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. Regards John M On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi <[email protected]> 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%[email protected]> > . > To post to this group, send email to > everything-list@googlegroups.**com<[email protected]> > . > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
