Bohm relates things in the universe to not being random but rather intrinsically linked as a whole, even when seemingly separated. there is an exercise used to illustrate this point very well…2 cylindrical jars one slightly smaller than the other the smaller one with a crank on top. Place the smaller cylinder in the larger one and fill the space between with a viscus liquid such as glycerin. Place a single drop of ink in the liquid and turn the crank. The ink will be drawn out to a fine ribbon until it seems to disappear. When one reversed the motion of the inner cylinder the ink will reform to it’s original state.
To me the point here is that as individuals who manage artists and an artistic process we can never feel from the chaos there is no order because there still is and our job is to when necessary reverse the crank and reassemble the invisible to a visible order again. We do this on a reasonably regular basis, and the danger is to get discouraged by the continuation of what seems endlessly revisiting the same issues over and over. In Bohm’s exercise we should find some comfort that we are dealing correctly and consistently with these situations and form me it s an expected part of the job.
For more information see the article;
HOLOMOVEMENT AND THE IMPLICATE ORDER
Thoughts About Thinking
Before delving into Bohm’s substantive contributions to science, I will touch briefly on his ideas about language and thought. In his penchant for precision, Bohm analyzed ways that our language deceives us about the true nature of reality. We generally consider ordinary language to be a neutral medium for communication that does not restrict our world view in any way. language the true dynamic nature of reality….
Everyone seriously interested in gaining a better understanding on language of leadership should spend some time with David Bohm and should view this article by Will Keepin. I have maintained there is no such thing as a casual conversation. Words thoughts in there various forms are dynamic both in intent and perception. Every good morning carries an agenda, even it if it is genuine interest in how we are, it rarely stops there.
Bohm goes on to suggest that the movement of thought is a kind of artistic process that yields ever-changing form and content. He intimates that “there can no more be an ultimate form of such thought that there could be an ultimate poem (that would make all further poems unnecessary)” (p. 63). Indeed, imagine a Grand Unified Symphony that encompassed all possible symphonies–past, present, and future–thereby rendering all further musical composition redundant and unnecessary. The idea is preposterous, and yet many physicists, not recognizing their theories as art forms, strive for just such an ultimate scientific theory. In truth, science is essentially a creative art form that paints dynamic portraits of the natural world, using the human intellect as its canvas and the tools of reason as it palette. Bohm was rare among physicists in recognizing this, and he exhibited commensurate humility in the interpretation and extrapolation of his theories.