Events

Process, movement, time, flux, consciousness, memory, recurrence, relationality – these elements and more occur in mutually reflective ways in the work of David Bohm, Henri Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead. What resonances emerge when we hold these three bodies of work together? What variances do we discover? In this opening session of Beyond Bohm 2023, our panel will explore these and other questions. Of particular significance is the fact that all three men intended their insights to be applied and tested in daily life, rather than remaining purely theoretical. We then pose a further question: How do we make the shift from the abstract idea to the concrete lived quality?

The recent panpsychist turn in philosophy opens the possibility that self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity, including stars and galaxies, might have experience, awareness, or consciousness. The organismic or holistic philosophy of nature points in the same direction. Meanwhile, field theories of consciousness propose that some electromagnetic fields actually are conscious, and that these fields are by their very nature integrative. When applied to the sun, such field theories suggest a possible physical basis for the solar mind, both within the body of the sun itself and also throughout the solar system. If the sun is conscious, it may be concerned with the regulation of its own body and the entire solar system through its electromagnetic activity, including solar flares and coronal mass ejections. It may also communicate with other star systems within the galaxy. 

While Bohm’s work in physics and dialogue is well-established, new threads are emerging that attempt to take us deeper into the living substance and import of his metaphysics. What do we find when we peer beyond his foundational terms holoflux / holomovement? Is it possible to move out from the texts of Bohm’s books, and into the living world? Is there something that can be directly engaged through ongoing experimentation? In this session we will propose that there is a living actuality pointed to by Bohm, akin to what he described as “the qualitative infinity of nature.” We will explore two aspects of a multi-year holoflux inquiry — rheosoma (the flowing body) and holosoma (the body of the whole). From the outset, however, it is important to keep such terms experimental, enigmatic. What then emerges is not a model, system, or practice, but a process of open-ended embodiment in which the path is created while walking.

In late summer of 2020, through the Pari Center, a small group of people began an applied experiment into the nature of David Bohm’s holoflux (see session description for July 22, 2023). Midway through this inquiry, a number of the group formally presented some of their experiences regarding holoflux, rheosoma, and holosoma. These accounts led to the publication of a book, Holoflux: Codex (Pari Publishing, 2022), that carried the inquiry one step further. In this session, the contributors to the book will share some of that work and discuss their creative process. The conversation, however, will not be limited to an artifact (the book), but will also address the ongoing process of engaging with the holoflux experiment. What is the nature of this inquiry? What impact does it have in daily life? What has inspired people to sustain this inquiry? Where does it stand after three years?

What is the heart? In physiology, as far back as human records go, heart has been thought of as the core of the physical body, the sine qua non of life. Metaphorically, the heart has been considered as that which brings about the coursing of spirit, meaning and emotion throughout one’s person, one’s relationships and one’s community. It is the flow of life at both individual and collective spheres. David Bohm’s description of dialogue also refers to an essential flow: that of “meaning moving through.” Does dialogue, as well, have a heart, an essential core, through which a developing meaning flows? What might emerge as our all-women dialogue gestates this question?

Don’t miss this third annual Indigenous Dialogue, facilitated by Leroy Little Bear. This year we will have an extended dialogue session – two full hours of dialogue, a short break, then another hour of Q&A with Leroy and his guests. Our topic this year promises to be no less provocative than those of previous years, as we find ourselves in the interface of western and indigenous world views.

David Bohm made very important contributions to a range of different areas in physics. Amongst these, his work on quantum theory is possibly the most relevant to Pari discussions. In this talk I will attempt to outline Bohm’s ontological interpretation of quantum theory, which has since been developed by Basil Hiley amongst others. I will also discuss Bohm’s development of the Einstein-Podalsky-Rosen (EPR paradox) paper which led to John Bell’s work and our current understanding of entanglement.

Quantum mechanics is often regarded as an important case for pluralism in science, as the theory allows for a plurality of interpretations. This talk shows that scientific pluralism is also historically connected to quantum mechanics: in particular, the philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend developed his arguments for pluralism in the context of debates on quantum mechanics and in conversation with David Bohm.

David Bohm and Hugh Everett were both mavericks in physics,  bucking the Copenhagen trend (which was exceptionally  powerful during their formative years and long after). They each developed a surprising and novel interpretation  of quantum mechanics, which shared some features but were  also radically dissimilar, almost as dissimilar as their  personalities and outlook on life. Their views have been much  discussed, but less has been said of the place of mind  and consciousness within their interpretations. Bohm wrote  more explicitly about this, but Everett said very little about  the nature of mind. Here, I want to explore their views, to outline Bohm’s approach to the mind and to see how mind can  be integrated with the so-called Many-Worlds interpretation we owe to Everett.

This talk considers Bohm’s view of the self and the observer in the light of the recently published Bohm’s letters to Jeffrey Bub. (C. Talbot ed. (2020) David Bohm’s Critique of Modern Physics. Letters to Jeffrey Bub, 1966-1969. Cham: Springer).  Bohm’s view is influenced on the one hand by the situation in quantum physics, where the role of the observer is an important topic.  But there are also influences from his discussions with Krishnamurti. According to Bohm the plain fact in the mental domain is that observation is going on, but there is no separate observer inside the mind, who would be “doing the looking”.  Is this view plausible and consistent, and how does it relate to other contemporary views of the self?