Some synchronous thoughts on unthought

[Guest guest]

Glo, Harsha and all the other commentators on "unthought",

 

 

Loving synchronicity as I do, I'll pass on this lucid and meditative

2 paragraphs by David Bohm that another site directed me to

yesterday. It's from Bohm's own site: bohmdialogue.com/dialogue.html

and gives a slice of Bohm's thoughts about a dynamic of "listening"

from a larger concept that he calls "Dialogue", and that he

elaborates in a larger presentation on the site. It seems to fit

nicely with the thoughts on listening that Glo's Heidigger extract

suggests.

 

 

Suspension of thoughts, impulses, judgments, etc., lies at the very

heart of Dialogue. It is one of its most important new aspects. It is

not easily grasped because the activity is both unfamiliar and

subtle. Suspension involves attention, listening and looking and is

essential to exploration. Speaking is necessary, of course, for

without it there would be little in the Dialogue to explore, But the

actual process of exploration takes place during listening -- not

only to others but to oneself. Suspension involves exposing your

reactions, impulses, feelings and opinions in such a way that they

can be seen and felt within your own psyche and also be reflected

back by others in the group. It does not mean repressing or

suppressing or, even, postponing them. It means, simply, giving them

your serious attention so that their structures can be noticed while

they are actually taking place. If you are able to give attention to,

say, the strong feelings that might accompany the expression of a

particular thought - either your own or another's -- and to sustain

that attention, the activity of the thought process will tend to slow

you down. This may permit you to begin to see the deeper meanings

underlying your thought process and to sense the often incoherent

structure of any action that you might otherwise carry out

automatically. Similarly, if a group is able to suspend such feelings

and give its attention to them then the overall process that flows

from thought, to feeling, to acting-out within the group, can also

slow down and reveal its deeper, more subtle meanings along with any

of its implicit distortions, leading to what might be described as a

new kind of coherent, collective intelligence.

 

To suspend thought, impulse, judgment, etc., requires serious

attention to the overall process we have been considering -- both on

one's own and within a group. This involves what may at first appear

to be an arduous kind of work. But if this work is sustained, one's

ability to give such attention constantly develops so that less and

less effort is required.

 

 

Eric again:

I've found myself turning to ideas like these frequently in the last

couple of weeks, even before I read Bohm's version of them at his

site. More than a general outline of the sadhana of witnessing,

although it is that, or a way to mine both more enjoyment as well as

self analysis from multi-dialogues like those on this list, although

it serves this purpose as well, it seems to me that these suggestions

hold a lot of value to help us learn about ourselves and others,

including, perhaps, the perpetrators, when we consider the drastic

events of this past month. I've usually thought of this process

as "meditational listening", but Bohm's analysis helps me to

understand it better, if for no other reason than that it is another

perspective, and helps to re-convince me of the importance of this

kind of value and judgment suspension while maintaining full

alertness.

 

yours in the bonds,

eric

 

 

 

, "Gloria Lee" <glee@c...> wrote:

>

> People still hold the view that what is handed down to us by

tradition is

> what in reality lies behind us - while in fact it comes toward us

because we

> are its captives and destined to it. The purely historical view of

> tradition and the course of history is one of those vast self-

deceptions in

> which we must remain entangled as long as we are still not really

thinking.

> That self-deception about history prevents us from hearing the

language of

> the thinkers. We do not hear it rightly, because we take that

language to

> be mere expression, setting forth philosophers' view. But the

thinkers'

> language tells what is. To hear it is in no case easy. Hearing it

> presupposes that we meet a certain requirement, and we do so only

on rare

> occasions. We must acknowledge and respect it. To acknowledge and

respect

> consists in letting every thinker's thought come to us as something

in each

> case unique, never to be repeated, inexhaustible - and being shaken

to the

> depths by what is unthought in his thought. What is unthought in a

> thinker's thought is not a lack inherent in his thought. What is

un-thought

> is there in each case only as the un-thought. The more original the

> thinking, the richer will be what is unthought in it. The

unthought is the

> greatest gift that thinking can bestow. But to the commonplaces of

sound

> common sense, what is unthought in any thinking always remains

merely the

> incomprehensible. And to the common comprehension, the

incomprehensible is

> never an occasion to stop and look at its own powers of

comprehension.

> "This silence is language; it may speak more eloquently than any

words...it

> is the primordial attunement of one existence to another, out of

which all

> language comes. It is only because man is capable of such silence

that he

> is capable of authentic speech. If he ceases to be rooted in that

silence

> all his talk becomes chatter."

>

> By Martin Heidegger

[Guest guest]

, EBlackstead@c... wrote:

> Glo, Harsha and all the other commentators on "unthought",

>

>

> Loving synchronicity as I do, I'll pass on this lucid and

meditative

> 2 paragraphs by David Bohm that another site directed me to

> yesterday. It's from Bohm's own site:

bohmdialogue.com/dialogue.html

> and gives a slice of Bohm's thoughts about a dynamic of "listening"

> from a larger concept that he calls "Dialogue", and that he

> elaborates in a larger presentation on the site. It seems to fit

> nicely with the thoughts on listening that Glo's Heidigger extract

> suggests.

>

>

> Suspension of thoughts, impulses, judgments, etc., lies at the very

> heart of Dialogue. It is one of its most important new aspects. It

is

> not easily grasped because the activity is both unfamiliar and

> subtle. Suspension involves attention, listening and looking and is

> essential to exploration. Speaking is necessary, of course, for

> without it there would be little in the Dialogue to explore, But

the

> actual process of exploration takes place during listening -- not

> only to others but to oneself. Suspension involves exposing your

> reactions, impulses, feelings and opinions in such a way that they

> can be seen and felt within your own psyche and also be reflected

> back by others in the group. It does not mean repressing or

> suppressing or, even, postponing them. It means, simply, giving

them

> your serious attention so that their structures can be noticed

while

> they are actually taking place. If you are able to give attention

to,

> say, the strong feelings that might accompany the expression of a

> particular thought - either your own or another's -- and to sustain

> that attention, the activity of the thought process will tend to

slow

> you down. This may permit you to begin to see the deeper meanings

> underlying your thought process and to sense the often incoherent

> structure of any action that you might otherwise carry out

> automatically. Similarly, if a group is able to suspend such

feelings

> and give its attention to them then the overall process that flows

> from thought, to feeling, to acting-out within the group, can also

> slow down and reveal its deeper, more subtle meanings along with

any

> of its implicit distortions, leading to what might be described as

a

> new kind of coherent, collective intelligence.

>

> To suspend thought, impulse, judgment, etc., requires serious

> attention to the overall process we have been considering -- both

on

> one's own and within a group. This involves what may at first

appear

> to be an arduous kind of work. But if this work is sustained, one's

> ability to give such attention constantly develops so that less and

> less effort is required.

>

>

> Eric again:

> I've found myself turning to ideas like these frequently in the

last

> couple of weeks, even before I read Bohm's version of them at his

> site. More than a general outline of the sadhana of witnessing,

> although it is that, or a way to mine both more enjoyment as well

as

> self analysis from multi-dialogues like those on this list,

although

> it serves this purpose as well, it seems to me that these

suggestions

> hold a lot of value to help us learn about ourselves and others,

> including, perhaps, the perpetrators, when we consider the drastic

> events of this past month. I've usually thought of this process

> as "meditational listening", but Bohm's analysis helps me to

> understand it better, if for no other reason than that it is

another

> perspective, and helps to re-convince me of the importance of this

> kind of value and judgment suspension while maintaining full

> alertness.

>

> yours in the bonds,

> eric

>

>

>

> , "Gloria Lee" <glee@c...> wrote:

> >

> > People still hold the view that what is handed down to us by

> tradition is

> > what in reality lies behind us - while in fact it comes toward us

> because we

> > are its captives and destined to it. The purely historical view

of

> > tradition and the course of history is one of those vast self-

> deceptions in

> > which we must remain entangled as long as we are still not really

> thinking.

> > That self-deception about history prevents us from hearing the

> language of

> > the thinkers. We do not hear it rightly, because we take that

> language to

> > be mere expression, setting forth philosophers' view. But the

> thinkers'

> > language tells what is. To hear it is in no case easy. Hearing

it

> > presupposes that we meet a certain requirement, and we do so only

> on rare

> > occasions. We must acknowledge and respect it. To acknowledge

and

> respect

> > consists in letting every thinker's thought come to us as

something

> in each

> > case unique, never to be repeated, inexhaustible - and being

shaken

> to the

> > depths by what is unthought in his thought. What is unthought in

a

> > thinker's thought is not a lack inherent in his thought. What is

> un-thought

> > is there in each case only as the un-thought. The more original

the

> > thinking, the richer will be what is unthought in it. The

> unthought is the

> > greatest gift that thinking can bestow. But to the commonplaces

of

> sound

> > common sense, what is unthought in any thinking always remains

> merely the

> > incomprehensible. And to the common comprehension, the

> incomprehensible is

> > never an occasion to stop and look at its own powers of

> comprehension.

> > "This silence is language; it may speak more eloquently than any

> words...it

> > is the primordial attunement of one existence to another, out of

> which all

> > language comes. It is only because man is capable of such

silence

> that he

> > is capable of authentic speech. If he ceases to be rooted in

that

> silence

> > all his talk becomes chatter."

> >

> > By Martin Heidegger

 

Dear Eric, Gloria, and All:

 

I appreciate the above quotes from Heidigger and Bohm.

Heidigger- People can speak to deliver a message and say it in a way

to deliver a metamessage (body language, inflection, context etc,).

Because of this ability to speak, silence becomes a message. Silence

is a message without a metamessage or it is a metamessage without a

message.

This unthought is pure.

 

Bohm- The idea that thought would stop when you listen puts a deep

and valuable meaning in the word' listen'.

 

My experience of cessation of thought is this:

When a chain of thoughts stops there is realization of "I am" in the

present moment. A thought begins and the present moment is forgotten

until, for whatever reason, the "I am" appears in the Intellect at

the cessation of thoughts again. This is the space between

thoughts. When it is extended it is Devotion. It is Knowledge.

Dhyana. Submergence of the mind.

The intellect itself becomes viewable. Thoughts that would arise are

veiwable in a latent way. They do not result in an uncontrollable

chain until the mind emerges again.

 

Just thought I would relate that.

 

Love,

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

Wow...all of you who responded to the unthought quote: Greg, Andrew,

Mark, Mike, Eric B., Bobby....what a great demonstration you are of

the quote itself, with so many original ideas heard in what was

unspoken. Just as haiku evokes so much with so few words, listening

for the message in the silence is a true art in itself. Nothing is

communicated without the completion of the listener. And you are all

incredible listeners. Hope to find time soon for a less generalized

response to you all, but want you to know my appreciation.

 

You show that when one can truly listen to silence, you cannot help

but find that "emptiness is not empty".

 

Much love,

Glo