups to come

4 together on a fortnightly basis over an extended period, i.e. for two or more years. The group is not principally there for individual problems, since it is mainly concerned with cultural conditioning. But personal issues can certainly come up for discussion. A dialogue group is not a therapy group. It does not attempt to heal anybody, even though this can occur as a by-product. Bohm referred to sociotherapy as opposed to individual therapy. Nor is a dialogue group an encounter group, where the release of emotions is the focus. In a dialogue, the participants should communicate directly with one another and gradually learn how to open themselves up to the group as a whole. No decisions are made on what to do about anything. This is of critical importance. Otherwise, the participants are not free. They need an empty space without the obligation to do anything, to make decisions or to say or not say anything. The dialogue must remain open and free, an empty space. An empty space that anything can enter. The group can come together without set tasks and objectives. The goal is merely to communicate with one another coherently and truthfully. In such a group no one tries to do anything useful. The notion of usefulness is an assumption that would limit the group. Bohm also experienced how the participants in a newly-founded dialogue group spend a great deal of time beating around the bush. Scott Peck calls this a pseudocommunity. This tendency appears to be a general phenomenon in interpersonal relations. If one succeeds in keeping the dialogue going for a while, one will note that the group members will change and start behaving differently outside of the dialogue situation as well. The dialogue will inevitably bring the participants' deep-seated assumptions to the surface. Chaos and frustration are unavoidable. It is important to keep at it, no matter how frustrated one becomes, so that something new can develop. The dialogue will not always be entertaining and there will be a strong temptation to give up. What helps people to stick it out is the meaning they share with others. People's different assumptions have a tacit effect on the entire meaning of what we are doing. Bohm considers it extremely important to keep the assumptions and opinions of each participant, as uncovered in the group, suspended so that one neither acts according to the assumptions nor suppresses them. Nothing is judged. Nothing is found to be good or bad. No attempt is made to persuade anyone to change his or her opinion. Each is merely made aware of what is going on in the heads of the others without arriving at any conclusions or judgements. The assumptions are merely uncovered. Sometimes a meeting is disrupted by anger. When this happens, those who are not entirely caught in their own opinions should jump in and defuse the situation in such a way that the group can take a look at it. The point is to keep the dialogue at a level where opinions do come to the surface but can still be examined. In dialogue it is more important to maintain a free flow of meanings between the participants than to analyse a particular topic. Over time it becomes more important to sense and preserve friendship within the group than to present a certain opinion. As Scott Peck would say, community develops. This kind of friendship or community does not depend on any personal relationships between the participants. In this way, a new way of thinking starts coming to life. It is based on the development of a shared meaning that constantly transforms itself within the dialogue. All participants take part in this common meaning, and the group has no previously determined purpose within this development. No speaker and no specific content are excluded. A change begins to reveal itself not only in relations between people but also in the consciousness within which these relationships develop. We do not try to change anything. Instead, we try to become aware of what is going on. And one can observe the similarity between the difficulties that appear in the group in tandem with the conflicts and incoherent thoughts experienced by an individual. When we do this, we will discover that certain kinds of thoughts play a larger role than others. One of the most important thoughts of all is that of necessity. Necessity appears to us as unavoidable. Thus during a dialogue a situation can develop where one's own opinion cannot be pushed aside, nor can that of the others. Then a feeling emerges that another person's opinion is working inside of and against oneself. Both are in a conflict situation. When people are convinced that something is necessary, they even violate the instinct of self-preservation. The conflicts in a dialogue, both individually and collectively and this is critical revolve around the notion of necessity. In all serious conflicts, whether within the family or within the dialogue, there are various views of absolute necessity. But when two things are absolutely essential, the familiar path of negotiation is no longer an option. What has to be done is merely to uncover the differing notions of absolute necessary and let them compete with each other. People normally resist doing this because they know that there will be trouble, and so they avoid

5 these questions. But if we maintain a dialogue, they will come to light. Over a period of time the different parties will recognise that nothing can change as long as they hold on to their own absolute necessity. Everyone begins to see how much is destroyed merely because they insist on holding on to their notions no matter what. And perhaps they will eventually realise, that what they had previously regarded as absolutely necessary was not so important after all. The dialogue can now enter a creative new phase. This freedom permits the creative perception of new categories of necessity. Bohm regarded this as a decisive point: as soon as we encounter an assumption we must become aware as to whether it is associated with an absolute necessity. Then we will see that because of this we have reached an impasse. Dialogue is aimed at an understanding of consciousness per se and, at the same time, at an exploration of the problematic nature of everyday relationships and communication. This definition forms a foundation, a reference point for the key components of dialogue, which include: mutually shared meanings, the essence of collective thought, the omnipresence of fragmentation, the function of attention, the micro-cultural context, guided testing, impersonal community and the paradox of the observer and the observed. Dialogue is a process of direct face-to-face encounters and should not be confused with endless theoretical debates and speculations. Bohm believed that a reservoir of silent and manifest knowledge has collected over the course of human evolution. This reservoir of knowledge has provided a large portion of our perception of the world, the meaning we ascribe to events, and even our feeling of individuality. Such knowledge or thought spreads like a virus, independently of an individual or even of a specific culture. Viewed in this light, our attempts to solve our problems through highly personalised analysis or by attributing evil and unfavourable qualities to other groups or individuals are helpful only in a limited way. What we need to do is to begin paying new attention to the movement of our thought and to look at places we have previously ignored. Bohm used the analogy of a river that is being continually polluted at its source. Thus, all attempts to eliminate the water pollution downstream cannot provide a solution. The true solution lies in tackling the cause of the pollution at the source, and that means in the thought process itself. Thus, in dialogue we direct our attention toward our thinking. This way we will venture to the core of our problems and prepare the way for a creative transformation. Thinking has too little awareness of its consequences. In regard to the body, there is a phenomenon called proprioception or self-awareness. The body can perceive its own movements. For example, it is aware of whether it is moving itself or is being moved. In regard to thinking, we have yet to develop such a self-perception. Bohm believes it is essential for the thinking to also become proprioceptive. Such a way of thinking will not entangle itself the way we are used to. One could say that practically all human problems can be attributed to the fact that thinking is not proprioceptive, i.e. it is not aware of itself. It creates problems without realising that it is doing so. The purpose of suspending judgement is to make proprioception possible, to create a mirror in which we can recognise the consequences of our thinking. Over time we will be in a position to share our opinions without animosity and then be able to think together. As long as we defend opinions this is impossible. When thinking together, one person will have an idea, another will pick it up and a third person will add something to it. Our thinking will flow and people will stop getting caught up in opinions, trying to influence and convince one another. The meaning of dialogue is not to analyse something, to win an argument or to exchange opinions. Instead, the goal is to float one's own opinions and to test them, to listen to the views of the other participants, to suspend them and to see what they mean. When we are able to recognise what all of our opinions mean, we are sharing a common thought, even if we do not directly agree with it. Perhaps we will then discover that our opinions are not so terribly important after all. If each person suspends the positions of all the others, then everyone is thinking together. All consider all points of view together. The content of our consciousness is then largely the same. This allows for another kind of consciousness within the group: a participatory consciousness. This is what we could call a true dialogue. Scott Peck would have called it real community. All participants will then share in all of the group's assumptions and opinions. If everyone recognises the meaning of all assumptions, then the content of consciousness is essentially the same. Conviction and persuasion are inappropriate in a dialogue. As long as we resist the assumptions of others, we will try to convince or cajole them. It makes no sense to be cajoled or convinced. It is neither coherent nor rational. If somebody is right, he or she does not need to convince others. If somebody has

6 to persuade others, then the issue itself is probably questionable. Participation leads to a shared meaning, which nevertheless does not exclude the individual. An individual can have an opinion that differs from someone else's, but his view will then be equally accepted by the group. Each person is entirely free. This has nothing to do with a mob where the collective spirit takes control. Everyone can move freely between the individual and the collective levels. A harmony of the individual and the collective emerges as the whole steadily moves toward coherence. There is a collective spirit and an individual spirit. They form the shores between which the dialogue flows. Opinion, thus no longer plays such an important role. Society is based on common meaning-positings that make up culture. At the moment, the collection of shared meaning-positings in general society is so incoherent that it is hard to determine even one true meaning. One result of the dialogical process could be that we will naturally and effortlessly jettison many of our meaning-positings. We will never arrive at the truth as long as our general meaning is not coherent. If a coherent meaning would develop then a culture that has never really existed before would emerge. A culture could emerge where opinions and assumptions are not incoherently defended. If an individual can suspend all meaning-positings in his mind, then he has the attitude required for dialogue. This attitude is essential for a new story. Conducting a dialogue can be highly frustrating, at least in the beginning. It is frustrating to experience such a variety of opinions within the group. Some people want to assert themselves. That is their way of dealing with the situation. Others tend to hold back, particularly in the presence of dominant persons. There are some who play the dominant role while others play the role of the weak and powerless letting themselves be dominated. These roles are, of course, in turn based on assumptions and opinions about oneself. Another difficulty lies in the fact that pressure often builds within groups to express one's opinion as quickly as possible. There is no more time to absorb or think about what is being said. That is why it is important to create enough space for everyone in a group. One should neither speak up too quickly, nor should one wait too long. There should be periods of silence. Scott Peck speaks of the stage of emptiness. However, there are no rules for dialogue. There are only helpful principles that one can discover in common. For example, one can discover that each participant must be given the opportunity to express him or herself. The participants have realised that this makes sense and so they wish to act on it. There will always be people in a dialogue group who give up because they do not see any sense to the exercise. The most important motivation to stick with the dialogue despite all difficulties, is in realising that we believe we must conduct it. The point is to create a bond that we could call an impersonal community. A shared consciousness. To strive for such a consciousness does not necessarily have to be pleasant. For all to share a feeling of bliss or of community will emerge only over time. There is no need to cling to an assumption if there is evidence that it could be false. A correctly structured assumption or opinion is always open to evidence that it might not be correct. It is not necessary for everyone to be convinced and converted to the same opinion. A shared spirit, a shared consciousness is more important than the content of any one person's opinions. We will soon recognise that these opinions are anyway limited. If our meaning-positings are incoherent, then how can we participate in a spirit of truthfulness? The attempt to carry the spirit of dialogue into society would certainly be relevant in terms of helping to bring about a creative and harmonious order in the world. Enduring the frustrations of dialogue can have a much greater significance than might appear at first glance. In fact, we could say that in this way we are no longer part of the problem but part of the solution. In other words: the movement within our spirit contains the seeds of a solution. It is already part of the solution. No matter how small, its nature belongs to the solution, not to the problem. No matter how large the greater movement is, its nature belongs to the problem, not to the solution. So it is mainly about starting with something that in its quality belongs to the solution. This will communicate itself at the silent level. From the silent level it will go on to influence the world. One must guard against the notion of truth. While it may be possible to arrive at truth through dialogue, the point of dialogue is meaning. As long as the meaning is incoherent one will never arrive at the truth. What is the point of having a monopoly on truth for oneself or the group? If the conflicts continue, then this is a poor consolation indeed. It is important to listen to one another. We have lost this ability. To a certain extent, science has become the religion of modern age. It is now the wellspring of truth, a role previously played by religion. That is why, once they have moved apart, scientists are as

7 little able to come back together as are different religions. The principles of dialogue include listening to one another and not excluding any possibilities. One assumption behind modern science, which nearly all scientists today adhere to, is that thinking must one day be able to comprehend everything. That we will someday recognise the absolute truth. This may not be accurate. But the relativists do not have a right either to claim that we will never arrive at a realisation of the absolute truth. After all, when they assume that relativism is the absolute truth, they have already strayed into a paradox of their own making. People who believe that they will find the path to some form of absolute truth are unable to conduct a dialogue. In dialogue, we all walk together and finally realise that no one path plays a role. We recognise the meaning of all paths and thus arrive at the non-path. Beneath the surface all paths are the same. This is because they are all paths, rigid and immovable. When we recognise the thought of others, it becomes our own thought and we treat it like our own thought. And when an emotional charge bubbles up, we share all the emotional charges that move us. We entertain them together with all our thoughts. Bohm speaks of the vision of dialogue: one person in the group introduces a thought that one could just as easily have had oneself. Another person picks it up and continues it. This leads to shared thought in a functioning group, to shared participation in thought. Everything is a single process. A thought is developed in common. If someone then speaks up with a different opinion, then everyone listens to him and also shares this meaning together. Within the dialogical process a sensibility emerges without our having done anything to bring it about. Sensibility is the ability to sense what is happening to sense how you yourself react, how the others react. Sensing these various differences and similarities. This is the foundation of perception. Sensibility has something to do with the senses, but it goes beyond that. It concerns the perception of meaning, which is a more subtle perception. Meaning is that which holds everything together. The cement. Meaning is not static. It flows. And when we share meaning with one another, it flows between us and holds the group together. If, however, the participants hold on to their assumptions, they are not thinking together. Everyone is left on their own. Sensibility is blocked by the defence of assumptions and opinions. A group will neither censure nor condemn an assumption. When someone defends his assumptions, he does just that and the others will turn to him again with an open mind. A dialogical group will simply take a close look at all opinions and assumptions and bring them to light. This will lead to a transformation. A typical problem in conducting a dialogue is polarisation. A group is suddenly divided into two camps. When this happens, openness will once more lead to an easing up. As long as one defends his opinions, one is not earnest. Nor is one earnest if one attempts to avoid knowledge of something unpleasant within oneself. A large portion of our life is not earnest, and it is society that teaches us that. It teaches us not to be excessively earnest. It teaches us that there are all kinds of incoherent things and that we can do nothing about them, and that we are just upsetting ourselves unnecessarily when we are too earnest. But if we are not earnest, we cannot experience a dialogue. In dialogue there is no room for the principle of authority, for superiority and subordination. We want to be free of hierarchy and authority. Since we have no firm goals and no agenda in a dialogue and do not need to do anything, we basically need no authority. Instead, we need a space where there is no authority, no hierarchy, no defined tasks and goals. A kind of empty space where everything can be discussed. The crucial thing is for us to be in a position to test our judgements and assumptions together and to listen to the assumptions of others. Through dialogue, these judgements and assumptions are collectively relaxed. A transformation of the nature of consciousness is possible both at the individual and collective levels, and whether or not we can achieve this at a cultural and social level, depends on the dialogue. That is Bohm's thesis. It is of immense importance for this to happen, because the transformation of just one individual has little impact on society in general. The significance of a collective transformation is much greater. Love will disappear if we cannot communicate with each other and find a common meaning-positing (Scott Peck speaks of consensus). If, however, we are capable of true communication, then community, participation, friendship and love will grow and flourish. That would be the path. The decisive question is whether we can recognise the necessity of this process. When we see that something is absolutely essential, then we will take action. After all, this process could lead beyond

8 dialogue toward something which has been called communion. A participation not only in the group but in the whole. Bohm regards all our human problems, both large and small, as an outcome of the way we think. Particularly the fragmentation a certain way of thinking by which we split things into fragments, as if they existed separately from one another is responsible for this. Things that, in reality, fit and belong together, are treated as if this were not so. This kind of thinking misleads us. The derailment of our thought processes may have begun thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago, we do not know. We will never know. However, we must do something about this approach to thinking. We cannot allow it to destroy us entirely. We must penetrate to the root of the problem, the foundation, the source. If a river is polluted close to its source, it helps little to try to purify the water downstream. What is needed is a correction at the source. Bohm's thesis is that our thinking is already being polluted directly at the source. That is why the cause is not to be found in the sphere of time, not even at the time when the problem began, but always in the here and now. The point is not only to talk and ponder about thinking, but rather to see how thinking really functions beyond assigning words to it. Thinking is a process, and we must be in a position to give it our attention, just as we give our attention to external processes in the material world. Perhaps we do not yet know what it means to give our attention to thinking. Everything depends on thinking. If our thinking goes astray we will do everything wrong. But we are so accustomed to thinking as a matter of course that we pay no attention to it as a process. An important question which emerges from this is: what kind of process is it that keeps showing us the wrong way to live together? What is going on underneath the surface? The real crisis arises, not from wars, criminality, drugs, economic chaos, pollution and so forth, but rather from the thinking that causes and keeps causing them. It does not help either, to think that those people over there are wrong in their thinking while I am right. Thought has totally infiltrated us. It is like a virus. We are dealing with a sickness of thinking, of knowledge, of information that has spread everywhere throughout the world. Each individual has been infected with this virus. We can combat the virus only if we recognise it as such. As soon as a person begins to take a closer look at thought, he is observing the source of the problem. After all, something is rotten in regard to the entire process of thinking and it is something we all share. One fundamental assumption that we must challenge is that our thinking is our own individual thinking. We must see what thinking really is without presuming anything. The underlying structure of thought is what we share, and we must find our way to it. We will see that the content of thinking and the underlying structure are not really separate from each other, because the way in which we think about thinking has an impact on its structure. We must therefore take a closer look at both the content and the structure. Bohm's thesis is that we do not actually know anything. Instead, it is knowledge that knows things. Knowledge, which is the same thing as thinking, functions autonomously and transfers itself from one person to another. There is a reservoir of knowledge for all of humanity that we can compare with a set of computers that all share the same data memory. This thought reservoir has been developing for thousands of years and is filled with a variety of contents. While knowledge or thinking knows its entire content, it does not know what it is doing. This knowledge misjudges itself by imagining that it is not doing anything. It declares: I am not responsible for this problem. I am only there so that you can draw upon me. This thinking is a function of memory. A large part of it is silent knowledge, knowledge that cannot be put into words but which is present all the same. Without this silent knowledge we could do practically nothing. We believe that when we have thought something, the thought promptly vanishes into thin air. But the thought takes root in the brain as a recollection. As a memory. Thinking and feeling are the same process, not two separate ones. And both derive from the memory where they are probably inextricably mixed together. Perhaps our cerebral cortices and our forebrains evolved so quickly, that it was not possible for a harmonic relationship to develop between them and the older sections that were there first. The mammal brain never really learned how to identify the difference between image and reality because it simply did not need to. The development of the cerebral cortex made it possible to think of something and to evoke an image of it in our imagination. An imaginary image can evoke the same cognitive reaction within us as the thing itself. Meanwhile, the main setting of the old brain is no longer attuned to nature itself but instead perceives

9 the world through the new brain, because nature is now perceived only through the filter of the cerebral cortex. Perhaps all this has contributed to how our thinking has gone astray. Imagination and images have gained immense power within us because thinking is capable of providing a representation of what we are experiencing. Perception presents us with something, thinking abstracts and represents it. The crucial, the main thing is that this representation is present, not only in our thinking or our imagination, but actually merges with our actual perceptions and experiences. In other words, representation merges with presentation so that what is presented as perception is to a large degree already part of the representation itself. Thus it presents itself anew. How we experience something depends on how we represent or misrepresent it. What is wrong with this process is not that it takes place but rather that we are not aware of it. Our lack of awareness regarding this process is the main thing. When somebody tells us that people in such and such a category are bad, and we accept it, the representation of thought merges with the presentation of perception. As soon as we accept the prejudice, this prejudice transforms itself into implicit, silent thinking. When we then encounter a person from this category, it emerges as a presentation. Badness is then perceived as an attribute of this person. It is important to recognise that most of our representations develop collectively and that this gives them even greater power. When everyone agrees on something, we like to take it as evidence that this something is right or at least, that it could be right. This puts us under pressure, because we do not want to stand outside of the general consensus. This means that we are constantly under pressure to accept a certain representation and to see it that way. For example, there is a universal consensus in the world that we possess a self, because everything points to our having one. When everything is working fine, then it is impossible to see that something is wrong here. We have already accepted the assumption that what is happening is independent of our thinking. When something is being represented and is then presented in this way, we cannot see what is happening. The process is blocked from our perception. As soon as we turn to these things, we gradually gain a sense of where we have gone wrong. We realise that a large part of what we had regarded as facts are not really true. Our view of the world is determined by general, collective representations that are standard practice in our science and our culture. If we could give them up, a transformation might be possible since the world would be presented differently. If we could learn to see how thought creates presentations out of representations we would not longer let ourselves be deceived by them. It takes more than individuals to create a world, and that is why collective representation is the key. It is not enough for an individual to give up his representations. While this is good for him, true transformation lies in the transformation of collective representation. Bohm thus explored the way in which inputs from perception merge with memory, creating representations that direct our experience of the moment. This is a natural and necessary process, and yet the cause of collective incoherence has to be sought in the way we construct these representations. According to Bohm, the fundamental difficulty lies in the fact that we automatically assume that our representations are a truthful reflection of reality instead of seeing them as relative signposts for action, based on reflexive, unchallenged memories. As soon as we assume that these representations are fundamentally true, they present themselves as reality and we have no choice but to act accordingly. However, Bohm does not suggest attempting to change the process of representation (which might be impossible), but rather that we become aware of the fact that each given representation that we instinctively perceive as reality may be anything but real or true. If we examine representations from such a perspective, we might be in a position to arouse a quality of reflective intelligence within ourselves, a kind of ability to judge, that allows us to perceive representations which are fundamentally false, and learn to give them up. Bohm also points out that many human problems are paradoxes and not problems, but that we generally agree that they are problems. This creates a fundamentally paradoxical structure. Bohm s thesis says that in reality we are facing a paradox and not a problem. Since a paradox has no recognisable solution, a new approach is necessary, namely prolonged attention to the paradox itself instead of a concerted attempt to eliminate the problem. From Bohm's point of view, this confusion of problem and paradox has an impact on all levels of society, from the individual to the global. When something goes wrong on the psychological level, it misleads us to describe the resulting problem as a problem. It would be better to say that we are facing a paradox. What is necessary in such a case is not some problem-solving procedure. As long as thinking and feeling get the upper hand, there is just no way to sort out the issue. A form of awareness reaching

10 far beyond mere verbal and intellectual activity can bring the root of the paradox to light. The paradox dissolves when it is clearly seen and understood to be invalid and absurd. However, as long as it is treated as a problem, it cannot dissolve. The problem can only grow and proliferate into ever greater confusion. After all, one of the chief characteristics of thought is that once the brain has accepted a problem, it will keep working at it until it finds a solution. This fundamental trait is an essential premise for rational thought. When the mind deals with a paradox as if it were a real problem, then it remains forever caught in this paradox which, after all, has no solution. And so it is obviously important to recognise the difference between a problem and a paradox and to react to both in an appropriate manner. Bohm sees the root paradox as stemming from the fact that the way of thinking is relatively independent of its content. It may be appropriate for thinking about practical and technical issues, but as soon as we start using it to think about ourselves, it leads us astray. If we look closely, we can see that this approach leads to a paradoxical structure of inner activity. The paradox lies in the fact that although we treat our thoughts and feelings as if they were independent and separate from the thinking that considers them, it is evident that no such separation or independence exists or even can exist. This means that when a person attempts to overcome his tendency toward self-deception, he finds himself caught in a root paradox, i.e. in a paradox where his thought activity is dominated by that which it seeks to overcome. Since time immemorial humans in general have realised that thought and feeling are normally infected by greed, violence, self-deception, fear, aggressiveness and other reactions that can lead to corruption and confusion. However, this is largely regarded as a problem, which leads to a state where people attempt to overcome or gain control over the disarray in their own nature. There are countless methods to deal with this. For example, all societies have introduced a variety of punishments aimed at enforcing appropriate behaviour through intimidation. At the same time, there are a variety of rewards that serve as incentives. Since these measures have proved insufficient, moral codes and ethical systems as well as religious ideas have been developed in the hope of using them to persuade people to suppress their false and evil thoughts and feelings on their own initiative. But this too has failed to provide the desired result. Since disarray in human nature is the result of a paradox, no attempt to treat it as a problem can eliminate this disorder. On the contrary, such attempts normally just increase the confusion and may indeed do more harm than good. I assume that the parallels with the incest taboo and its consequences are obvious here. Any attempt to solve one's own problems and the problems of society is more likely to heighten the existing confusion than to contribute to its elimination. After centuries of habit and conditioning, we tend to assume that we ourselves are basically all right and that our difficulties generally have external causes which can be dealt with as problems. And even when we recognise that something inside us is not right, we habitually assume that we can definitively point to what is wrong or lacking within ourselves as if this were separate and independent from the thought activity with which we formulate the problem of how to correct the error. What is needed, however, is a profound and intense clarity, an alertness that goes beyond the images and intellectual analyses of our confused thought process to push forwards to the contradictory conditions and feelings where our confusion has its roots. Such a clarity implies a willingness to perceive the numerous paradoxes we encounter in our daily lives, in our social relationships and finally also in the thoughts and feelings that seem to form the inner self within each of us. What is needed is sustained, earnest and diligent attention to the fact that after centuries of conditioning our minds usually tend to become caught in paradoxes and therefore mistakenly confuse the resulting difficulties with problems. Somewhere in the background there is someone who is observing what is wrong but who is not himself being observed. Precisely the falseness that he is supposed to see lies hidden in the observer himself as this is the safest place to hide it, and the observer will never find it. Bohm believed that it is possible to suspend assumptions, both for oneself and in the context of the dialogue. He suggests that a proprioception of thought could be able to see directly through the cycle of confusion. At the moment we lack immediate feedback about the way our thinking moves, which is comparable to the body's self-perception or proprioception. According to Bohm's view, the movement of thought can be just as proprioceptive as that of the body if we were to take suspension as its basis. When we listen through a listener, we are never really listening. We must learn to observe so closely that we can observe ourselves without an observer or listen to ourselves without a listener. Bohm believed it is possible to suspend activity, to allow it to reveal itself, to flourish and develop, so that we