Direct all comments and EMAIL
to Don:
On the fragmentation between the content of thought and its function from ON CREATIVITY, David Bohm.
66 " … while the content of thought may be either "real" or
"unreal," its function is nevertheless always real. This function is,
first, to give meaning and shape to perception by calling attention to what is
regarded as relevant or essential in the context of interest and, second, to
give rise to feelings and urges that promote actions appropriate to the
context, i.e., it contains what may be called motivation."
68
"So the main function of a language symbol is not to stand for or
represent an object to which it corresponds. Rather, it initiates a total movement
of memory, imagery, ideas, feelings, and reflexes, which serves to order
attention to and direct action in a new mode that is not possible without the
use of such symbols. Thus, when man generally failed to observe how these
symbols actually functioned in the way described above, he fell into a
widespread and deep confusion that interfered with proper attention and
awareness in every aspect of his life."
99 "It is clear, then, that one cannot actually observe a "self" that can be sharply distinguished from the total environment. Rather, in every aspect of his being, the boundary of an individual man is to be compared with that of a city -- in the sense that it can be at times a useful abstraction, but that it is not a description of a real break or division in "what is." And, ultimately, the same is true of the boundary of anything.
"And thus one can see that the notion of identity of each thing is also
only a convenient abstraction which is, as it were, a complement to the notion
that different things can be abstracted as separately existent. The word
"identity" comes from the roots "id" and
"entity," which show its meaning: "the same being." Thus,
one may think that, in essence, each thing remains "always the same as it
was." This notion is especially common with regard to the
"self," which is generally supposed to have a permanent identity.
Indeed, so strong is the belief in this identity that when people feel that
they are losing it or do not know what it is they may
experience a sense of profound disturbance, which has been described in
literature as a need to search for "one's lost identity."
100-101"However, as has been seen, the notion that the "self" is an abstraction from a whole movement, which thus has only a certain relative similarity or constancy or form and pattern of behavior, is what fits the actual facts of the case when these are looked at carefully. The generally prevailing impression that the "self" actually has an identity can, in fact, be seen to arise in the automatic and habitual function of metaphysical thought. As pointed out earlier, this function is such as to project the content of the metaphysics into our overall experience as an illusion of perceived reality, actual feeling, and universal truth. In this projection, the abstract divisions of our metaphysical thought are seen as a break-up of the whole field of existence into separate fragments, while the union of what is inside the divisions is seen as a permanent and unchanging identification of the nature of each fragment."
LAY:Is Bohm
saying that self is illusion, Maya - as some Eastern thinkers say? No, Bohm is
indicating that self has no identity, no sameness (See page 99 above).
That is, what you are is real! It is just that there is a problem identifying
self.
Bohm says that identity means sameness. Saying the word, "I", to indicate sameness creates a problem because we ask sameness with what? If we say the word, I, is the same as an image experienced by the speaker, further problems arise regarding the sameness with imagery because imagery is so fleeting.
Why bother identifying in the first place? Perhaps, as indicated in
THOUGHT AS A SYSTEM, people create good feelings when they identify; so, they
do it over and over like a rat pressing a pleasure bar
in a psychology experiment.
What if self-identity is only a mental experience, only
fantasy? Certainly the material separated self is only
fantasy, mental rather than physical, because it can be
proven that matter is not separated.
What does this mean? Maybe it means that when you think about self, you
are only using imagery to create good feelings.
Maybe it means that fewer problems occur when identity is
avoided. Of course, when the police stop you and asks for identity, it
is not the time to discuss this. Perhaps that is the time to remember that
identifying as a person started in
When ought one not identify? If or when
they are killing Christians, it might not be safe to identify or claim sameness
with Christianity unless you wish to die as a martyr. Maybe it is OK to lie to
stay alive.
What about identifying to or with your self? Is it all a mental exercise
to create good feeling?