Peter: We have also been down this path before and I’ll repost my reply as it is equally pertinent to your current question –

The Holoscience people discount the notion of higher dimensions, but I still maintain we may be constrained by our sensory apparatus to only those detectable inputs. Of course, I could be entirely wrong about that ... maybe we are seeing all that there is. Maybe it is adequate, and complete. I’ll have to mull this over some more and rein in my sceptical bent a tad.

Human beings have an obsession with ‘the notion of higher dimensions’ – the belief that the world is subject to the influence of good forces and evil forces is prevalent in every tribe and every culture on the planet. This belief is somewhat understandable considering that it emerged in the days when it was universally believed that the world was three layered – a flat earthy plane full of dangerous animals and dangerous humans, a mystifying heavenly realm above and a mysterious underworld below. Eventually it was empirically observed that the earth was not flat but was spherical and subsequent explorations over centuries proved that this was in fact so. Nowadays photos of earth taken from spacecrafts have subsequently convinced all but the wacky that the earth is not flat.

The next belief to be demolished by empirical observation was the notion that the earth was the centre of the solar system – an empirical observation only made possible by the invention of a mechanical enhancement of our ‘sensory apparatus’ – the telescope. As telescopes got bigger and better, the belief that our galaxy was all there was to the universe – a conviction held in Einstein’s time – was replaced by the discovery that there are in fact countless other galaxies in the universe. The subsequent invention of radio telescopes and the like has meant that we are now able to observe and measure spectrums of the electromagnetic energy of the universe that lay outside the range human eyes can detect.

And yet, despite this long history of scientific discoveries about the extraordinary magic that is the physical universe, the eons-old search for some sort of ‘higher dimension’ or metaphysical energy – the famed spirit-energy of mythology – still persists.

The same long trek from belief and superstition to actuality and wonder can be seen in the discoveries about the creation of animate life. The process of animal reproduction was unknown to early humans and all sorts of beliefs and superstitions flourished in ignorance. Now, thousands of years later, the science of observation and investigation – mightily boosted by the invention of the inverted telescope, the microscope – has revealed the facts to be far more wondrous than the puerile myths dependant upon the belief in supernatural spirit forces.

I could go on tripping through other fields of scientific discovery and endeavour, but you probably have got the gist of what I am saying – human beings will never be free from the fear and hope inherent in superstition if they insist on believing in higher dimensions, supernatural forces, metaphysical realms, divine beings, good and evil spirits and so on – or persist in hoping that one day science will provide the empirical evidence that spiritual belief so tellingly lacks. Peter to No 38, 14.2.2003

I find it telling that those who propose such statements as ‘95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ most often resort to the example of electromagnetic radiation, as though this specific case provides proof of the existence of invisible and unperceivable phenomena.

Whilst it is a fact that we cannot see electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet spectrum with our eyes – the spectrum of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation thus far detected ranges from 10³ HZ to 10²² HZ and the unaided human eye is only capable of detecting the visible light portion within the 10¹⁴ HZ to 10¹⁵ HZ range – we are nevertheless able to sensately perceive UV as warmth on our skin and we are able to detect it and measure it with instruments that are mechanical extensions of our senses. In short, we know by sensory observation that UV exists as a fact, that it is a thing in itself, that it is physical in nature.

Similarly, anyone who has stood near an infrared lamp can sense infrared electromagnetic radiation, anyone who has eaten food cooked in a microwave oven can see and taste the effects of microwave electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has listened to radio or watched television can sensately experience the results of encoded information being sent via the longer wave frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has had an X-ray in a hospital can not only see and touch the machine that produces the electromagnetic radiation but they can also see and touch the resultant picture produced by the X ray electromagnetic waves.

Perhaps you could offer another example other than the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation in support your stance that David Bohm’s statement is valid.

Because it seems to be the only example of that people can think of in order to justify the claim ‘that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’.

That you have avoided my invitation to offer another example is but further evidence that the claim lacks credibility.

Okay, seeing I lack the benefit of long-sightedness, what are the other characteristics of electromagnetic radiation that we are not sensing? What other ways are there to experience, measure or detect electromagnetic radiation? Given that you are making these claims, it is up to you to substantiate them.

A good deal of the electromagnetic spectrum has always been able to be detected by the unaided human senses – even a Neanderthal man could see the sun and sensately experience its UV radiation as heat on his skin. The invention of instruments that extend the range of human sensory perception, particularly in the last hundred years, has revealed a good deal more of the extent and range of electromagnetic radiation. During this same period of rapid scientific growth we have made similar leaps in our ability to perceive, observe, quantify and understand both the extent and range of the physical matter and physical energy that make up the physical universe.

Apart from discoveries that have expanded the extent and range of that which we know exists by way of our senses, perhaps you could offer some examples of new discoveries of new phenomena to support your claim that Mr. Bohm’s alleged statement that ‘that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ is validated by historical record.

*

In doing so, you may well find that Mr. Bohm is using the word phenomena in the philosophical sense –

Phenomena – Philos. An immediate object of perception (as distinguished from substance, or a thing in itself). Oxford Dictionary

– in which case he is talking of objects of perception that have neither substance nor physical existence – in other words, he is talking of phenomena that are meta-physical, as in –

Metaphysical – Not empirically verifiable. Immaterial, incorporeal, supersensible; supernatural. Oxford Dictionary

While you say ‘you may argue David Bohm’s ‘spiritual’ bent’, there is no need for me to do so because his spiritual bent is a matter of fact – well-publicized, well-known and readily verifiable.

And yet, earlier in this same post, you have maintained that Mr. Bohm’s absolute statement about the nature of the universe – ‘that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ – is valid. I take it from this that you do not regard his statement as being presumptuous nor do you regard it as smacking of a belief system.

Am I missing your point here? I take it that when Mr. Bohm says ‘95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’, he makes this statement because he is sure of the nature of the universe. I also know from your previous comments that you are also sure that his claim is valid –

I think it’s a bit scientifically naive to assume that just because something is the ‘way we perceive it’, it must be the whole truth … I still maintain we may be constrained by our sensory apparatus to only those detectable inputs.

Just to make things clear, in a conversation about the nature of the universe you maintain that our perception of the nature of the universe ‘may be constrained by our sensory apparatus to only those detectable inputs’. If you are sure about this, and you seem to be arguing strongly that this is so, then by your own principle – ‘to be sure of the nature of the universe is a belief system’ – you are supporting a belief-system.

However, in order to be faithful to your agnostic stance you would have to be sure that you are not sure, i.e. you would have to maintain that everything was a belief, including Mr. Bohm’s alleged statement.

It must be a tough business having to reject everything on principle.

It’s pertinent to point out that ancient Eastern spirituality teaches that the illusionary identity (‘I’ as ego only) is borne exclusively of the process of conditioning … whereas actualism establishes by observation and experimentation that the social/ instinctual identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is borne of the genetically-encoded instinctual passions.

Big deal about nothing – instinctual passions are still conditioning. Evolutionary conditioning, in fact. There are others who say much the same thing. Read writings by David Bohm, for example.

A quote will reveal what David Bohm saw as being the root cause of human malice and sorrow –

‘Indeed, for both the rich and the poor, life is dominated by an ever growing current of problems, most of which seem to have no real and lasting solution. Clearly we have not touched the deeper causes of our troubles. It is the main point of this book that the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself, the very thing of which our civilization is most proud, and therefore the one thing that is ‘hidden’ because of our failure seriously to engage with its actual working in our own individual lives and in the life of society.’ D. Bohm & Mark Edwards, Changing Consciousness

And another quote reveals the apparent source of this conviction –

‘... we went on to consider the general disorder and confusion that pervades the consciousness of mankind. It is here that I encountered what I feel to be Krishnamurti’s major discovery. What he was seriously proposing is that all this disorder, which is the root cause of such widespread sorrow and misery, and which prevents human beings from properly working together, has its root in the fact that we are ignorant of the general nature of our own processes of thought. D. Bohm, A Brief Introduction to the Work of Krishnamurti.

I cannot find anywhere that David Bohm has mentioned the words ‘evolutionary conditioning’ or anything like these words let alone where he indicates that the instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow – all I could find made it patently clear that he lays the blame for the ills of humankind on thinking and not feelings.

Given that you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide the evidence that any of the spiritual teachings mention ‘evolutionary conditioning’ … or did you just coin the term on the fly, as it were?

Actually he doesn’t separate thinking and feeling. In his book ‘Thought As A System’ he considers thought to be one aspect of a larger system that not only includes feelings in the body but the all the myriad of connections with the body and world at large. Put aside regular conceptual boundaries placed in the word thought (ie the idea that thought is only internal and ephemeral ‘whispers in the mind’) and consider it to be part of a larger whole.

What you appear to be suggesting here is that if I ‘put aside regular conceptual boundaries placed in the word thought’ then I could consider it to ‘be part of a lager whole’, which presumably means that it includes the genetically-encoded instinctual passions. Therefore when David Bohm says that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself’, I am to assume he is saying that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in the genetically-encoded instinctual passions’? Are you for real?

You can see that the movement of thought influences the brain, the body and the environment at large (buildings, roads, pollution, cultural influence, government etc) and that feedback returns into our bodies through the senses to make us feel and act in certain ways.

The ‘larger whole’ – the ‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory – still lays the blame for the ills of humankind at the feet of thinking and conditioning, not feelings borne of the instinctual passions.

He considers the effect that evolution has had as well.

Simply repeating a claim over and over does not make it a fact. Could you perchance provide some evidence where he David Bohm indicates that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow and not that thought is the root cause?

And please note that just because I quote or paraphrase someone does not mean that I endorse all they do and say. David Bohm spent far too much time and energy with the reprehensible J Krishnamurti.

If I may point out, it was you who made the comment –

Big deal about nothing – instinctual passions are still conditioning. Evolutionary conditioning, in fact. There are others who say much the same thing. Read writings by David Bohm, for example.

When I provided quotes that clearly indicated that Mr. Bohm specifically said that the ultimate source of all the problems that plague humanity is thought itself, you then offer a disclaimer that you are not prepared to endorse all that Mr. Bohm said. That puts an end to the possibility of any sensible discussion, hey?

*

No 30 has kindly supplied an interesting quote from David Bohm. I’ll reproduce it here so that the fair-minded amongst us can see some equivalence to your preferred actualistic cliché:

Bohm: ‘Thought has become conditioned over the ages, partly by heredity, and partly through tradition, culture and environment. It has been conditioned to self-deception, to falsify, to distort. And this is in the material structure of the brain. In one sense this conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of brain damage. Conditioning gives great importance to thought, to the self and to the center. It overloads, it distorts and gradually damages the brain.’

They both then agreed that fear, sorrow, economic conditions, social environment.... ‘does damage to the brain cells.’

Bohm went on to state: ‘There is real physical, chemical damage to the brain cells and those damaged brain cells will produce thought that is inherently distorted. Therefore, as thought tries to correct that damage, it does so from a distorted brain.’ From a talk, ‘Tradition and Truth’, Gstaad, 8.6.1975

Again the quote says that thought and human conditioning is the problem – not the genetically-encoded instinctual passions and the human condition itself.

*

He [Bohm] considers the effect that evolution has had as well.

Simply repeating a claim over and over does not make it a fact. Could you perchance provide some evidence where he David Bohm indicates that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow and not that thought is the root cause?

I see that you are looking for something that I’m not asking of Dr Bohm. You are demanding that Dr Bohm use your terminology before you will recognise any equivalence. I’ve not claimed that there would be a one-to-one relationship to actualism. I’ve suggested that other people have been thinking along similar lines.

Okay. You have again posted a quote in this post that supposedly demonstrate equivalence –

‘They both then agreed that fear, sorrow, economic conditions, social environment ... ‘does damage to the brain cells.’’

And yet it is clear that the instinctual passions are genetically-encoded in every normal healthy brain, i.e. people with undamaged brain cells feel fear, aggression, nurture and desire. There is no equivalence here – one is a myth, the other is a fact, a fact that has been the subject of historical denial but one that is gradually being confirmed by more and more empirical evidence.

*

And please note that just because I quote or paraphrase someone does not mean that I endorse all they do and say. David Bohm spent far too much time and energy with the reprehensible J Krishnamurti.

If I may point out, it was you who made the comment –

‘Big deal about nothing – instinctual passions are still conditioning. Evolutionary conditioning, in fact. There are others who say much the same thing. Read writings by David Bohm, for example.’

When I provided quotes that clearly indicated that Mr. Bohm specifically said that the ultimate source of all the problems that plague humanity is thought itself, you then offer a disclaimer that you are not prepared to endorse all that Mr. Bohm said. That puts an end to the possibility of any sensible discussion, hey?

You put pay to discussion with feeble conclusions like that.

It was your failure to stand by the evidence you are offering in order to prove your point that actualism is nothing other than re-branded spiritualism, i.e. that it is not new, which led me to this conclusion. If you stop providing evidence that you are not prepared to stand by, and start to provide some that you are prepared to stand by, then we can have a sensible discussion.

In other words, it’s high time you stopped bluffing and started to play your trump cards – if you had any, that is.

In a previous point I said that Bohm would regard instinctual passions to be a part of the whole system of thought, so if Bohm sheets home the blame to thought you can be sure he includes a very wide section of experience including instinctual passions.

Why should I assume that he said something when he didn’t say it? Or more to the point, why do you assume that he said something when he didn’t say it?

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions