Bohm
Yes. Well, I think, then, we’ve all been together for this hour now. I think the first point would be to have the representatives report briefly. I think this microphone is not—since I took the tie off, it doesn’t fit properly. Can you raise it, please, from here? Put it closer. Is that better? Right. So then—okay.
Audience
Well, I’ll—
Audience
Michael, you want me to record, since I took the notes?
Audience
Good idea.
Audience
Group four struggled a little bit. We started out with David Bohm in the room with us, and we began looking at the possibility of looking at a deeper conditioning. That was the first question that was asked. How does one go about doing that? Then we began asking questions such as: is it possible to get to a point in one’s inquiry where problems become easier and easier to resolve? And it seems like at that point we were really beginning to slow down. Someone asked: where does insight come from? And we were all trying to find a question we could center around.
And suddenly the topic of dialogue versus discussion came up, and we kept inquiring about how does one go about having a dialogue and not a discussion, and what is the difference between the two? And at that point, someone said that this meeting was really pretty artificial; that we had all kind of contrived it, and it was very difficult to contrive a true dialogue, and difficult to get going. And, believe it or not, at that point it was time for Dr. Bohm to leave, and he informed us at that point that there is an art to having a dialogue, and that art comes—I don’t think I remember exactly, but the etymology of it is form—
Bohm
To fit. Conjoin.
Audience
To fit. And the etymology of the word “natural” is to be born. And so I think he was indicating that we needed to perhaps look at the art of having a dialogue.
So he left, and we began doing that, I think. And we started trying to discuss what it means for us to come together. And someone suggested that maybe the reason we should come together is because mankind is facing imminent catastrophe. And maybe fear would be a good reason for coming together.
But that didn’t seem to go too far, and all of a sudden everyone realized that everyone has this problem all the way around the world. And it’s very difficult for people to communicate with one another. And it seemed to be so evident in the group.
And at that point a few observations were starting to be made: that small groups of people can do it, why can’t a larger group of 15 or 18 or 20 people begin to communicate and have a dialogue? And someone mentioned that, most of the time, the way we get together in a group is that someone like David Bohm or Krishnamurti comes along and guides the group and tells us how to act, maybe how to play the piano, or maybe tells us how to do a certain activity. At any rate, we went from there, again, discussing what it is that gets in the way, and we did talk a little bit about dispositions.
And from that point someone mentioned—and this was suddenly brought out with emotion, and it was a pretty good moment in the meeting—that discussion is really defending walls. And it’s end-oriented—orientate, I think, was the word that was used—and discussion is political. And then we said true dialogue changes your viewpoint, and that listening is very, very important.
And someone mentioned that they thought the discussion was sharing knowledge, while dialogue is sharing insight or coming to insights. And also, someone mentioned maybe we need or we get the energy because we have a great interest in communicating with one another, and coming together with a great deal of interest maybe to talk.
And I think we ended with a gentleman making the statement that he felt inspired by the seminar. The reason why is because he’d been reading the books by David Bohm and Mr. Krishnamurti and others for quite a while, and he felt like there was a lot of commonality of thinking among a larger and larger population of people all around the world. And that inspired him and made him feel that we all needed to work together and communicate together as members of this group. And another gentleman quickly stated: no, it’s the undifferentiated whole of mankind. It’s all of everyone. Not just us, but everyone on this planet that needs to communicate.
And the last statement was, I believe, Dr. Bohm compared violence to false meaning. And I think his point was: we have difficulty overcoming our own inner violence to communicate with one another.
Audience
Not violence. Virus. He was talking about virus.
Audience
I’m sorry?
Audience
Virus.
Audience
Virus? Oh, I’m sorry. I misinterpreted.
Audience
The one element, too, that Booth didn’t touch on was: in a true dialogue, there needed to be the element of not knowing: that if we came with a viewpoint of thinking we had the answer and that we knew, then it didn’t seem to happen. So there had to be an element of not knowing.
Bohm
Well, then, what we usually do is to continue to finish reports from all three groups and discuss it.
Audience
We were in group five, and unfortunately I didn’t know we were going to have to do a summary, so I didn’t take any notes. I had a quick discussion with David on the way out. We sort of agreed that our group was most interested perhaps in the word “concealment.” We started out by questioning what is direct perception, and then other points of view were raised, but it seemed as though there was some concern amongst the members of the group that it is a possibility for us to think that we know something or perceive something, and yet we’re making a mistake.
And then we discussed a bit about concealment, and why do we conceal, and what is it that drives us to conceal? Why do we want to be so right? And is there something underneath this whole idea of concealment, this process, if we had some perception of it, which would be helpful to us?
I think maybe some other members of the group would want to add something to the summary. But I think, in a word, it was the idea of concealment.
Audience
Well, in the group number six there were a number of topics that we went on into, some more deeply than others. One of the initial points raised was: is it possible to come to a discussion with 18 people (like we had in that room) free of a motive? And so we talked about that a bit, and there seemed to be some different feelings about that. Some people felt that perhaps we do in fact do that, and maybe we could look at what that meant to do it, rather than assume that we’d have to come without them.
So we talked about that a bit, and then we tried to find out what was a common thread, something that we all could talk about together. And the topic that emerged from that more than anything was initially sparked by the word “suffering,” and sort of shifted a bit to the notion of isolation. And we stuck with the issue of isolation pretty much throughout the thirty minutes or so that were left in that period that we had. Let me try to outline a bit some of the things that we said.
We discussed, of course, that there’s physical and psychological isolation, and that in some cases they may be different, in some cases they may not. And one person suggested that the isolation that we experience comes from having barriers; that the existence of barriers that we create or that exist in actuality—physically and/or psychologically—are one of the sources of the isolation that we experience.
And the question was raised: do I choose to be isolated? And one of the responses to that was: not really, it’s handed to me. I inherit this quality of isolation. It was suggested that another aspect that contributes to isolation is pretty deep-rooted culturally. That, in sort of the anthropology or archaeology of the situation, culture pushes people into conformity. But at the same time there’s a drive for individuality, and that this results also in isolation. So all these factors figure into it
But then other people felt still we had not really touched the root—or, as this person put it, the generative source of what this isolation is. And I’m not sure that we ever got to that point of really discussing what the generating quality of the isolation might be.
And then David came to our discussion last. And the first thing that he mentioned was that, in discussing this notion of isolation, we have to be very careful in the way that we talk about it, because it can become self-fulfilling. That if we say that this is the way it is, and that if we say it in the wrong way, that it will only perpetuate itself. Correct me if I’m misstating this.
And so we discussed that for a bit; how the words that you use, they feed back into your whole disposition. And that how you describe what you think or feel about something, the language is more powerful than it might appear—both in terms of reinforcing dispositions, I assume, individually and collectively, in terms of what you were saying. Maybe other people have something to add to that. That’s sort of what I got from the meeting.
Audience
Lee, can you explain a little bit why you got into this question of isolation, and what was the connection with the seminar after this point?
Audience
Yes. We were trying to find a common thread. Something that we could talk about in that group of 18 that, right from the beginning, was common. And the more we talked, the more the notion of isolation—the fact that we were sitting in that room together, and feeling tense and nervous and inhibited (in other words, isolated), that this was something one person was bold enough to point that out, that they were feeling that way. And then we discussed the fact that that was rather ironic, because we were all feeling that way, right? So that’s what sparked that.
Bohm
Well, I don’t know what the best procedure would be. See, one question I would like to ask before we start is: do people feel that these separate sessions are worthwhile? Is it worth going on with another one? That’s one question. What’s the general feeling?
Audience
I think people did not know what to do in the group. At least I did not know what the purpose and aim was. If we knew what to do, I think it would have been better.
Bohm
Yes.
Audience
I think part of what goes on is the discovery of how to begin a dialogue in a group, and not having any direction to begin with is probably the only way you can start off.
Bohm
Yes, that seems a good point, yeah.
Audience
Well, it’s been the first time in a long time that I’ve sat in a room with 15 people that I was intending to have some openness with and to see what happened. And that, to me, that’s a pretty valuable thing, because that seems to me to be the root of the whole problem.
Bohm
All right. Anybody else have any comments?
Audience
It seemed like people in our group, by the time we finished, people were contributing—people who didn’t even speak in this room—and that was valuable.
Bohm
Yes, that is one point that should be noticed: that however much difficulty you may find with 18 people, it’s enormously greater with 54 people. And that is a psychological fact, you see; that a tremendous number of people has a very powerful effect, either inhibiting or the other way. For example, it has the effect of a sort of conscience, you see. If you feel that 54 people disapprove of you, it’s far worse than feeling…! So that is one point: that the larger the group, the harder it is.
But, on the other hand, the larger the group, the more important it is to have this. I mean, because the group mind is more powerful, and that can be very negative; it can be a mob situation or something like the Nuremberg rallies. But if we have a group mind where everybody is friendly and where the group is clear, then perhaps something new could come into being.
Audience
Well, it definitely seemed more possible in a smaller group to communicate in a bit more of an open way. I mean, I myself felt a bit more comfortable in a smaller group.
Audience
But it seemed to get more personal also.
Audience
Did it?
Audience
I felt.
Audience
Well, that was a good point of question, too, because we began questioning that. And out of that came something, I feel, that was revealing. When we discussed looking at the thing in a larger sense, as Joe was pointing out. So that was valuable, I feel.
Audience
The size of the group determining the closing down or the opening up of somebody indicates to me that a person has fear, because they don’t want to be intimidated by being wrong. And as far as I’m concerned, in the groups that I’ve been in, a lot of people feel that intimidation; that they better not speak, because somebody’s going to jump down their throat or they’ll be wrong. And so I believe that’s a valid fear in most people because, as you say, the larger the group, the more you feel all of them will think you’re wrong. And so that’s all I had to conclude.
Audience
Actually, I thought that the small group was much more threatening than the large group. I couldn’t speak in the small group because I thought the responsibility was so much greater.
Audience
Well, that’s interesting.
Audience
The idea of responsibility is an interesting question because, from one place, whenever you’re sitting in the room, then we all focus on you, and [???] a little bit, you see.
Bohm
Yeah, but suppose you had to run the group the way you did the small group, you see.
Audience
Right.
Bohm
You know, in principle that’s what we should have, you see: that if people could just talk, you can imagine most of human society has evolved as a hunter-gatherer group of about 20 to 40 people, and say they might sit around the fire at night and just talk—I mean, talk, telling stories, or doing whatever, making legends. But, you see, probably the early language and culture developed that way.
But later you would develop the hierarchic organization of society when it got larger. You see, in order to have agriculture, you had to have larger groups. You could no longer do that, and society turned hierarchical—with all the problems that are in that, and fear, and so on.
So I think that a considerable transformation of the mind is involved in being able to feel the same feeling in a small group and a large group. You see, that this fear—which most people have—you’re different. I mean, we haven’t worked out the difference exactly, but most people have a fear of other people, which gets greater the more of them there are, right? And there’s a qualitative difference between a group of, say, ten and a group of fifty. Or a group of five, you know. And, see, something like five to eight is about the size of a family group where people might feel comfortable, because of the whole background of the family. But when you get larger, you get some discomfort. And when you reach fifty, it’s quite different.
But I want to suggest that if we can’t talk together in a group, I don’t see what’s going to happen, you see, as: how in the world can we organize society if we can’t talk to each other in a group without fear? Now, I suggest that this fear is not necessary, and—hm?
Audience
[???]
Bohm
That is, so, it has various roots and causes that we can all go into, and we have gone into in many ways. But one thing is to have in this group—whatever the size—a feeling of impersonal friendship. You see, you cannot be personally friends of every fifty people unless you know them a very long time, you know. But nevertheless, there can be impersonal friendship in a group, right? Now, that feeling will help dispel the fear, right?
Audience
And also you take a risk of being wrong, which I’m one to take, as you hear me talk. In other words, the risk is not important to me. Though what I’m going to maybe learn is what I’m looking for, or understand. I’m looking for understanding, and the risk of being made fun of or ridiculed is really… it doesn’t touch me.
Bohm
Yeah, well, you see, the trouble is, you know, there are all sorts of different people, and we have to include them all. You see, we can’t—we’re going to have a society, right? And one approach is to help people to get free of that fear, right?
Audience
Well, the risk of being wrong is one of the main ones, though, isn’t it?
Bohm
Yeah, but why should it be so dangerous to be wrong? You see, it isn’t making sense, right, to say everybody is afraid to be wrong, and yet we know everybody is wrong much of the time. So there must be some notion, some assumption, that we must be always right.
Audience
Somehow I think an extra step is being taken. In the group that I was in, I felt comfortable enough to be myself, and at the risk of actually not even noticing it.
Bohm
There may be no risk at all, you see, if people are friendly.
Audience
Can I just say the next point? I, right now, am afraid. I actually feel it right now. I can’t speak easily in this group. But it’s giving me an opportunity to actually see something that’s very visible or perceptual for me. Whereas normally, I don’t notice these things because I’m just going. So maybe, rather than saying we shouldn’t be afraid—which I don’t see how one can tell another person not to be afraid because we’re wrong. I understand intellectually what you’re saying. Perhaps we ought to make a smaller step to, I don’t know what to suggest, but I am now just sensing my fear, and to me it’s very interesting. I don’t normally have this opportunity.
Bohm
Yeah. You see, you have the comparison of the two experiences—of the smaller group where there was no fear, and the larger group where there is. Is that it? See, that here we are in a new situation where there is fear, right? Compared with what you had before, that’s what you’re saying.
Audience
I’m not so interested in the comparison. I’m interested in the fact that something is very visible for me to see. Only, it doesn’t arise.
Bohm
Well, what is it that you see?
Audience
Well, the fear. It is comparative.
Bohm
Yeah, but I think that the reason you’re aware of it is that you have just come from another situation; of the change, you see. Now, that’s a point that was raised in one of the groups about perception, you see. Somebody raised the question of, you know: what does it mean to perceive, right? Now, I assume you’re perceiving something new that you haven’t seen before
Audience
It’s not that—what I’m saying is that so much is concealed.
Bohm
Yeah.
Audience
That’s what I’m trying to say. It’s not concealed at this moment.
Bohm
Yes, well, the main point of perception is to remove the concealment.
Audience
Yes.
Bohm
That is, we perceive naturally, we could say, except for the concealment.
Audience
Perhaps it’s more important—we have to look at it somewhat differently and see that it’s more important to have a correct perception than to hold on to wrong perceptions, which may remain wrong if we do not voice them. And then it doesn’t matter what the size of the group is. The most important is the correct perception.
Bohm
Yes, but the difficulty is that there are a lot of people in this group who probably feel a certain amount of hesitation about talking. And we must say: what can we do? So we’re not blaming anybody for feeling hesitant, because whatever the problem is, it’s due to the whole background, and nobody originated it.
Audience
I found it an interesting challenge during the discussion in smaller groups to discuss something without taking it personally, because there’s always that tendency. And it’s an interesting way of looking at something, because it’s such a habit to discuss things from a personal point of view or from a personal background.
Bohm
Yes, that’s right. See, that’s—
Audience
It becomes a challenge.
Bohm
Yeah. But, you see, it’s saying that there can be an impersonal friendship. Now, you see, if there is that feeling of friendship, then you will not feel threatened. Nobody’s going to jump on you if you know they’re your friends, right? But the trouble is we have a tremendous amount of experience which suggests that people are not going to be your friends. Now, you see, we say that’s inevitable. We say that’s absolute necessity and we can’t get out of it, right? But suppose we say that isn’t absolutely necessary at all; that we can start to change, right?
Audience
Well, it obviously is not necessary, because some people don’t feel it at all. I mean, people do have it, surely so, but it isn’t really necessary.
Bohm
No, but you see, the person feels it is necessary. A great many people feel it that way. You see? So, as the feeling of friendship develops, they begin to have some trust, you see, that people are not going to jump on you because there’s no point in it, and therefore a whole change can take place. In a small group you may get to know people and you begin to feel that situation. In a larger group it’s harder, but the same thing can happen.
Audience
But then there’s also the danger of the smaller group, I feel, to become personal, or to get personal, you become familiar with the situation in a smaller group and with each other. Then there’s a tendency, I think—
Bohm
Yeah, but that’s a danger, that’s true. You get a cozy feeling which is avoiding all the issues, right?
Audience
Yes.
Bohm
Now, the large group has this very important advantage. It’s very hard to get that cozy feeling, you see. You can’t get into that illusion so easily. And therefore, the large group—if you can make it work, if it will work—it has very important advantages.
Audience
It’s very interesting.
Bohm
It may be better for communication in the small group if we can get past these difficulties.
Audience
Well, we were—most of us, I’m sure, were educated in a situation where we sat in a room with maybe thirty people and someone sitting up front, and it was probably a totally adversary situation: to get the right answers, to be the smartest, to be the best. And that the smart ones, the best ones, the ones who were the most verbal, were the ones who were the shining pupils, and the rest of them just got shoved to the back of the room. And that kind of a feeling in a group this size or a little smaller has been deeply ingrained. There’s the ones—I mean, you were either right or you were wrong in school. There’s no friendship.
Bohm
But now it can change. You see, it was not an absolute necessity, right?
Audience
It was the wrong thing.
Bohm
Yeah, it was not only wrong, but—see, you might argue that, though it was wrong, there was no way out of it. You see, many people feel that way.
Audience
There’s a way out of it now, right?
Bohm
Yeah, there is. We’re proposing a way out of it. You see, we don’t know yes or no, but as a proposal.
So therefore, some new mind can start. You know, this is one of the features of dialogue: this feeling of impersonal friendship. It may not happen right away, it may happen a little bit now, you know, and more later, but it can develop. It will happen if we sustain the dialogue.
Audience
If the dialogue is sustained in what context? You mean like this particular context?
Bohm
No, let’s take—if we were to sustain a dialogue week after week, then I think that sort of thing will happen.
Audience
But that’s not possible.
Bohm
Well, not possible with us, but it’s possible.
Audience
Okay.
Bohm
Now, with us, we can explore dialogue, right?
Audience
One of the things that was in our group, I think, is that I said the reason I came here was not just to hear what you had to say, but to see how this group would function. And that’s the thing that I think is the real thing to learn. Because if we just go home with what we think we’ve learned here, what we think we’ve discovered, we’re right back into that little separate thing. But if we can learn this art of dialogue, and how it breaks down, and how it’s possible to actually for people to be in a group. I mean, there’s total strangers here, people from all different kinds, and they’re actually talking to each other, and they’re not mad, and they’re not upset, and they’re not being dogmatic. And that, to me, is the thing that I’m learning here is this possibility and how to go about having this possibility happen.
Audience
Not just in a group, but on a one-to-one basis, I would think.
Audience
Well, it seems quite simple to be on a one-to-one basis, but in a group it seems like a totally different dynamic.
Audience
Are there any criteria for this possibility?
Audience
Interest, willingness, openness.
Bohm
The main thing is: can you see its importance?
Audience
Honesty. Honestness.
Bohm
Yes, but can you see the meaning of it, the importance of it, the value of it?
Audience
When you brought up the root meaning of seminar, I think it was important too, in this respect.
Audience
Before I came down, I looked up the word, and I—
Bohm
What word? Which word? Seminar, yes.
Audience
Seminar. And it comes from the word “seminary,” which means a nursery. The root word of seminar is a nursery, a place that you nurture little plants and ideas. And that’s what’s happening here, I hope. It’s a little nursery. There’s a little planting going on here. Probably won’t be a lot of fruit for a while.
Audience
But David, then you’re suggesting, then, that this isn’t just sitting together. But in a very quintessential way, this is touching on our personal lives as well as the life of mankind and all of society, as it were, to engage in this art of dialogue, to learn this art of dialogue and communication.
Bohm
Yes, it’s what’s missing in society. And what happens here is a microcosm of the whole society.
Audience
[???] because we were the whole, that little group was the whole group, was everything. All our problems and all our ideas and all our feelings and all the whole thing was right there in that room. It wasn’t that we were separate. It seemed quite obvious.
Audience
You said to see the value of this might be an important…
Bohm
Right. There will be no energy for it unless you see the value. You see, if somebody is working to discover something new, he doesn’t know whether he will or not, right? But if he sees the value of what he’s doing, then he persists, he sustains the work in spite of discouragements and difficulties and doubts and so on.
Audience
That would come back to something you were saying earlier about it. On one level, if we see the value of money, or power, or a new car, or something in that area, then we work really hard to obtain that. But possibly the important thing is to see the value of what is truth, or what is real freedom.
Bohm
Or what is culture? What is dialogue? Or what is relationship?
Audience
And this is something that’s impersonal. So if that value is seen, it’s an impersonal value, then that which is personal is dropped in reaching out for that which is impersonal. And the fears are personal.
Bohm
Yes, that’s right. The value is beyond the person, right? Now, even people who have had values relatively in person, like an institution or a country or something, and have made great work for that—or even when you pursue money—if you see the value of money, you see you’re never certain you’re going to get money. You may lose money. But still, people have gone ahead with all this uncertainty to try to get money. So we may have some uncertainty as to what will happen here, but it would be a similar question.
Audience
Well, you said earlier that the meaning is what does the—it’s almost as if it’s not that you’re going to do it, but that the meaning does it. And to the degree that the meaning has value, to that degree, what we discover that be meaningful will work, function, and override lesser meanings or insignificance.
Bohm
Yes. The meaning liberates the energy, the value. The value is really the disposition to act which comes from the meaning. You see, a high value means a very strong energy to act. Low value means you don’t have any energy
Audience
In talking to people, one of the things I’ve noticed [???] is, as you pointed out, that people will expend a large amount of energy on an “if” that might pay off, especially like, say, they’ll invest in a business—ah, whatever. But in many people I talk with, they say on the subject of communication, of opening up the human race, of changing, they say: “Why bother? Nothing is going to happen.” They don’t say that about their own personal interests. But this huge monolithic problem—and it is huge—they somehow don’t seem to have (I will say for myself) the proper energy for it. I will go seven years, ten years, get a PhD. I’ll go study art for twenty years, and never think of the end of the world, or the end of the problems. But this other thing, we say, “Oh, there’s nothing we can do about it.” There’s that seems to be—I don’t know if people have seen that, but there’s that kind of negative energy that says, “Well, we’re not going to address this problem with humanity because it’s too big and there’s nothing we can do about it.”
Audience
Doesn’t have meaning, in other words.
Audience
I guess. I don’t know. He just pointed it out, and I remembered that feeling, and it’s the feeling that stops if you don’t have the feeling.
Audience
When there’s a common threat—there have been cases, of course, through history where a whole country or a whole group of people have done superhuman effort to achieve the solving of the problem, to eliminate that threat, or do what they could to hold it back. The thing with this mental/mind/consciousness thing is that you can’t nail it down. You can’t say: this is it, let’s do that, and then it’s taken care of. There is none of that. Each person has to try to do what they can within them, and somehow we can’t put it all together to form a joint focus on what has to be done.
Bohm
Yes. Well, there actually is a common threat, you see, but it’s too abstract-looking for people to take it seriously. You know, it’s not right in front of you.
Audience
Could it be that—
Audience
The common threat.
Bohm
Did you say threat or thread? Threat. The common threat is what we’ve been talking about, you see: the threat of nuclear annihilation, of all sorts of crises. The civilization is in danger of collapsing. But people just simply put it out of their minds because, as you say, they say, “What can we do?” Right?
Audience
Could it be that we’ve located the problem wrongly? What he said makes great sense to me. I can’t fix this world, but is that actually the problem? Could it be rather that, in externalizing all the problems, that I’ve negated my ability to move to where the problem can be?
Audience
You’ve negated your responsibility.
Audience
That’s right. I’ve become irresponsible by making this thing out there and thinking that I should solve nuclear war, this, that, and the other thing. That makes me totally irresponsible, because I can’t respond to that.
Bohm
Well, but saying this is—see, if the cause of nuclear war and all these other problems is that basically people cannot communicate with each other, right? They have different assumptions.
Audience
Didn’t Krishnamurti say the only revolution is within yourself?
Bohm
Yes.
Audience
Did you say by yourself?
Audience
Within.
Audience
But I think we get confused between “within” and “by.” See, we all think that to do it within yourself, you have to do it by yourself. That’s maybe…
Bohm
Yes, well, see, if I could put it another way: why is there a threat of nuclear war?
Audience
Because we’re not talking to each other.
Bohm
Basically because we have different assumptions about how society should be organized, right? And therefore, people cannot disco—these assumptions are not negotiable, you see. They’re absolute necessities. There’s unyielding. Therefore, it means you have an unyielding disposition, right?
Audience
A pair.
Bohm
On both sides. On all sides. What?
Audience
It’s not really unyielding.
Bohm
But people don’t yield, you see. Like, if we talk about the negotiations going on between the East and West, right? They talk about dialogue, but obviously they can’t do it, right? It’s not even a discussion much.
Audience
That was very apparent a week or so ago when Reagan was unyielding on Star Wars.
Audience
Star Wars is an idea. The missiles are real. He won’t trade his idea, which may or may not be, for real missiles. That is the insanity.
Bohm
Yeah, but eventually the missiles are the result of an idea too, you see. It’s all the result of an idea. The idea of our side and their side.
Audience
We’re willing to die for ideas.
Bohm
Yes, people have always been willing to die for ideas. But that’s always, you know—we have to see if something different is possible. Now, you see, between East and West, we have two ideas as to how society should be organized, right? Two structures of thought. They’re very similar, but people make a great deal of the difference. And they say we cannot negotiate with them, really. We can make minor points, trade minor points, but we say we don’t trust them and they say exactly the same. No negotiation is possible. The position is not negotiable because the basic assumptions cannot be altered. Is that clear? The basic assumption is: we have our society in this form, and their assumption is they have their society and it cannot be altered. Therefore, no negotiation is possible. It’s no use talking. People can talk about it, but not much can happen.
So the root of the problem is exactly the problem we are confronting now. It is the same problem which existed when people felt uneasy (some of them or many of them) in the group, either the large or the small. That each one is holding to his position, to his assumptions, and feeling threatened by the others.
Audience
It would have been incredibly difficult for this group to ever get together if we had split it into two halves.
Bohm
Yeah. If you polarized it, you see, saying we believe this, we believe that, right?
Audience
Just put them on each side of the room.
Audience
We’ve talked about this impersonal friendliness that you mentioned. Are you suggesting this is a starting point, or are you suggesting that this is something that can happen worldwide also? Does this give us a perspective on our own fears, say?
Bohm
Yes. You see, it can happen here, and it can happen in a larger scale. It may look impossible, but if we assume it’s impossible, that will be self-fulfilling.
Audience
You saw before, just a moment ago, about people feeling uncomfortable in a group. And then, as they participated in the group, maybe losing some of that discomfort, coming to a larger group and rediscovering it, but realizing this time as well: it’s just a predisposition and you can move through it. And the reality of participating replaces the predisposition of not being able to communicate with groups.
Bohm
Yes, we can sort of get into that. You see, we’re—in microcosm, we are confronting the sort of problem that exists throughout the world, right? You see, the root of the problem is that people feel compelled to hold on to assumptions. Now, we could go into the reason why fundamentally. It’s the nature of the self. We could discuss that. But let’s say at this level, we say we are holding on to assumptions. The problem is the same in all groups, basically. And therefore, in being able to see a change in this size group, we have sort of the seed of what might happen in a larger scale.
Now, we can’t do it for that purpose, but we’re exploring. You see what I mean? That we don’t have in mind that we are going to solve the world’s problems by doing this. But I’m just saying that the world’s problems are essentially the same as the problems we are having here, although multiplied.
Audience
Aren’t assumptions the reasons groups exist?
Bohm
Yes, and there’s a tendency to hold to common assumptions, and form groups, and to protect, to defend those assumptions, right? Now, you see, to defend an assumption doesn’t make any sense. Is that clear?
Audience
No.
Bohm
Well, you see, if you have an assumption, why should you defend it? Somebody could say: well, there’s something wrong with your assumption. I must look at it and see whether it’s right or wrong, right? But if I immediately spring to the defense of the assumption, I won’t even look at what he says. You see what I mean?
Audience
Or, in other words, in our dialogue we have to learn to talk differently than to talk to each other.
Bohm
Yeah. You see, the whole disposition of society is to defend your assumptions unconsciously, right? You spring out to defend—either with some violence, or else to try to persuade the other that you’re right and he should take your point of view, right? See, the persuasion is just another form of the same thing as defense, right? Now, you see, one defends one’s assumptions as if one were defending one’s life.
Audience
An assumption is a fiction, in a sense. One’s life is—
Bohm
Well, it may be partly true and so on, but it’s just an assumption. You see, many assumptions—and we may assume for practical purposes that this is this way or that way and see how far it works, and then give it up if it doesn’t work. See, there’s no point ever to holding the assumption against evidence that it’s wrong. Now, if you defend your assumption against evidence that it’s wrong, it is crazy.
Audience
But if an assumption is correct, is it an assumption? Does it remain an assumption?
Bohm
Well, it will be. Yes, it can be an assumption. For example, Newton assumed there’s universal gravitation, was correct up to a point, and Einstein showed the limits of that, right? If a Newtonian then had come along and said, “I defend my assumption against Einstein’s arguments,” then that would be wrong. You see, he’s got to answer the argument, saying either to show him that there’s something inadequate about the argument or to look at it again.
Audience
Yes, but we do hold on to our assumptions even when they are approved, they’re wrong, like the emperor’s new clothes story.
Bohm
Yeah, but why—see, then we have to ask why. You see, why do we accept such crazy behavior?
Audience
I don’t experience it as defending my assumption. I experience it as defending the root of my well-being.
Bohm
Yeah, but it’s the same thing. You see, I’m trying to say we have somehow come to identify our being with assumptions. Now that, seems crazy.
Audience
Unknown.
Bohm
Unconscious, unknown, not knowing.
Audience
So could we look at why? Why is there this fear? If we give up our assumptions, then what do we have?
Bohm
Well, yes, but what do we have if we hold on to assumptions that are wrong?
Audience
Destruction.
Bohm
You see, we cannot make sense of what is going on. But at the same time, we put it out of our mind and treat it as if it were making sense, right?
Audience
David, it seems to me that when you say assumption, I think of the assumption as an idea that I have in my head, but it’s much more than that.
Bohm
Yes, that’s the meaning of the whole thing. We’ll discuss that more tomorrow. The meaning, which is in your body, right?
Audience
It exposes.
Bohm
The disposition, right?
Audience
Well, isn’t it really us? That it seems like we’re talking about I have an assumption, as if I am different than the assumptions that make me up. I am all the meanings that have been culturally inculcated into me, and that’s me. And then something comes up, one little isolated assumption, which threatens the total group of assumptions and—
Audience
So you’re saying you don’t have meaning?
Audience
I don’t have any meaning, except that I’m abundant with—
Bohm
Well, that seems to be the case. But, you see—suppose I give an example of how powerful this is. You see, it’s something somebody actually told me, but I may change it a little. Suppose somebody says: I’ve been doing a job and I assume—I don’t realize I’m assuming, I believe—but I’m really assuming that I’m doing it for the benefit of all, that I’m really well-meaning only to do good and right. And I’ve been going along under that assumption, and I assume that everybody must see it the same way I do. Right? And suddenly somebody comes along and says: you’re just working for your own personal benefit. And that would be a shock, right? A physical shock. You see, why should it be a physical shock to have an assumption questioned? You see, I’m not saying it’s a fact, but what is behind it?
Audience
Well, it determines all one’s actions. You see, I mean, from that assumption spring all my actions, which is my life, the way I look at life and—
Bohm
That may be, but it doesn’t explain the shock, you see.
Audience
An assumption conditions you physically, and it becomes physical—
Bohm
It’s part of your body, you see. An assumption about yourself which you give high value, some assumptions may not have much effect, but others have a tremendous effect.
Audience
But it can only be a shock if you can discover the truth of it, or you can perceive the truth of it.
Bohm
Yeah, but before you perceive the truth of it, the shock is so great that you start a defense against it. You see, such a person would not say, “Oh, maybe you’re right. I never thought of it that way.” But, you see, rather the body reacts so quickly and it produces a disposition, the state of the body disposes the thought process to invent thoughts which defend you, saying: no, you’re wrong, you have something against me, you must have something against me, you must be my enemy, that’s why you say such terrible things about me.
Audience
[???]
Bohm
Yeah, but they’ll say it no matter, but automatically you’re defending yourself against seeing that assumption, right? You see, so there’s an automatic defense mechanism which is very powerful, which is full of emotion, and physical, neurophysiological effect—adrenaline, heartbeat, you know, tension in the muscle, everything. And violence. You know, there’s hate in it, there’s fear, right?
Audience
That’s a form of self-preservation. It’s tied right into the caveman who tried to save himself when a tiger jumped.
Bohm
Yes, that was a quite appropriate response to save himself from a tiger. But, you see, why should you save yourself from an assumption? Right? We are somehow mistaking assumptions for tigers, you see. We may turn it around and mistake tigers for assumptions.
Audience
But I think we can all think of times in our lives when sometimes people will tell us something and we won’t do that. And it’s sort of like: what are the conditions under which we really do say, “Gee, maybe you’re right.” You know, like, what’s the difference between a situation where somebody says, you know, gets all more defensive and everything, and another situation where we are receptive to that?
Audience
Well, if there’s affection there, if you trust someone, then you’re more receptive.
Audience
And more than that, there has to be an impersonal value, that there’s something impersonal that’s true, and it’s not just yours or mine, but is actually true. And then one would drop one’s personal predispositions.
Audience
So a sense of trust, and I hear being valued, or some sense of value?
Audience
No, it has to be impersonal.
Audience
Well, I don’t know, because if you trust someone, if you feel as though there’s an affection there, well, that can be taken personally, too.
Audience
Yes, but then if you trust that person, that person may say something wrong, for example. Then would you take that, too? I mean, you may accept that as well.
Audience
I noticed that when babies are little, the mother wants to continue feeding them when the baby wants to do it itself. And I think that the human being wants to be the discoverer and not be really told by somebody else. They may listen to somebody’s suggestion and take stock of it, but they want to really feel that they themselves have personal contact with it, and therefore do it. Because like mothers, they’re always saying: well, don’t do this, don’t do that. It doesn’t mean anything to young people at all. They’re just words. So there’s something about a personal—the organism has to have personal contact with that to be able to say, “Yes, I was wrong. This is a better way,” and not somebody saying, “Well, I told you so! I told you this is the right way.”
Audience
No, but it’s not a question of I told you, but if both people have that impersonal value, that there is something that’s true which is greater than their personal predispositions—
Audience
In order to have a dialogue, either in a group or a one-on-one, it has to be openness on both parts. If there’s only openness on the one part, then there won’t be any change, even if something is pointed out during that discussion. But if there’s openness on both parts, then there’s likely to be a mutual discovery.
Bohm
Yes. But how are we going to have that openness, you see? See, what’s called for is something like this to say you have one assumption, I have another, somebody else has another, and so on. Now we start to dialogue and all those assumptions come out, right?
Now, can we—each one of us—hold all these assumptions in our minds in suspension without jumping in for one or the other or the other, right? You see, this is a different kind of mind that will not immediately say, “This assumption is right because it’s mine,” or “because I like it,” or whatever, but holding all those assumptions in mind together, right? Now, that begins a different way of operation of the mind.
Audience
Are you saying, then, that that would then put the responsibility on the person pointing out to—would that not then put the responsibility on the person having their own assumptions held, as it were, and not on the person pointing out to them that maybe their assumptions were… I was just thinking that we’re saying here that the person pointing out has to have all these qualities of doing it well. Whereas, in actual fact, you know, surely one should be receptive to, you know, when somebody’s pointing something out in whatever mode, you should still be examining what somebody’s saying.
Bohm
Yes, if you can, you see. But now all these reactions come up, you see. But I’m saying in this dialogue we can begin a different mode of operation of the mind, where we are not putting out things in order to convince or to persuade or to put our own point of view across, but rather it all comes in, and therefore each one of us holds these various assumptions together and see what they mean, right?
See, we are not trying to settle any issues or to accomplish any tasks. You see, very often we say we get into a group to accomplish a task, right? Or another purpose of having a group is that we should be, you know, enjoy ourselves, to entertain, right? But, see, a dialogue is neither of those.
Now, see, if you say we must settle a certain task, then we are under pressure to say this assumption is right and that one is wrong. But, see, the dialogue does not have the purpose of doing anything in particular. It has to be a kind of empty space. Somewhere among us we have to create an empty space, you see, where we have no special purpose. It’s leisure, you see. The word “leisure” has the root in emptiness. That’s the opposite of occupation, right?
Audience
So do assumptions fill the space?
Bohm
What? Well, assumptions do fill the space, don’t they? You see, if you hold to them, right? On the other hand, see, if we’re looking at them at leisure, we don’t have anything special to accomplish. We are not trying to persuade or to convince or to defend or to get a job done, right?
Audience
Don’t you see that there are some people, or most of the people, of the kind that they have told me that is what I know. They have told me that you have no right to step on my toes. So that type of people do not come into dialogue with you. So that is how the problem is. So how do we handle that?
Bohm
Well, we’ll have to—you see, we have to begin here with those people who want to come in dialogue and still find it very difficult to do so, you see. Later, perhaps, you can include more people, right? You see, we have to begin with the people who are serious enough to want to do it, and saying: okay, I’m not going to say you’re stepping on my toes or pushing me around. We may not be able to do that in the beginning, but at least we can begin to look at it.
Now, one important point is that, when two people have opposing assumptions and talk to each other, they get into a state of confrontation—or two groups; polarized confrontation. And it’s very hard to get out of it, you see, because every action you take to meet that seems to drive you in deeper. Even your very attempt to get out of it usually gets you in deeper. Is that clear what I mean? You see, because that’s the mechanics of confrontation. There’s a pressure, there’s a disposition in there, to defend yourself. And even when you think you are being very conciliatory, you’re subtly defending yourself.
Audience
I noticed in the dialogue that one sometimes does feel like saying something to defend oneself. One holds back because of this feeling of not wanting to bring about confrontation, so you then get a fear developing there. In a sense, you have to say whatever it is, even if it may create a—
Bohm
In time, yes. You see, the group, when it first starts, may not be able to stand a tremendous confrontation. It takes a certain art, you see, to be able to—see, now, in the group, when a confrontation develops between two people, let’s say, other people can begin to defuse it, right? Because they have a somewhat different point of view. They will come in without being caught in the confrontation. Therefore, they can say something which actually defuses it, whereas the two people in the confrontation can’t do it, right? That they are so emotionally involved that every step they take to defuse it is actually a step to defend themselves and attack, right?
Audience
Well, by holding back the confrontation—
Bohm
Well, not holding it back. I’m just pointing out that we also have to take into account that people will not be able to do a tremendous amount of confrontation when they first meet each other, and they will hold back naturally. It isn’t that serious. I’m trying to say that we have to work through that. Do you see what I mean?
Audience
Well, two: if someone who joins the confrontation is very objective and personal, it may have great value in it. And then out of it will emerge a choice without it being really anybody’s choice, but just the best choice for the moment.
Bohm
Yes, that’s the point: that this confrontation diffuses the issue and starts it moving in new directions, right? And the group mind begins to move in new directions that don’t belong to anybody. And that’s creative, you see.
Audience
What you’re suggesting sounds rather like learning to swim, in the sense that no matter how much I think about it beforehand, I can’t know how to swim. But you say: well, here’s water here. Let’s all get in and see what we can do. And it may be awkward and we may flop around, but at some point we may float.
Bohm
Yes. Yeah, that’s just it.
Audience
Could you please elaborate what you said about creative mind?
Bohm
What?
Audience
You mentioned just now creative mind. Could you elaborate it?
Bohm
Well, just simply, you see, we are not going to be stuck in the old assumptions. You see, the old assumptions act like grooves for the mind; ruts. We hold to them. They’re absolutely necessary. We’re stuck, right? We don’t realize even we’re doing it. Now, this whole movement of the group will be dissolving those assumptions.
Audience
I wonder if there’s any danger involved in terms of self-deception. I may think that I’m being honest or not having assumptions, and I might be holding on to assumptions.
Bohm
Yes, well that’s the value of the group: that other people can see much more easily than you that you’re doing it, because they’re not caught in your emotions. At least those who are your friends or your enemies may be caught, but there are so many people in the group that there must be some who are not. You see? So the thing is that it’s very hard to see your own assumptions, because you are caught in the emotions which are part of the disposition.
Audience
But then there are group assumptions too. I mean, there is—
Bohm
There is a danger there, and therefore we have to become aware of that and see what we can do with it. But I’m trying to say it’s a way of beginning. Now, there is always the danger that we will have one common assumption. But, see, we come from many different subcultures, and therefore there is a greater chance of seeing these things. And insofar, if we could manage to get groups from still broader cultures (for example, East and West), it would be still more valuable—or north and south, or whatever. But we can begin wherever we are. You see? That we can’t go and gather people from all over the world and try to make a mixture of cultures. It might be very hard to start that way, anyway.
Audience
It’s like a statistical thing to cancel out.
Bohm
But, you see, this is, in German—see, the point is you have so many different cultures which cannot communicate. But, see, what is required is a dialogue.
Audience
May I ask something about the Bible? You explained that there needs to be that emptiness, that empty space, that leisure. I was just wondering, when you said that, did that include not having a particular topic?
Bohm
Yes.
Audience
And even being, so to speak, without direction?
Bohm
No fixed direction.
Bohm
No fixed direction, not even a topic.
Bohm
We may pick one for the moment, you see, but—you see, because every topic has in it certain assumptions, and if you are compelled to hold to the topic, you can’t change the assumptions, right?
Audience/>
Because that’s what I noticed in the group interaction is usually the initial and greatest difficulty is always to agree on a particular topic, because every people have a slight difference in value; what they consider the most valuable thing to talk about, or what is really on their mind. And therefore usually there’s always that slight divergence of what topic, or the assumption is that there need to be a topic of a specific—
Bohm
Yes, a fixed topic. You see, we can discuss any topic. You see, the point is that we need to communicate, right? We need not to have these defenses and barriers and so on, not the fixed assumptions. Therefore, any topic may do, you know, if people want to do it, right? And they may change or they may hold to it for a while. And whatever people happen to be interested in, you can talk about.
Audience
And of course, I guess in a certain sense, I at least seem to think that, at that moment, the most important thing seems to be the willingness to listen to the other.
Bohm
Yeah, well, you see, once the dialogue starts, then that’s the point. One may have an assumption that only certain topics are worth talking about. And then that may dispose one not to listen.
Audience
But no topic is really in isolation. It cannot be isolated.
No.
Audience
It’s always interrelated. So if there is that space, it will move.
Bohm
Yeah, it won’t stay on any topic, but we have this space which is really leisure. See, the best image I can make of it is these hunter-gatherer group gathered thirty people around the fire, you see. They did not set a topic.
Audience
I found myself doing that in the group. I found myself canceling out what somebody else was saying. And then I looked at that and discovered that I was on the wrong track. But my immediate tendency was to do that.
Bohm
Well, it’s part of—yeah, go ahead.
Audience
Sometimes the hunter-gatherer group had to make a decision about where to move, or which—
Bohm
You set up another group to do that. You see, generally, they didn’t make their decisions in that group. You see, that’s something some anthropologists commented on. There were still some hunter-gatherer groups among the American Indians or Eskimos, and he watched them, and he said they just talked and talked and talked day after day, and to no apparent purpose. And when they finished, they separated and they seemed to know what to do. But if they had some special job to do, they set up a group to do it, right? But it was important to have a group that did not have a special topic, right?
Audience
How important is it, though? Do you think that it’s a consistent group having the dialogue? I mean, I’m just thinking that everybody’s kind of come today, if you like, from lots of different places. And also, in the way they’ve come, they’re because of you in many ways, I think, or that you’re a sort of focus point, if you like. What would it be so that people are, if you like, having dialogue, or people would just come together for dialogue and set up groups interested in that? Do they have to be consistent?
Bohm
Yes, they have to be sustained, you see. I think that in the beginning the hunter-gatherer group didn’t need a convener, but now, because of our background, we need somebody to help convene it in the beginning, right? But the whole point of the exercise is to make that person unnecessary.
Audience
Does that address the question of consistency?
Bohm
Yes, well, we need consistency. We need to sustain the dialogue if we are going to really reach this impersonal friendship, and also where people can really trust each other, and also being able to hold a lot of different points of view together.
Audience
I was just wondering what value we all actually put on dialogue in our lives of actually making the move to actually get together in dialogue in a consistent way.
Audience
If a group of us meet consistently over a period of time, after a while, we at least superficially know what the other person means when they say a certain sentence, which takes quite a while to come to that.
Bohm
Well, also, you will find that you can talk more freely. People will trust each other.
Audience
That doesn’t always come so easily.
Bohm
No. It may not come easily. But, you see, if you feel the importance of it, it will sustain the group, right? You see, the whole question depends on: do you feel this to be important? Now, I have proposed reasons why I might regard it as important. If you feel it to be important, you will sustain it even when it looks difficult or boring. You see, if you want to make money, for example, you’ll go through a lot of boring steps because you think how nice it will be to have the money, right? You know, what you can do. Now, even if you want to do a scientific piece of work, you go through a tremendous amount of boring stuff to get trained and take observations and so on, you see. So you may go through periods when it is frustrating, boring, whatnot—which is only natural. It’s common to all human activity, apparently. But if you regard it as important, you can sustain it, right?
Audience
One of the difficulties here, it seems, is that when people come together to have a dialogue, we’ll call it, we already have an idea that that means getting together and talking, whereas it’s being suggested that the activity is much more than talking. And so if we realize sufficiently that the activity has to do more than with talking, we aren’t quite so attached to our words as we talk, and that may alter the climate of what’s taking place.
Audience
Commuting [???].
Audience
Also, I feel that perhaps, as far as consistency goes, a lot of our assumptions are quite deep-rooted. And just meeting for a group meeting for one day and that’s it, is going to just scratch the surface. And it is necessary, perhaps, for some consistency in other groups to meet over a period of time that these assumptions are discovered.
Audience
But what are you suggesting? I mean, as I said, after tomorrow we won’t be meeting, so….
Bohm
You see, I’m pointing out something that may be necessary for the general human condition. Now, you see, somebody may regard this as important enough to try to make a group, right? You know, as we’re just exploring something which is relevant to the whole human situation, right? Now, you see, groups like this cannot hold together, but they have an exploratory value.
Audience
It’s not a group round anything. Usually groups form round something. So, I mean, you’re suggesting it’s like a group that’s round nothing.
Bohm
Yeah—nothing that can be defined, anyway, you see.
Audience
See, but actually most of us already have these groups in a sense. My wife and I, we have a group, and we have the possibility of trying to have an exchange, not from the viewpoint of husband and wife, but just this is something that might make us human. Or we can do the usual thing.
Audience
You may need a bigger group to help break down that.
Audience
And also, being of that group, there are people that (each one of us) have a certain set idea about the group. One wants to meditate, one wants to talk. The other person thinks talking isn’t necessary. So talking, to me, is necessary in the fact that, once we discover a community of understanding, the silence is not imposed. It’s automatic. Once we see something actually truthful, the whole group is silent. So that’s the meditation that I consider important. Not to sit and meditate.
Bohm
Well, I think that it’s been indicated to me that the time has come to a—
Audience
Well, I wanted to remind everybody about the time change—