David Bohm (original) (raw)
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.
Primary Sources
(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.