David Bohm,
the son of a Jewish furniture, was born in Pennsylvania on 20th December,
1917. He studied physics at Pennsylvania State University before completing
his doctorate under Robert
Oppenheimer
at the University of California.
In
1943 Bohm
joined the
Manhattan
Project
in the United States. Over the next two years he worked with Robert
Oppenheimer,
Edward Teller, Enrico
Fermi, Felix
Bloch,
David Bohm, James
Chadwick, James
Franck,
Emilio
Segre,
Eugene Wigner, Otto
Frisch,
Leo Szilard and Klaus
Fuchs in developing the atom bombs dropped
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After
the war Bohm became assistant professor at Princeton University and
published his book Quantum Theory (1951). At the university
he worked closely with Albert Einstein
and
they had regularly meetings to discuss science and morality.
In
1949 Bohm refused to testify against Robert
Oppenheimer before the House of Un-American
Activities Committee. As a result Bohm was arrested and charged
with contempt of Congress. He went on trial but was acquitted.
Bohm
was sacked from his post at Princeton University and despite the efforts
of Albert Einstein the
authorities were unwilling to reinstate him. A victim of McCarthyism,
Bohm was unable to find work in the United States and he therefore
moved to Brazil where he became professor at the University of Sao
Paulo. Bohm also taught in Israel before moving to Bristol,
England in 1957.
In
1961 Bohm became professor of physics at Birkbeck
College in London. Over the next thirty
years Bohm's work focused mainly on the fundamentals of quantum theory
and relativity theory. His books include Causality
and Chance in Modern Physics (1957), The
Special Theory of Relativity (1966), Wholeness
and the Implicate Order (1980)
and Science, Order and Creativity
(1987). David Bohm died in 1992.
(1)
David Bohm, Wholeness and the
Implicate Order (1980)
Difference exist because thought develops like a stream that happens
to go one way here and another way there. Once it develops it produces
real physical results that people are looking at, but they don't see
where these results are coming from - that's one of the basic features
of fragmentation. When they have produced these divisions they see
that real things have happened, to they'll start with these real things
as if they just suddenly got there by themselves, or evolved in nature
by themselves. That's a mistake that thought makes. It produces a
result, and then it says, I didn't do it; it's there by itself, and
I must correct it. But if thought is constantly making this result
and then saying, 'I've got to stop it', this is absurd. Because thought
is caught up in this absurdity, it is producing all sorts of negative
consequences, then treating them as independent and saying, I must
stop them
(2)
David Bohm, Wholeness and the
Implicate Order (1980)
Thought defines religion - the thought about the nature of God and
various questions like that. Such thought is very important because
it is about God, who is supposed to be supreme. The thought about
what is of supreme value must have the highest force. So if you disagree
about that, the emotional impact can be very great, and you will then
have no way to settle it. Two different beliefs about God will thus
produce intense fragmentation - similarly with thoughts about the
nature of society, which is also very important, or with ideologies
such as communism and capitalism, or with different beliefs about
your family or about your money. Whatever it is that is very important
to you, fragmentation in your thought about it is going to be very
powerful in its effects.
(3)
David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980)
My suggestion
is that at each state the proper order of operation of the mind requires
an overall grasp of what is generally known, not only in formal logical,
mathematical terms, but also intuitively, in images, feelings, poetic
usage of language, etc. (Perhaps we could say that this is what is
involved in harmony between the 'left brain' and the 'right brain').
This kind of overall way of thinking is not only a fertile source
of new theoretical ideas: it is needed for the human mind to function
in a generally harmonious way, which could in turn help to make possible
an orderly and stable society.
(4)
David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980)
My suggestion
is that at each state the proper order of operation of the mind requires
an overall grasp of what is generally known, not only in formal logical,
mathematical terms, but also intuitively, in images, feelings, poetic
usage of language, etc. (Perhaps we could say that this is what is
involved in harmony between the 'left brain' and the 'right brain').
This kind of overall way of thinking is not only a fertile source
of new theoretical ideas: it is needed for the human mind to function
in a generally harmonious way, which could in turn help to make possible
an orderly and stable society.
(5)
David Bohm, Science Order and Creativity (1987)
It is proposed that a form of free dialogue may well be one of the
most effective ways of investigating the crisis which faces society,
and indeed the whole of human nature and consciousness today. Moreover,
it may turn out that such a form of free exchange of ideas and information
is of fundamental relevance for transforming culture and freeing it
of destructive misinformation, so that creativity can be liberated.
A key difference
between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the
latter people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in
favor of their views as they try to convince others to change. At
best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give
rise to anything creative.
(6)
David Bohm in conversation with
E.T. Nada and Coleen Rowe at the
University of London February 26, 1987
The old brain is searching for security; it's built to do that, and
at a certain level it makes sense. Now, the difficulty is that it
cannot tell when the images and ideas produced by the new brain start
to stir it up; it responds rather similarly to the kind of things
that it's built to respond to. Therefore, it may either respond with
excessive pleasure or with fear or with rage, disrupting the whole
system. I think that hate and rage are the greater challenge than
fear. People being frustrated, they develop rage. I saw an experiment
with an animal. They touched a wire to a certain pleasure center in
the old brain. They touched it lightly and the cat looked incredibly
pleased. They touched it more and it was really terrified. Then they
gave it higher voltage and it showed how it was terribly enraged.
It was ready to tear you to pieces but there was an air of pleasure
about it. It would've enjoyed it.
(7)
Rene Weber on David Bohm (1986)
Because
of Bohm's international fame, I was quite unprepared for the unusually
modest and unassuming, gentle person he turned out to be. He is the
paradigm of the committed searcher and researcher, intensely absorbed
in his philosophy of the implicate order, on which he lectures all
over the world. Bohm looks like the proverbial professor, dressed
in casual tweeds and almost always wearing a sweater. He is of average
height, with brown hair, hazel eyes, a rather pale face, inward and
intellectual in expression, a captivating smile and a quiet, low-keyed
manner except on discussing physics, when he becomes animated and
almost transformed, punctuating his points with vivid gestures. He
is someone who - through science - perceived a universe of truth,
beauty, meaning, even the good, and who made his perceptions come
so convincingly alive to others. David Bohm seemed imbued with a feeling
that whatever lies behind nature is holy.
Available
from Amazon Books (order below)
