David Bohm        zurück ]      [ Stichworte ]      [ Die Hyper-Bibliothek ]      [ Systemtheorie ]         [ Meine Bücher ]


Der Dialog (On Dialogue)
Thought as a system
Wholeness and Implicate Order
Meaning as Being in the Implicate Order

Dialog im Aktsaal

www.david-bohm.org - Bohm-Dialog-Mailing-Liste (funktioniert nicht immer)


Zur Person



Der Dialog im Dialog
GRIN Verlag 2010


Zentrum für
sensitive Wahrnehmung


bild bild

David Bohm (1917-1992) entwickelte ein Setting zum Dialog.
Er war Physiker, er studierte bei Robert Oppenheimer und lehrte an der Princeton Universität Quantenmechanik und Teilchenlehre. Seine relativ erfolglosen Gespräche mit A. Einstein liessen ihn über das Gespräch - als Dialog - nachdenken.

Unter Mc.Carthy wurde verhaftet und verliess Amerika - er hat nie wieder dort gelehrt.

In Brasilien hatte er eine Professur in Sao Paulo, beschäftigte sich mit Kausalität, Determinismus, Zufall und nicht-linearen, chaotischen Prozessen. 1954 ging er nach Haifa in Israel, wo er seine spätere Frau Saral kennenlernte. Mit ihr zusammen ging er nach England, zuerst nach Bristol und später ans Birckbeck College in London, dort blieb er bis zu seinem Tod.

Das, was Bohm später "Dialoggruppen" nannte, lernte er selber kennen in einer Klinik während einer seiner depressiven Phasen, an denen er von Zeit zu Zeit litt. Ein Soziotherapeut namens Patrick de Mare bot solche Gruppen an, die anders waren als die damals üblichen Lern- oder Trainingsgruppen oder die psychologischen Selbsterfahrungsgruppen. Bohm entwickelte dieses Verfahren weiter und wollte es vor allem für die Wissenschaft nutzen. Sein Vorschlag war z.B., dass auf Kongressen nicht die hübsch geordneten und geglätteten Endresultate vorgestellt werden sollten, sondern dass die Vortragenden alle Zuhörenden teilhaben lassen sollten am Prozess ihres Denkens, ihrer Vorannahmen bezüglich des Themas, ihres Wegs zu den Ergebnissen - dieses Vorgehen würde eine gänzlich andere Art von Wissenschaft ergeben!

Folgerichtig fordert Bohm, dass "Propriozeption" (unsere Fähigkeit, auch mit geschlossenen Augen genau zu wissen, wo unsere Arme und Beine im Moment im Raum sind) uns offenbar im Bereich des Denkens fehlt und wir sie unbedingt dort einführen müssen. Diese Eigenwahrnehmung des Denkens (mitzubekommen, wie die Denkbewegung sich in uns vollzieht, wie Absicht, Ergebnis und Folgen des Denkens aussehen) kann sich in einem Dialog ereignen, wenn alle Beteiligten den Denkprozess verlangsamen, beobachten und öffentlich machen. Dem Denken auf die Spur zu kommen, und zwar dem individuellen und dem kollektiven, ist das erklärte Ziel der Dialoggruppen" (Ausschnitte aus Ch. Geiser).

Zitate / Anmerkungen

Eine Site über D. Bohm
Ein Einführungstext von Ch. Geiser
Einladung: Eine Site über Dialog



David Bohm's "Wholeness and Implicate Order" Although it may not provide direct answers to your questions I think you may find it quite interesting. Also note that Bohm was a friend of Krishnamurti who said "the observer is the observed". They both influenced each other.

DAVID BOHM ON MEANING, PURPOSE AND EXPLORATION IN DIALOGUE (edited with permission from tapes of an August 1990 conversation)

Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue is not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them directly. It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we are talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us and between us.

The word "dialogue" has many meanings and we are giving it a particular meaning. In this Dialogue we are not trying to make our points prevail or, if we are, we need to look at that. Our challenge is to see when each of us is trying to prevail, because if anybody prevails it means the dialogue has failed. Or, if we simply agree, the dialogue may also have failed because this means that we haven't gone deeply enough into the process or into the consciousness behind it. What begins to transform culture into something quite different is that ultimately the frustration or anger or rage or hatred that rises can lead to a crisis in which these feelings are transformed giving rise to impersonal fellowship - to thinking together and participating as if we were one body - by establishing a common consciousness. The group then becomes a kind of instrument of consciousness which can function differently.

It is essential to state the theory that this is what is possible. What I am saying is that a particular kind of dialogue is needed. But, as we talk together the question of what, if anything, its purpose is keeps arising. Sometimes we say that it should not have a purpose and sometimes we seem to say that it should. If we restrict the purpose too much it is clear we are going to be in trouble. None of the purposes is fixed because we find that as we go further into it the purpose begins to change; we discover a new purpose, and so on. So really, when we set a purpose, we set a purpose we set it only as a beginning, as a point of departure not as a purpose we hold to. This is the crucial point. We may at any moment have to have a purpose, but we are not holding to that purpose. Purpose flows out of significance and value and that's what we're exploring. We expect that meaning is going to change through our learning as we go along and therefore purpose changes naturally.

In Dialogue or in our own meditation, or whatever, the attitude is one of exploration and emptiness - that is, not having fixed assumptions but rather an empty space where there is the possibility of exploring all sorts of things. This is a proposal for exploration. But even this is not final. It too has to be constantly open to exploration - seeing whether the proposal, as made, is coherent. In other words, we're not even saying exploration is the answer. The purpose is constantly changing and flowing out of the meaning.

But we can't give the meaning in a nutshell. If everybody knew the meaning, we wouldn't need the Dialogue. The dialogue is not aimed at settling anything. We explore meaning together - the creative perception of meaning - thinking together and feeling together. But meaning is active. it is not merely sitting there. The consideration of this meaning may act - or it may not not. The whole point of having the Dialogue is that we're not trying to produce a result. That's very important. It may never do it. Or it may do it at some moment when we least expect it. The seed has been planted. And the meaning is naturally, spontaneously active and transformative.

gute kybernetische Differenz

Bohm was quite clear back when some of us made similar suggestions. He said that the dialogue could never start at the top with world leaders or poweful people, etc. But that it had to spread like grass roots. And what what we were doing was planting seed that would sprout when they found fertile soil.

As it turns out those seed began to sprout very quickly as tools for money making or business success which in retrospect seems logical because we live in a captalist culture. But if as I suggested it may be spreading beyon this. I have a friend who works in international relations and in peace building between nations. He, when he was around joine in a number of our dialogue and he has continued to make use of what he learned over these thirty or so years and he is not alone. He is will be stopping ove on Tuesday even on his way to Lybia, and after that i may be able to say more. But in the meantime I can only quote the I Ching, "Perseverance furthers."

Bohm was always quick to qualify and extend his intended meaning of "Dia Logos" (or "through the Word)" by adding "meaning." So for him "dialogue" was 'Through or by means of the meaning of the Word'. And then quickly again he would add that attention is given in dialogue to "what the meaning of the word is", but especially to "what the meaning of the word does" (throughout the larger system of thought).

"What the meaning of the word is" (which is the content of thought), and "what the meaning of the word does" (which is the function of thought) are concepts based on Bohm's "Active Information." The greatly larger energy [the somatic side of the soma-significant movement] is "informed" and activated (throughout) by the energetically far lesser, significant side (which is "the meaning of the word"). This movement is what is given attention in "dialogue."

Further, attention is given to the effects of meaning on the soma [matter], while attention is also given to how the somatic or bodily effects of the meaning ["meaning" being the 'significant' side of the movement], in its turn changes the "meaning of the word."

This attention and this awareness can begin to undo the legacy of "the mind/body or mind/matter" split (which is a split between subtle/manifest -- or signi/somatic -- the "split" however, not working nearly as well when using the latter terms).

It's unclear what 'terribly interested' might mean, but since Bohm refers to Greek Thought in all the books he published and in many papers and seminars; and since Heraclitus is the first philosopher known to have used the word logos; and since he gives attention to a line of thought 'around' Sophocles' notion of atomism (which I believe necessitates the use of Heraclitan Thought; and since according to Jacki he 'often quoted Heidegger who translates Heraclitus; and since science begins with the Greek language; and since he often refers to the origins of words, and since the Heraclitan notion is the origin of logos, I tend to believe he was quite aware of the significance of Heraclitan Thought as are many or perhaps most learned people


On page six of On Dialogue he mentions logos as meaning "the word" and then in apposition clarifies his intention. "Logos means "the word", or in our case we would think of 'the meaning of the word.'" Thus, one may interpret dialogos as through meaning or through the meaning of what words do.

People can sing together, dance together, make music together, etc but according to Bohm they seem to have problems talking together. So, Dialogue was set up precisely to explore the problems in the verbal domain. It's not about singing, dancing, painting or music; it's about talking (or writing). But not for the purpose of doing anything better, or improving things, rather the idea is to explore the nature of the complications. It's more like a research project; finding out why things go wrong by doing everything wrong (learn by doing). Bohm spoke of dialogue as a kind of "microcosm" of the larger culture.

Der Einfluß des Quantenpotentials, sagte Bohm, breite sich wie die Gravitation durch das ganze Universum aus, nehme aber – im Gegensatz zur Gravitation – mit der Entfernung nicht ab.

David Bohm, obwohl anfänglich ein Anhänger der Kopenhagener Deutung, war je länger je mehr nicht mehr überzeugt, daß sich die physikalische Forschung in der Erkenntnis des dualen Wesens der materiellen Elementarteilchen erschöpfe. Ab 1952 veröffentlichte Bohm mehrere Artikel, in denen er verschiedene intuitive Modelle vorschlug, die gleichzeitig eine physikalische Revolution und eine physikalische Todsünde enthielten.

Bohms Ansatz war eigentlich ganz einfach: Zwei Ereignisse können sehr wohl aufeinander einwirken, ohne direkt miteinander verbunden zu sein, nämlich dann, wenn sie über eine übergeordnete oder tiefgründigere Struktur verbunden sind. Bohm sprach von einem „Quantenpotential“ oder von einer Führungswelle, die alle Quantenstrukturen (Felder, Atome und subatomare Partikel) verbinden. Der Einfluß des Quantenpotentials, sagte Bohm, breite sich wie die Gravitation durch das ganze Universum aus, nehme aber – im Gegensatz zur Gravitation – mit der Entfernung nicht ab; deshalb sei es sehr wohl möglich, daß es Dinge gibt, die synchron (nicht-lokal und akausal) geschehen, denn sie seien über den gemeinsamen Urgrund miteinander verbunden. Für die konventionelle Physik, die einen solchen hypothetischen Urgrund nicht akzeptieren kann, stellt die Annahme der synchronen Verbindung eine absurde Behauptung dar, denn diese Annahme setzt voraus, daß Quantenpartikel untereinander Informationen „superluminal“ (mit Überlichtgeschwindigkeit) austauschen können! Und das ist eine Todsünde, denn mit Albert Einstein hatte die moderne Physik postuliert und akzeptiert, daß die Lichtgeschwindigkeit die höchstmögliche materielle Geschwindigkeit sei. Aber als Bohm dennoch das Eis der Lokalität und Kausalität brach, dauerte es nicht mehr lange, bis ein anderer Physiker, John Bell, die Realität dieses Mysteriums experimentell nachwies (1964).