Click here to view the embedded video.

David Bohm on Thought:

Thought has developed traditionally in a way that claims not to be affecting anything but just telling you the way things are. Therefore people can not see that they are creating a problem and then apparently trying to solve it.

The ecology has not in itself a problem, it works perfectly well by itself. It’s due to us. That’s a problem because we are thinking in a certain way, by breaking everything up and each person is doing his own thing. Therefore the ecological problem is due to thought.

Thought thinks it is a problem out there and I must solve it. Now that doesn’t make sense because simultaneously thought is doing all the activities which make the problem and then does another set of activities to try to overcome it.

David Bohm on thought in Art, Science and Spritituality / Music from Wagner’s Parsifal / More Videos / More David Bohm Blogposts

Related posts:

1. The Difference between Thinking and Thought
2. The Form and Content of Thought
3. Thought is about Becoming, not Being
4. A Coherent Approach to Reality
5. An Experiment with Language and Thought

Click here to view the embedded video.

David Bohm on Coherence and Consciousness:

If we can have a coherent approach to reality, then reality will respond coherently to us.

But nature has been tremendously affected by our way of thinking. There is very little left on earth, that isn’t affected by how we were thinking.

The major source of unhappiness is that we are incoherent and therefore produce results that we don’t really want. And then, trying to overcome them, we keep on producing them.

We need a period of emptiness and quiet where we can go into this.

Wholeness will arise between us all, in participation rather than separation. We are internally, not externally, related to everything by consciousness. Consciousness is an internal relationship to the whole.

David Bohm about coherence from Art, Science and Spirituality / Music from Schubert’s 8th Symphony (Unvollendete) / Image Source / More videos / More David Bohm Blogposts

Related posts:

1. More Power Needs More Coherence
2. The Difference between Thinking and Thought
3. Thought Thinks the Problem is Out There
4. Recognizing Patterns from an Underlying Reality
5. The Artist and the Scientist in Dialogue with the World

Recently I listened to an interview with the very intriguing title: Is Consciousness Energy?

The title made me really curious, as I have been wondering about that for a long time now.

It is an interview of Dean Radin with Christian de Quincey, whose final conclusion is that consciousness is not the same as energy. But it is really very subtle because although they are not the same, they are on the other hand inseparable.

My overall feeling was that the conclusions are more or less the same as those of David Bohm. What he meant when he talked about the mind like quality of an electron, and the responds of energy to information.

I transcribed the whole interview, but here in this post, I want to distill some parts that I think are an extension of what David Bohm was talking about. De Quincey goes into great detail about the subtle differences and similarities between consciousness and energy.

Here he starts by what in the world around us has some kind of consciousness and what does not. And where exactly lies the difference. He uses the word consciousness on many levels, from very basic, as he says molecular, to very high, what he calls, Buddha consciousness.

Cellular and molecular consciousness

He answers the question of a guest, who asks if he thinks that plants and rocks have consciousness.

Yes, I would say that a plant has consciousness and certainly the cells of the plant have cellular consciousness. I would say that the rock as a rock does not have rock consciousness, but that the particles, the molecules within the rock do have their own molecular consciousness. So there is some consciousness at work within the rock, but the rock as a whole is not a unity, is not an individual in the way an organism like an animal or a plant is an individual. And the rock is .. it is an aggregate of parts that don’t have the internal relatedness that I talked about earlier. So there is no unified consciousness that we call rock consciousness. And I would say that the same applies to computers and thermostats and .. and at this state .. probably the internet as well .. they don’t have that degree of internal relatedness.

So the internal relatedness of the particles is important. Are they static (rock) or selforganizing (plant).

Sharing meaning is not the same as exchanging energy

Here the question was if he thinks that the internet can be seen as conscious.

I am open to that possibility but I am inclined that a part of me that thinks that will not happen because there is something to do with the relationship between the components that involves what philosophers call internal relatedness. That they are not just related to physical inactions but there is a sharing of meaning involved, there is an internal relatedness. And that is one of, to me, fundamental differences between the experiencing living organism and a machine is that the parts that make up our internally related, that they are sharing meaning between each other. Not just exchanging energy. Which kind of brings us back to the initial topic of our talk, is consciousness .. to make a distinction between those two. I would say that machines operate through mechanisms, conscious beings operate by sharing of meaning. Sharing of meaning is not the same as exchanging energy.

So there is a mechanical sharing and a sharing of meaning. This also touches on what David Bohm talked about with creativity, dialogue and active information.

Different language for energy and for consciousness

The following is very important, but at the same time very difficult to grasp. In order to understand it, it has to be separated, but that is at the same time the problem because it is so interconnected.

Dean Radin: Could you elaborate on that, because the idea of, especially the idea of exchanging energy, there are ways from physics we can think of exchanging energy through forces, but there is also a related way which is simply the transmission of information. A transmission of information occurs through patterning of energy, a modulation of energy so that even information devolves in a sense down energy as well. So what is the, the question of our seminar, is consciousness energy.

Christian de Quincey: No, I would say that consciousness is not energy. However consciousness and energy always get together. And energy is like a technical way of talking about embodiment. Bodies are made of energy. And in my view consciousness and embodiment, consciousness and energy always go together. You never have one without the other. So they .. unity. But they are not identical. Their unity does not equal identity. So consciousness is non located, it is non physical, energy is located and it is physical. Those are fundamental distinctions between consciousness and energy.

Energy is something that moves through space, consciousness doesn’t exist in space. There is a very different kind of existence .. energy that exists in space. That’s really the fundamental distinction that .. and .. to use the language of energy of vibrations and frequencies and waves and fields to talk about consciousness, I am proposing is using inappropriate language .. energy talk to something that is not energy which is consciousness.

So we need to, I am proposing that we need to catch ourselves .. what I call the physics .. using energy talk when we want to discuss consciousness .. using terms like fields and vibrations or mechanisms, waves, that we use the already very rich language which we have by discussing mind and consciousness, words such as tension, attention, purpose, meaning, desire, experience, feeling, awareness and on and on. We already have a very, very rich vocabulary for discussing consciousness. And non of those terms can be reduced to our .. energy talk, like waves or fields or vibrations.

So basically requesting or proposing that we catch ourselves when we use energy talk, when talking about consciousness, and instead we use our very rich language we already have, talking about consciousness. I think I might have drifted off a little bit from the question about the consciousness .. energy but those are .. considerations that I have .. consciousness is not a form of energy, energy that .. exists in space and consciousness is something that doesn’t .. the bottom line.

So consciousness is non-local, non-physical and does not travel through space. As he says somewhere else in the interview, it can only be grasped by another conscious being.

Non-dual dualism

Here he uses the concept non-dual dualism, which I think explains well what he means to say.

Dean Radin: Did I hear you right .. saying that they are related?

Christian de Quincey: Yes.

Dean Radin: So if they are related and they are so different from each other, it sounds like dualism.

Christian de Quincey: It does sound like dualism, except dualism .. basically is the idea that two different and separable kinds of reality exist, but what I am proposing is that .. an non dual dualism .. dual aspects .. in philosophy that there is definitely a distinction .. fundamental distinction to be made between consciousness and energy. However, having that distinction is not saying they are separate. So consciousness and energy .. always go together, they form a unity. But they are not the same.

This is also what I understood from David Bohm, who talks about the mind-like quality of the electron in part 3 of this interview.

Related posts:

1. Patterns of Meaning that Develop over Time
2. Is our World Dualistic after all?
3. Consciousness Discussions
4. Information Exchange
5. Subconscious or Psyche

In Three Levels of the Mind I used three signs, to symbolise the primordial, individual and universal mind.

In that context, all three together represent the conscious mind.

In my previous post, Subconscious or Psyche, three other signs represent the subconscious mind.

That part of all knowledge that is not consciously known, but largely influences all of our actions and thoughts.

On the page Unconscious Mind I collected some different views on that part of our ‘consciousness’.

In my previous post I also explored some different words to decide which one would be best to use in the context of this blog. For the moment I will choose ‘subconsious’  to see how that works.

Besides that, I am using my basic model to name the areas for each subconscious part.

Cancer (4) falls in the ‘primordial‘ part, but also in a part that can be called ‘personal inside‘.

The next sign, Scorpio (8), falls in the ‘individual‘ part, but besides that, in a part that can be called ‘collective inside‘.

And finally the last sign, pisces (12), falls in the ‘universal‘ part and also in the part ‘collective exterior‘.


4. Primordial Subconscious

Nurturing, support, emotional bonding, belonging, roots, source. Ground of your being. The unconscious, feelings, emotion, first emotional attachments to the world. Mothering, emotional and physical nurturing.

Experiences and imprinting during infancy and childhood. Family, ancestors, heritage, relationships to the past. Belonging, feeling at home, caring.

Feeling supported, that needs are provided for. Insecurities and fears if your needs haven’t been fulfilled.


8. Individual Subconscious

Transformation, change, ego-death, rebirth, transcendence. Intense emotional involvement with the process of personal growth. Movement from individual certainties to the mysteries of life. Spirit breaking through the limitations of  the individual ego.

Intense, passionate, brooding, magnetic, unyielding, driven by emotions. Stands up for self, usually covertly, manipulates power. Understands deeper layers of the psyche beyond the ego, unable to communicate this well leading to misunderstandings.

Intrigued by the dark side of life. The underground, people whose job involves going beneath surface appearances. Breaking free of illusory limitations. Self-mastery.


12. Universal Subconsious

Surrender to the universe, to higher goals, ego sacrifice. Compassion and empathy, selfless work. Seeing the unity of all things. The end of cycles, forming seeds for the next cycle of growth.

Mysticism, fails to make normal distinctions. Laziness, victim, martyr, servant. Tends to escapism. Fantasy, drugs, alcohol, religion. Very receptive, sensitive, even psychic. Co-dependency, care-taking.


Psyche, Shadow and Collective unconscious

Somehow I think the first two (4 and 8) are what Freud and Jung would call the ‘psyche’, the second (8) what Jung would call the ‘shadow’ and the last (12) what Jung would call the ‘collective unconscious’.

Related posts:

1. Subconscious or Psyche
2. Three Levels of the Mind
3. Collective Unconscious
4. Individuation Process 1
5. Basic Concepts

I was going to write about the different forms of subconscious.

But before I could get anything done, there was this very first problem already.

Should I use the word subconsious, or is it better to use the word unconscious? What is actually the difference?

Then I thought, okay what do I mean to describe?

Again that led me back to the whole mind versus matter issue. And the very basic thoughts about that from Jean Carteret, that I put on the page Language and Psyche.

Carteret uses the words language and psyche to describe the opposites of matter and energy. And according to him, language is to the psyche what matter is to energy. With one difference, energy is active where the psyche is passive.

But like energy has another side of the coin (matter), the psyche also has another side (language).

So Carteret uses language, but I had been thinking if maybe I could better use the word  concepts. I am going to investigate that further in another blogpost, but here in this post I want to find a word for the psyche (or unconscious or subconscious) part of the model.

Maybe psyche would be a good word, but that word is mainly used for the individual inner life. And that was only part of what I mean to describe.

I also mean, what Jung calls, the collective unconscious. And that might not be covered by the word psyche.

And I mean the emotions in our childhood that actually belong to others. Maybe they also could be called psyche, but it is that what is not our own at first, what we picked up as a child from the environment.

I could call them primordial, individual and universal psyche (according to the zodiac signs cancer, scorpio and pisces) but I am not sure if that would cover the whole of subconscious (or unconscious).

So I was wondering if there was a word that would cover it all better. I have been using soul which worked rather well. But somehow it does not seem to be the best word.

In a recent discussion someone used the word information and somehow that seemed perfect. I do not know exactly why yet, because information is used in many ways but not when someone means unconscious, subconscious, psyche or emotion.

But together with concepts, it seems to fit well. It is only that information in this sense is just that, all the information that is out there and all the information that is within each of us. Nothing packaged, just being there to be intepreted.

And that is what the concepts are for. Concepts as packages of information. The packages that can be communicated with others.

But before that it is just information. Information that translates into emotions. That translates into the psyche. And that also translates into dreams.

That what lays beneath every form of consciousness.

Related posts:

1. Three Subconscious Levels
2. Focus vs Context and Language vs Psyche
3. Collective Unconscious
4. The Form and Content of Thought
5. Individuation Process 1

After my previous post about different types of discussions I got to think there have to be some differentiations already. But they are likely not just all called discussion. So what other forms of discussion are there?

After some searching I found that the most characteristic forms are debate and dialogue.

I was not sure what exactly the difference was between them, so I decided to take some existing definitions (here and here) and put them together in this post. That way I can compare them and see what I like and dislike about each.

Polarising or Collaborating

Debate is competitive and or oppositional, two or more opposing sides try to prove each other wrong.

Dialogue is collaborative, cooperative, multiple sides work toward a shared understanding.

Counter or Listen

In debate one listens to find flaws, to spot differences, and to counter arguments.

In dialogue, one listens to understand, to make meaning and to find common ground.

Closed or Open

Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right.

Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude, an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.

Defend or Reflect

In debate one submits one’s best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.

In dialogue, one submits ones best thinking, expecting that other people’s reflections will help improve it rather than threaten it.

Invest or Suspend

Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs.

Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending of one’s beliefs.

Belittle or Respect

Debate rebuts contrary positions and may belittle or deprecate other participants.

Dialogue respects all the other participants and seeks not to alienate or offend.

One or Many

Debate assumes a single right answer that somebody already has.

Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of answers and that cooperation can lead to a greater understanding.

Convergent or Divergent

Debate is convergent.

Dialogue is divergent.

Winning or Common ground

In debate winning is the goal.

In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal.

Critique or Introspect

Debate causes critique of the other position.

Dialogue causes introspection on one’s own position.

Own or Other

Debate defends ones own position as the best solution and excludes other solutions.

Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions.

Conclusion or Open-end

Debate demands a conclusion.

Dialogue remains open-ended.

Flaws or Strenghts

In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position.

In dialogue, one searches for strengths in the other positions.

Disapprove or Concern

Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and of the belittles or deprecates the other person.

Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend.

It is already getting more clear what I do and do not like so much about each. Actually I quite like debates. I like to differentiate further if necessary. And from the dialogue I especially like the suspending of a belief.

But there are several things I absolutely do not like about debates. But there are also several things I do not like so much about dialogues. At least about the definitions as they are stated here.

So I think I would like a form which combines both. The open mind and respect of the dialogue combined with the critical and opposing nature of the debate.

Related posts:

1. The Artist and the Scientist in Dialogue with the World
2. Dialogue as Creating Something New Together
3. Collective Sharing of Individual Knowledge
4. Creating Something New Together
5. Consciousness Discussions

These last days I have been discussing consciousness. I really like to discuss that. What is consciousness, how is it created, are animals conscious? Just one of my favorite subjects to discuss.

But also one of the most difficult ones. Because in order to discuss something we need consciousness itself. We need some level of consciousness to be able to discuss something.

So maybe it is an idea to look at discussions instead of at consciousness itself. And instead of exploring if there are different kinds of consciousness, to see if there are different kinds of discussions.

First there are discussions that just can interact about everything. Using the language we learned at schools, got from books and read in the newspaper. We can discuss the weather, discuss what is happening in the world and so on.

At that point no one needs strong opinions, just use what we learned, heard or just read somewhere. All that needs is information that we got delivered in packages by others.

Lets call the consciousness that is needed for this kind of discussions consciousness A.

The second kind of discussions are those that DO involve opinions. I will call the consciousness that is needed for that kind of discussion consciousness B.

If there is as discussion that involves opinions, there immediately emerges an huge problem. Where does that opinion come from. As long as we define it clearly as being an opinion it does not have to be a problem.

But the biggest problem with opinions is that people have the idea that their opinion has a certain truth to it. Which might make this kind of discussions, the ones with consciousness B, very heated at times. Because at some point they touch upon the worldview of the participants.

And have no other way then getting stuck at some point.

So this is where consciousness C comes in. Which I would call ego consciousness. Which is different from the other forms because it can not leave out personal experience.

It is a consciousness where the individual combines internal and external information, personal experience with universal knowledge.

So maybe that asks for a fourth kind of discussion, lets call that a discussion with consciousness D, a discussion that seperates universal and personal knowledge, but does not find one more important than the other.

Just uses other measurements to value both.

Related posts:

1. Debate or Dialogue
2. Creating my own Webspace
3. Blogging with Discussion
4. Collective Sharing of Individual Knowledge
5. Critical about Criticism

Just now I looked at my previous post Individual Language again and I suddenly realised something.

I mentioned several theories and ever so many people that came up with those theories. But no matter how important those theories are (in general, but especially in the purpose of this blog) there is one theorie that is even more essential.

Well, maybe it is more than one theory, but if so, they are all from one person. Someone who has become so essential for my thinking that I even forgot to mention him. All his theories and concepts are so integrated in my thinking, that I just forgot to mention his name.

Maybe because all the people I did mention (Maslow, Bohm, Wilber, Carteret) are themselves so largely influenced by him, that I did not think about writing about him separately.

That man, who came up with the concepts that all others are talking about. Concepts like Self, Ego, Consciousness, Collective Unconscious, Archetypes, Shadow and so on.

His name is Carl Jung.

Actually all those concepts he introduced, are those I constantly use in my working with the Zodiac. I think all those concepts have some place in the Zodiac and in this blogpost I want to start with one of those concepts.

One that is very important but not very well recognised. One that is very controversial because it is not measurable and therefore more or less denied.

It is called Collective Unconscious.

Just as all humans share a common physical heritage and predisposition towards specific gross physical forms, so do all humans have innate psychological predispositions in the form of archetypes, which compose the collective unconscious.

This Collective Unconscious that is very similar to the last sign of the Zodiac, pisces.

The Zodiac is divided in a Primordial, Individual and Universal part. And each of them has, what can be called, a Conscious and Unconscious part. The airsigns can be seen as mind or Consciousness. A primordial mind (gemini), individual mind (libra) and a universal mind (aquarius).

But the watersigns can be seen as Unconsious or soul.

Emotions
There is a Primordial Unconscious that can be translated with feelings or emotions that arise in childhood. It is similar to the sign cancer.

Psyche
Then there is the Individual Unconscious that can be seen as the psyche. The repressed part of the Self, the part that is not always well known. That part that might not seem to be part of the individual and is projected on the outside world. That what also can be called the Shadow.

That part is similar to the sign scorpio.

Myths
And finally there is the Universal part that can be seen as some kind of Unconscious that is seen in myths, stories, fairytales and dreams. That everyone recognises although it might not be part of their own experience.

That part is similar to the sign pisces and can also be seen as, what Jung calls, the Collective Unconscious.

Related posts:

1. Individuation Process 1
2. Individuation Process 2
3. Subconscious or Psyche
4. Three Subconscious Levels
5. Collective Sharing of Individual Knowledge