I had the great privilege of witnessing a Bohm/Sheldrake conversation when they participated in a panel discussion with philosopher of religion Huston Smith at MIT in the mid 80s. Both Bohm and Smith were there with their wives, who also participated. Along with the powerful ideas presented (which influence me to this day) I was enormously impressed with the humanity, goodwill and compassion present in that room. Today, I am finding that level of wisdom, integrative thinking and compassionate humanity in the work of Nassim Haramein.
You're very fortunate. I wonder if there are any audio or video recordings of this? Bohm and Sheldrake are two of my very favorite people. Immense respect for them both.
@@Randomuser2329 We see according to where we are at and receive according to the measure of our giving. The very nature of both is in an unspeakable whole that reveals itself in the 'ordinary'.
@@Randomuser2329 ... I'm far more interested in the dialogs between the Dalai Lama and Bohm, that's were the rubber meets the road. Alan Watts considered J. Krishnamurti's approach to spirituality a cop-out. From what I understand, that the monks living under the Tibetan Government In Exile are taught quantum physics as a result of Bohm's tutelage of the Dalai Lama. Who knows what things are growing in the foothills of the Himalayas as a result. Must be something, with all the conflicts in the surrounding areas between India, Pakistan and China at the present moment... the best of times and the worst of times...
@@Randomuser2329 that's all Krishnamurti was trying to say the whole time and it's sad to see some here calling it babble! I see Eckhart Tolle successfully reaching the masses with THE SAME MESSAGE! As does Alan Watts imo.
@@Randomuser2329 Have you never been truly moved! There IS no inside. But yes releasing the mind to receptivity is not 'frozen'. The mover and the moved are one. Dialogue is simply a relational pointer to your own receptivity - and its living extension to your 'relations. So the two commandments Jesus is associated with are one thing sketched in words. Love of God is love of Brother is love of Self - these three are one. But I only point to what is being all that is here. I don't tell truth what it is ;-)
First, Dr Sheldrake is an amazing and unique person in his ability to think beyond the confines of materialist thought. He is always a breath of fresh air. Second, regarding Dr Sheldrake's comment that Krishnamurti did not speak in context of other schools of thought or personages... Krishnamurti, like all enlightened sages, found no need to prove himself, allude to other teachings, or ally with other teachers. This is because the truth is fundamental and needs no call to authority. It is known by direct realization and therefore no other "experts" or teachings are necessary or helpful. His message was that of all other enlightened sages, which is to turn the listener back upon him/herself. Words, teachings, exercises, and messages are useless to having a realization except to lead one to fold the egoic self back upon itself.
Soon after David Bohm died I learned about him through an article in Resurgence to commemorate him. ‘Tis article had simply catching title, “For Truth Try Dialogue “. So Dialogue I tried, just to see was there any Truth flowing about among men and women being for 3 hours together in a circle on a Sunday morning. David Bohm simply instructed us, not to ask what are we going to talk about. He said, “start talking”. And indeed a flow of meaning evolved and flourished among us through this simple commitment of meeting one another on a one Sunday a month. We never had a chosen subject as far as I know. We learned about the Bohm documentary “Infinite Potential” and already we see that we are going to meet again. I am talking about a small group of up to 10 of us. In the Netherlands, my native country, around the same time an initiative started called “National Dialogue Week”.Many people from many different communities participated for over 10 years, first week in November in groups up to 8. Every year I went over for the event. While I am writing this I become aware of revisiting these quality times we shared in musing and viewing. Fred La Haye, Ireland.
Thank you for being there, Mr. Rupert Sheldrake. Thanks to you, I came to know about this movie about David Bohm. A friend showed to me, many years ago, videos with your talkings with Krishnamurti and David Bohm. Since then, I know you and lately, I began to be interested in your theories. Respectfully. Alejandra Lucía Rotf from Argentina.
Thank you so much Rupert for sharing your ideas and dialogues with us, the great unwashed public. You are very easy on the ear and therefore one's own ideas are catalysed rather beautifully. I like reading the comments too, and I don't mind at all that you tolerate comments of high loopiness: we each of us have our own filters that guide us through which comments we read in nice accord with own loopy predilections.
Thank you for this channel. I have watched videos of material from you via other channels prior to this one, but this one, being your own channel, is now my preferred choice.
I do appreciate this discussion. I've tried to understand Bohm for some time now and have had difficulties with his philosophical notions. This lets me know that I am not alone in this and that there are few if any parallels that he might have referred to for some clarification as he didn't have any.
Hello everybody. I must admit that both David Bohm and Rupert Sheldrake (also Karl Pribram) were the scientists who most impacted me in my youth, and I’m still passionate about their points of view. Being able to hear these talks is a pleasure. Thank you.
Dr. Sheldrake, I so appreciate your work and David Bohm's as well. The universe is much more marvelous with deep and careful thinkers such as you and Bohm. We non-scientists rely on your work (as well as other profound scientific thinkers like John A. Wheeler, Erwin Schrodinger, Donald Hoffman, et al) to bring in a world-view which goes well-beyond the physicalists' paucity. By the way, I have read/studied roughly 70 books mostly by physicists but also "history of science" authors with most of my attention of particle physics, quantum mechanics, and cosmological theories. I have to say that your work and theories make good sense of the emerging new paradigm. Thank you.
A great discussion. Thank you, Rupert Sheldrake. Your books are always in a prominent place in my home, within easy reach. I am grateful to the many people along the way who gave their all, many their lives, to make a better world - Gandhi, Martin Luther King, John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Berta Caceras....; I am grateful to seers,, sages and spiritual teachers - Krishnamurti, Eckhart Tolle, Paul Brunton, for teaching me the difference between thought-centered consciousness and cosmic consciousness; and I am grateful to visionaries like Bruce Lipton, Joe Dispenza, Nassim Haramein, and Rupert Sheldrake for their efforts to lead us out of darkness and into Truth. Were it not for all of these and other such people, I would see little hope that humanity will eventually evolve to its proper place of grace, wisdom and beauty, able use that power that we already have within us to solve any and all problems. Let the paradise come.
Just finished the movie, very nice. For anyone interested in a more in depth dive into how the implications of David Bohm's theories impacts and effects everyday life I highly recommend Michael Talbot's book "The Holographic Universe". In It Bohm expands on the multiple scientific and philosophical points raised in the film, especially how, in his opinion, consciousness manifests reality and that as energy we never truly die but simply change forms.
It’s interesting, I had never heard of Bohm until a couple years ago, and never got around to reading or researching him, although I’ve been on a quest for spiritual stuff but very scientific in my thinking. I intuited early in life what you wrote in your last sentence, and used the same wording. There is much that science can’t explain, and I’ve witnessed a large amount firsthand. I think there is an intersection where science and spirituality meet, but I also think we will never fully be able to imagine or comprehend it, let alone prove it. It’s become simple for me in a way. I know I don’t even have the framework to ask the right questions, and the constant quest for ultimate truth is an exercise in futility. I only have my experience, and I can make it whatever I choose. To paraphrase Terence McKenna; I no longer believe in anything. That makes me open to everything.
@@kt9495 couldn't agree more, I think quantum mechanics helps bridge the gap between science and spirituality by showing how the observed and the observer are actually one and the same. That separateness is an illusion and true reality is really just the ever present moment of now. I too have seen some crazy thing's that you would not believe.
Jay I got a sense of that in an altered dreamstate, which is just a term to differentiate between the many forms. It was one where I felt myself lift up and out, and in this one I was hyper aware that I was observing myself. I’ve had others where I feel out of body but in another time/space/dimension and can physically feel things, but I’m aware that it’s only energy. If that makes sense. Haha. It’s wild, and I love when it happens. I’ve never been able to force it and this stuff happens totally drug free. It’s as if I’ve left myself breadcrumbs.
@@kt9495 Have you ever had one of those lucid dreams were you revisit an event or scenario that you previously dreamed of before? Then in a later dream you meet the same characters you met before in the previous dream only to somehow recognize them instantly, even though you know your just experiencing another recurring dream about the same event?
Jay So weird. Notifications don’t work very well and I’m just seeing this. But about a week ago, when you replied, I had a lucid dream and the next night or the night after, I was in the same exact place. It hasn’t happened since I was a kid. But I remember the dream being so prominent in my mind, and I even questioned “Did I miss something?” So it’s as if my subconscious had it on record and pulled it back up for me to experience again.
Great series of discussions. Love it. Holistic based science of the whole contrasting the reductionist based science that focuses on the divided up and discrete. An energy flow of the whole rather than the controlled and actively regimented mechanistic construct of discrete pieces of matter. Connection with nature as a whole inclusive with the conscious experiences of that connection. Rather than dogma of controlled mind manipulation via reductionist science that in my view is designed to separate the individual from the holistic connections that come with the experiences.
Simplemente Bohm debe de estar a la misma consideración y con la misma atención que Einstein, posiblemente aun mas que él, aun así fueron colaboradores y trabajaron juntos en su últimos años de Albert... Una anécdota que Mario Bunge me contó hace un par de años confirma que ni científicos al ''nivel'' de Bunge lo terminaron de aceptar, me dijo: ''Respetaba a Bohm y tenia una bonita amistad con el, ya que fue mi tutor de post doctorado, pero se convirtió a la mística y ahí término la relación''. Imaginen el terror que siguen teniendo científicos de alto nivel por eso que le llaman mística, siguen con sus fragmentos, siguen contribuyendo a la destrucción y desdicha...
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con usted. En mi opinión David Bohm fue un grandísimo físico y matemático que se adelantó a su tiempo y que injustamente, no ha sido lo suficientemente reconocido. Su visión y aportación a la ciencia es la más coherente, rica y dinámica que he escuchado en la interpretación de una realidad indivisible en la cual se integran principalmente, Física, Biología y Religión desde la espiritualidad. Es cierto que muchos científicos sienten terror a pensar que hay algo inherente a la materia que la trasciende, y huyen de esta idea enarbolando la bandera del ateísmo como si eso fuera una razón. Me parece muy triste que la Ciencia caiga en sus propias redes. Aquello que resulta molesto para su propio paradigma lo apartan. Rupert Sheldrake, tampoco se ha librado de algunos ataques por su extraordinaria hipótesis de la Causación Formativa, antes de refutar o comprobar tan brillantes ideas. Para mí está claro que existe una vía no material de transmisión del conocimiento.
Great video Rupert & Vernon. Really interesting that You met David Bohm and also absolutely understandable that the universe ( our global "divine" consciousness sent you to meet each other. :-) Thank You very much and keep it on ! #HumanityForward
Only experiencing That what is consciousness, can one realise the truth what Bohm reveals through his very being knowledge. Problem for humanity is when they try and break down Bohms knowledge, once again humanity will suffer the ignorance of non accepting the whole truth that lies within each ones self. Bohm and jiddu as one, speaks IT as IT is. Thanks for this video guys.
@Rupert Sheldrake. Hello. I am Dennis John Mason. I am 66 years old. I have witnessed morphic resonance all of my life. Folk called me crazy (except for a few psychedelisized-types) when I was growing up in L.A. Later on I heard some of your talks and realized that some bloke was famous for having attached a designation and a lot of science to the phenomena. Well done. I thought "what a strange world Rupert lives in wherein he is actually villified with great furor from a certain "professional" (I can't bring myself to call the scientists because science utilizes "observation") community and I thought that you were exaggerating the blowback that you regularly experience. A few weeks ago I watched a marvelous video made by a very talented birder who witnessed thousands of ravens converging at a specific place in California? or wherever. I left an addressed comment below the video supplying a link to one of your Morphic Resonance Talks and the birder, to my surprise, replied that he could not embrace the notion of morphic resonance due to the fear that he would be perceived as crazy. The dude films thousands of ravens converging - he actually films the phenomena in effect and he's afraid of being called crazy. After I received his reply I realized that you were not exaggerating. I'm in L.A., I'm a "sun gazer" and I have some interesting data to convey to a chap like yourself. Did you know that when you look at the sun (after practice) you can see the sunspots? - better right before the sun sets. Carry on.
that's interesting, sheldrake suggested to bohm that the quantum potential was too static and needed some notion of feedback, whereby bohm later developed the notion of the implicate-explicate holomovement dynamic, more consistent with sheldrake's morphic resonance concept. thanks for the contribution you made to bohm's later theory, rupert!!
A note must be made, David Bohm also knew very well the philosifying part, in wholness and implicate order mentions Whitehead and initially speaks of Neoplatonism, making a cosmic union between the philosophical and mathematical nature as did friftof C. When the language of flowing reaches approaches David Peat for the discovery of the Hopi tribe who speak directly with an implicit approach think in implicate order. At the end, the important thing is not to block the flow of the process, indeed each of us can add an experience this path on ourselves. the end is always a beginning.
Maggie Adams : Are you just getting into it? Wikipedia is not bad. The requisite book is Ouspensky’s In Search Of The Miraculous (named by publishers but before that kind of title sounded a little corny). It’s a little dense. Views From The Real World is easier to chew on.
A telling incident that they ignored Bohm, but now his equations are used again also In quantum chemistry. I dedicated a great deal of a recent novel in an attempt to invisage his world view, particularly the interconnectedness of the universe...
Excellent dialogue! Thanks. It’s about time that David Bohm gets more recognition. I’m curious about how Jung and the collective unconscious, archetypes, synchronicity and active imagination give shape to the hidden potential in the implicate. Also the work of Rolando Toro and his concept of the vital unconscious and the relationship between environment and genetic potential, the pulsating continuum between identity and self awareness and regression to the origin and each persons spiral of evolution to greater states of integration and wholeness.
Totally agree with you. David Bohm was a great physicist and mathematician ahead of his time having been poorly recognized. His vision is the most coherent riche and dynamic that Science has had in the interpretation of an indivisible reality. Equally Jung’s contributions were also extraordinary. Jung and Pauli concluded together that there is a unified underlying reality in which everything is created and everything returns. Also Rolando Toro’s research on the unconscious and the consciousness were brilliant. *"From nothing we will have to extract our energy, from the night we will start the sun, from the void your everlasting gaze will always come.” I love his poetry!.
There is something to be said for coming in through the back door - instead of being pre-trained to see through the lenses of the past. the 'territory' is sometimes called 'look within' - but could be called look within this moment, or indeed look within this movement. Our model or thought system provides a human cultural and consciousness development, but in a sense this is an instrument through which a dialogue operates. But an identification with our tool, is in a sense usurping its function as the extension of the gift of life, to a mindset of possession and control - operating AS IF self-contained and separate from its own Field of support, guidance and direction - as these are all redefined to serve what is essentially an ego-alien adventure. I found that if I displayed my wares in a shopping Mall I would sell far more than the same wares in a local shop. A musician who commands the most expensive ticket prices at prestigious venues is largely ignored if busking in a busy subway. Context is everything - but because we have displaced our consciousness to sets of rules that run as subconscious behavioural responses, we are conditioned to only recognise, accept and express life when such rules are met - all without perhaps any awareness of the invisible structures or systems of mores, beliefs and definitions that effectively frame our minds. But as we became aware of these we have weaponised and marketised such insight to gain power or influence in our world, rather than release our world, others and our self, from conditionings that are no longer relevant, useful or true and helpful to who we now recognise ourselves to be. BUT the culmination of such deceit in our current time is bringing a crash course in self-awareness to those who value life as a shared creative and unfolding relationship - instead of sleepwalking to death by systemic replacement to an even deeper level of dissociation and displacement that I recognise as arriving at our starting point and knowing it for the first time (As in TS Elliot's poem). Where once a choice was force on me by terror, I now choose not to automatically react - but to pause, listen and align in truth that reveals itself whole. And yes it is the way that Jesus exemplifies as the Father's Will or the Holy Spirit. - but its truth is in its fruits and not its packaging. Kindness is recognisable of a kInd. And we are all kindred beneath the persona of the split mind of a negatively defined sense of self and life and world. Thanks for the discussion and the heads up on the film and for being uniquely yourselves.
Rupert, the day "science" recognises that "light is animate" will be the day we as beings will take a leap forward. Your work on morphogenetic resonance I find refreshing but to understand one needs to look at the bigger picture and the story of light on how it breaks down over the emission point to receipt point. To understand what is light one needs to see it from how light relates to one's beingness.
Could you expand or point to a reference. I was intrigued by Young's Reflexive Universe where he outlines the fall of light and the rise of life. Is this a reference point for your comment?
Mark Tucker What about why people tend to think “god” is male and up in the sky somewhere? The grain (especially cereals) that man has been filling his belly with couldn’t have something to do with that? Why does everyone seem to equate light, *especially the light from the local star,* as “good?” Our bodies would die *instantly* if deprived of our atmosphere, yet people say *idiotic* things like, “All our life comes from the sun!” Why don’t people recognize the *patriarchal, militaristic SOLAR death cult* (that Mr. Sheldrake’s friend Terence referred to *at least once* that I’ve heard) that is being perpetuated? I’m leery of “light” being so “good” as it seems there’s an excess of it.
Glen Swartwout This “light” to which you refer is more like a drug that people get high on. There’s too much light and love of light going on. It certainly resembles addiction.
Guys, I will put it this way, intention is the creation of light from you (counciousness) to another receipt point (counciousness) . Light is suppose to be a wave and a particle. The particle is the intention (subject) the wave is how you would like the particle to be, the colour\sound, the consideration. Vibration gives rise to form, that being said your native state is spherical. You either emanate light (radiance) or you absorbing or bending light (gravity). A mis intention or misplaced intention is what make up gravity\ is gravity. (The lie, altered time & space). Black holes are not something you find out in deep space they can occur at every harmonic at a wave juncture. A cathartic relization is a harmonic and opening of your own AGN. They are actually black (old paradigm) and white holes (new paradigm), they on a galactic scale are not always active as our collective consciousness is not always having a realizeation. Hawking's was wrong about them. All our religions of the world except, Hermetic, Hindu and later Scientology (incomplete) are solar religions the later being galactic religions. The story of light is the emanation from source point (consciousness) to receipt point (consciousness) it breaks down every time it passes in and out of cells (heliopauses/solar systems & atmospheres). As you re-member! As our sun grows in size so will it grow in mass but that is also an inversquare of our collective consciousness. So you see light is very much animated for these and quite a few other reasons that our sciences fail to highlight. EG the most important word in Newtons equal and opposite was "equals" I quote Kant's work about thought that thought can be Empirical and Apriori so science does not have to be proven to exist. Those that know they do not say, and those that say do not know. This is a rare moment for me to speak about what I know to be true. I could keep going to point out many other relations to the above but enough for now. Enjoy!
Bohm cited Whitehead as an influence in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order." (There are some similarities between Bohm's implicate and explicate orders and Whitehead's primordial and consequent natures of God.)
24:15 It is not that Krishnamurti wasn't curious to read or study other philosophical works, the exact opposite in fact, he understood that anything more than a cursory study or acknowledgement of other philosophical ideas, religious or otherwise, would only serve to create further conditioning and implicit bias on the subjects being examined, retarding or totally negating any opportunity for pure, unadulterated and importantly, immediate observational awareness, without division between the observer and the observed.
As I was watching the film the language and concepts used continually reminded me of Bucky Fuller. Even though Bucky used different language and terms i.e. synergy, integrity patterns etc.. there was something familiar in the information 🤔
Hi Rupert and Mark - thank you again for the podcast! Related to Bohm's ideas, can you discuss Jung's idea of the pleroma, and how it relates to the Tibetan Bardo state. Rupert previously likened the Bardo to purgatory, but I'm wondering if there is a less differentiated quality to it, seeing as Jung equates it to the pleroma, and says about that that it is a realm of undifferentiation, containing nothing and everything, in short, the One or Unity that Bohm seems to have been sending at the bottom of Quantum physics. Thanks a million.
Its true that our words shape our way of thinking, an example is the word evil, true evil intention don´t exists, but we use the word like it´s a real thing.
I wrote a blog piece years ago about the "great war" between CS Lewis and Owen Barfield over Barfield's embrace of Rudolf Steiner's Anthropomorphic ideas. The whole Waldorf (sp?) School thing was very strange in my opinion, but Barfield could be brilliant at times.
After Brazil, Bohm went to teach at the Technion in Haifa, Israel where he met his wife, then he went to England to teach as well. The documentary can be watch for free @ facebook.com/Krishnamurtis
For a theory to be such it must have an intelligible foundation. David Bohm's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is a theory in that sense , not a mathematical procedure. I recall Bohm referring to Whitehead's process ideas in a talk online.
Even if I don't explicitly mention Bohm, my TFC model rests on his venerable shoulders (my background: masters in psychology): www.academia.edu/39005323/Toroidal_Field_of_Consciousness_Model_typo_corrections_and_an_added_reference_
As always a great discussion. Nothing is ever simple in science and politics, money and religion always hide in the background. I suppose the English language and the mathematic language are so distinct it’s very hard to convey QM to 99% of humans.
Return to a beginning. Quantum. A packet of energy. Energy travels in 'packets' from an emitter of energy to a receiver of energy. Why? Only certain discrete energies (packets) are seen, or believed to be seen, to be absorbed or emitted during energy exchanges between atoms, either by electron shell changes or nuclear shell changes. If one accepts that transfer of energies can be instantaneous via resonant interactions rather than at speed of light interactions, then one can dismiss quanta. Such thinking adheres more to Occam's Razor than does quantum mechanics and I would suggest that the maths would be simpler as well. There is no speed limit.
If "one accepts" instantaneous transfer then you might as well say "then a miracle occurs". Accepting this instaneous process without explanation is an unscientific shortcut and a big price to pay to simplify the mathematics
My thinking is, entangled groups of particles have an instant exchange of energy and information. What determines entanglement is that there is a continuous current. Like alternating current instantly moves energy at every point connected in a circuit and each point can change whether it is connected or not by opening or closing it's point of connection like a light switch. It's the structure of the receiver that determines it's ability to form a continuous circuit, in the cosmos, with a transmitter/source of vibration. The geometry of a receiver such as a protein is what determines it's range of frequency like a tuning fork, I think every receiver would also be a transmitter. I think everything can be seen as being a cell and each part of the cell would be entangled with the nucleus of that cell and the same could be said for barycenters though the entangled attraction for barycenters would not likely be Universal. I think almost any word that begins with pro describes a nucleus or a center of attraction, like a proton would be a nucleus with a universal attraction for all of the electrons which it encompasses. A protagonist would be a non Universal nucleus or center of attraction for matching particular characteristics, like the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz were held in place by fear but once the source of the fear was removed by the action of Love the monkeys were set free. I think consciousness is seen by it's ability to deviate particles from their otherwise inevitable position. Everything was initially set in motion by consciousness and each thing has consciousness as it's guide but consciousness can be lost within the things that surround it and continuously move in the inevitable direction of these things which were initially set in motion by a conscious decision. I know it's a little hard to follow but I think it makes sense. We get lost in reactions is the point I'm trying to make which are entirely predictable. We acknowledge this when we say someone is in a mood. I believe it's what Jesus was pointing to when he said Forgive them for they know not what they do. I think it's what is meant by the wages of sin being death because we live in reaction to the sine waves as the information received from our senses. It's why Jacob had his sinew hollowed and this caused him to limp on the Earth the rest of his days which was a good thing. Look up nerve in the dictionary and the first word is Sinew which was hollowed in the land of Pineal where imagination becomes reality according to what we believe. I'm very open to questions and interested in hearing points of disagreement.
@@imaginaryuniverse632I follow what you say here. Can't help but agree with you. As I read I am dealing with apparent nerve pain in my apparent tooth, trying not to react to it. Lol. I also think Jesus said what he said because they didn't realise they couldn't kill him because he is not his body. I haven't considered what you say about Jacob. But there are many other instances in the Bible that can be referenced.
I realise Krishnsmurti was not Jungs biggest fan. But isn't there a connection between morphic fields, memory, habits, the implicate order, with the archetypes. That is, the psychic factors we seem to 'inherit' or are inherent in our minds, needing no prior education? So these archetypes come from somewhere immaterial with no causal relationship, like habits? These concepts all feel like the same thing.
Is the challenge to find an acceptable narrative? Any narrative maintains a separation and suggests a direction or solution. The concept of cognitive resonance may serve as a description for influences without known origin. The enlightenment of one person may assist the enlightenment of others suggesting that a path is trodden and has a destination. Maybe enlightenment cannot be invited but at least we may be assisted in not resisting it.
So I am having a beautiful meditation and a name leaps out of the field into my consciousness "Rupert Sheldrake" I'd never heard the name before but I did some googling and here I am. I love it when God talks to me !
Memory is the presence of the past. Will is the presence of the future. It is observable in reverse time causality. Spirit is condensate, magneto-electric.
You could have talks with Pierre Grimes & I would like to be in the ether to hear them 😆... Btw: On a small-deeper look on your channel, I see we 'kinda' have the same self-made topic(s)-informational-maps. 😂
I think probably the most informative words for flow might be the electron transfer chain. The electron transfer chain is depicted in cartoon videos of how our mitochondria provides energy for the cells of our bodies by attracting electrons one by one onto structures that vibrate at particular frequencies that resonate with the frequencies of particular electrons. All energy contains within it information, there is no information that is not contained within energy in the apparent Universe. I could go on and on but I remind myself that almost no one really considers the entirety of what I have to say so I'll give myself a break on this comment without going into how the Sacral pump feeds the imagination and determines the world that appears from the world that we Imagine as we believe it will. I don't usually consider the entirety of what others have to say on the internet either, I'm just saying. I'll come off break on my next comment. 🤗
I think Krishnamurti was too 'hands-off' in terms of the practicing and effects of meditation when he was talking with the scientists back in the 70's and 80's at Brockwood. You can hear the scientists feeling their way towards some aspects of K's points, but without direct experience it could only be words and ideas (which of course many scientists love - too much?).
Humans love words and ascribing meaning now via numbers, and they think they are arriving at profound insights into existence. They are however arriving at the great wall at the limits of their consciousness and that marks the edge of futility. Pulling apart the clock was never going to offer any insights into what time and space are.
Well the 1920's were a seminal time and there was a concern about the scientific process. Bohms work is also related to Louis de Broglie 1926, Erwin Madelung, 1927, von Weizsacker 1935, but of course they were al interelated that's exactly the point in quantum informational potential!
David Bohm was a fan of James Gibson's theory of perception. "Our thinking process should be an extension of perception...": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LTTRka0ZM2E.html Bohm's 1965 book "The Special Theory of Relativity" has an appendix called "Physics and Perception" in which he explicitly refers to and uses Gibson's studies of perception as a basis for his discussion of interaction in physics and measurement. David Bohm's approach to quantum mechanics developed the first testable version of the famous EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) thought experiment on nonlocality, quantum entanglement, and quantum correlation which was first experimentally demonstrated in 1979 by Alain Aspect with quantum correlations at the macro scale (~30m). Gibson's influence on the development of physics has thus been quite profound. Michael Turvey's lectures refer to EPR and the facts of nonlocality and are worth comparison (see playlist): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tQz8mVAV57s.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IiIU9ZQWAsw.html In this segment, Bohm discusses the basis of perception in terms of what Gibson would have referred to as mathematical "higher order invariants" or..."information" - what is extracted or emerges through sufficient exploration and sampling of the ambient array. Rupert Sheldrakes morphic fields can usefully be thought of as _information_ in the Gibsonian sense of that over-used word - that perception is _specific_ to information and information is _specific_ to affordances (possible *actions* , or the very essence of meaning): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LTTRka0ZM2E.html
The work of Graham Smetham goes well beyond anything Bohm and especially Krishnamurti had to say (both lacked philosophical precision). They have their place in history but they have been surpassed.
Just like any piece of reality, knowledge/ideas exist before human comprehension. If a tree falls in the woods with no one to hear it ... Math, like any of set of ideas, was discovered AND created.
Maybe check into the dialogues that David Bohm had with the 14th Dalai Lama, who does compare Buddhist philosophy to challenge its precepts scientifically.
Princeton has produced some singular people, Arthur Young was an early student of relativity in America at Princeton, they had to formulate a special course of study just for him because nobody else was looking at Einstein's ideas in the 1920's. Arthur young went on to critique Relativity, and develop it further, he is another towering intellect who was dismissed by the scientific establishment, imagine, we have been ignoring these people! Arthur Young has yet to be understood, his time will come.
Around 23 min Rupert mentions that he didn’t know that Bohm read much of philosophy but here is a lecture by Bohm relying Process Philosophy to his work on the unfolding of the implicate order into the explicate order and enfolding back into the implicate order. He referred this perpetual movement as the holomovement ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BgbpJTyxQUA.html
I respect Sheldrake because he emphasizes the beauty and sacredness of life as we know it, but past that...i dont understand where exactly he's trying to direct science to. Is science really robbing a deeper meaning and understanding of the world/life?
Science that denies the life of the spirit does. It misses the implicate morphogenetic field that guides retrocausally, and therefore cannot be harnessed by efficiency observation, but only by observing the effortless knowledge of the future self.
@@GlenSwartwout Glen Swartwout hmm. I think i know what your saying. I feel like we should always have a deep respect/appreciation for existence. I personally cant feel happy/satisfied without the idea of a higher power/purpose. I mean, even if we somehow found a theory of everything, i would choose to believe there is a higher purpose. Its crazy times we live in, and science and spirituality are split more than ever. I see patterns and evidence for what "morphic resonance" everyday. Theres a quote that keeps coming to mind when i talk to the science sided people. Its actually from The Simpson's/Futurama creator Matt Groening- " when you do things right, ppl wont know youve done anything at all".
Physicists will not accept hidden variable for the only reason that it does not fit with the law of conservation and symmetry as this variable is not known and as a result their current theories about particle physics will not be OK. The irony is that the new discoveries came as dark matter assumed dark energy and matter symmetry issue are hard to be included in their theory as well .
I couldn’t make it to 10 minutes. How can such an exciting subject suddenly seem so dull I’m glazing over like an American doughnut. Maybe I’m not sharp enough for these two. Which sucks because their topics are all so juicy. I’ll keep trying.
Too bad Sheldrake doesn't take the time to read and reply to comments on the videos he posts. If he did i would like to ask him - Do you see science as an opposition to your understanding/beliefs of reality? Where and what would you change about societies general understanding of the natural world?
Scientist, not science... There is a field of Consciousness held as phonons in a condensate. It interpenetrates conventional matter, and negiates temporal change with the presence of the past.
@@GlenSwartwout plz dont assume to correct my questions... thats kinda rude. Idk if you were intending to be condescending, but it felt that way. Are you speaking on Sheldrakes behalf? Anyways....Just so you know, im asking these questions to personally get a better understanding of where everyone is at in hopes to unite more people...not divide them. Its mostly the people i care about.....friends and family.
I feel like he would want to change our perspective of science and physics. From the current mechanical, newtonian and separated point of view to a more organic, non-linear holistic mind set.
Bohm showed that his alternative, but coherent, interpretation of quantum physics couldn't be disproved and therefore was valid. From a spiritual point of view, Bohm makes sense, traditional quantum physics doesn't...
@@007EnglishAcademy I hope you realize, as time moves on, that your comment is without sense? A scientific theoretical system has no truck with „interpretations“. It must be falsifiable and not yet falsified. „Interpretation“ 😂
i had to laugh... both sitting infront a many many books... are they just repeating stuff they have been reading all their lifes.... in a sense they repeat someone elses reality... the answer is all so simple... we, you and me are all GOD and creating our reality with our own thoughts in the game called have fun with duality on earth !! isnt it?
Just because you have a degree doesn't mean your smart or sane. Newton was an christian zealot. If you can't duplicate it in the lab it's crap. I think you need a rectal craniotomy.
