Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm.
Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into
them. I cannot resort to ancient (?) thinkers: our knowledge is evolving.
Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and
their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude - and change the
continuation of anything?
It all comes from my agnosticism: we know so little and don't knwo so much.
Some newer knowledge infiltrates our base - in adjusted format, of course,
how our primitive mindset of today can apply it - but our knowledge-base
does grow.
That means my disregard for 'older' thoughts (e.g. of yesterday...).
I am on the basis of "I don't know".

In another line there was mention of statistical analysis.
*Statistics* is (IMO) a no-no, it is upon our arbitrary (present?)
norderlines within which we COUNT te appropriate items. As we gather new
information the borderlines change and our statistics becomes irrelevant.
*Analytics*, however, is restricted to the (present?) inventory of
structural etc. parts in our (statistically applied?) system of a presently
KNOWN composition. The real results may be ingenious, but insufficient:
restsricted to today's knowledge.

I leave my doubts on the 'anticipatory' for tomorrow.

John M

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:

> On 02.09.2013 20:41 meekerdb said the following:
>  On 9/2/2013 10:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>> On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:
>>>> Unconditioned=random works.
>>> I do not think so. I would say that
>>> If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it would be
>>> foolish for us to try to do anything with the conditioning.
>> ?? How do you conclude that?  Just because there is something Bohm
>> calls "the unconditioned" doesn't mean there is not also
>> conditioning, which may modify the unconditioned (=random).
> I am in the middle of the book, so I cannot tell you exactly what would
> Bohm say. The answer was mine.
> If I have understood Bohm correctly, he believes that we can somewhat
> influence the thought process. Along this way however, I doubt that random
> process will help. My logic is close to that of Rex Allen
> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list/t/**5ab5303cdb696ef5<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/5ab5303cdb696ef5>
> Yet, I did not want to say that this is Bohm's opinion. If I find
> something to this end in his book, I will let you know.
> Evgenii
>> My point is just that if you go thru the excerpts below and
>> substitute "random" for "unconditioned" everywhere then the meaning
>> is unchanged. Bohm says, "If everything is conditioned there's no way
>> out."  I don't know where he thinks "out" is, but if somethings are
>> random then he can get there.
>> Brent
>>> Evgenii
>>>> Brent
>>>> On 9/1/2013 6:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>>>> I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes
>>>>> below to the theme that is quite often under discussion here.
>>>>> Evgenii
>>>>> p.  72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even
>>>>> though, as I said, that by itself won’t really change the
>>>>> reflexes. But if we don’t think of it clearly then all our
>>>>> attempts to get into this will go wrong. Clear thinking implies
>>>>> that we are in some way awakened a little bit. Perhaps there is
>>>>> something beyond the reflex which is at work – in other words,
>>>>> something unconditioned.”
>>>>> p. 72 “The question is really: is there the unconditioned? If
>>>>> everything is conditioned, then there’s no way out. But the
>>>>> very fact that we are sometimes able to see new things would
>>>>> suggest that there is unconditioned. Maybe the deeper material
>>>>> structure of the brain is unconditioned, or maybe beyond.”
>>>>> p. 72 “If there is the unconditioned, which could be the
>>>>> movement of intelligence, then there is some possibility of
>>>>> getting into this.”
>>>>> p. 73 “If we say that there cannot be the unconditioned, then
>>>>> it would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
>>>>> conditioning. Is that clear?”
>>>>> p. 72 “If we once assume that there cannot be the
>>>>> unconditioned, then we’re stuck. On the other hand, if we
>>>>> assume that there is the unconditioned, again we are going to
>>>>> be stuck – we will produce an image of the unconditioned in the
>>>>> system of conditioning, and mistake the image for the
>>>>> unconditioned. Therefore, let’s say that there may be the
>>>>> unconditioned. We leave room for that. We have to leave room in
>>>>> our thought for possibilities.”
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to 
> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> .
> Visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>
> .
> For more options, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
> .

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to