[peirce-l] Re: Evolutionary Love and the Implicate Order (Peirce/Bohm) was, Re: Peircean prayer, was: Re: one list archive now working

[Gary Richmond]

List, I thought I'd continue for a moment my monologue arguing for a possible Peirce-Bohm connection,  a spiritual dimension in philosophy as one of the branches of a  scientific metaphysic. I'll quote some passages in the David Bohm interview earlier commented on. Allow me to preface these passages with my comment off-list to a member of the CG list and reposted as part of a message in the New Elements part 3 discussion to suggest again why I consider this to be a significant moment: GR: I recently commented off the CG-list: The point for now is that [Peirce] finds a place in his work for a scientific metaphysic, and while opposed to theology as such, includes a religious branch within it. To my understanding, the intellectual distancing of, for example, many philosophers from spiritual concerns (towards materialism, nominalism, atheism, etc) has had the effect of giving up all that territory to such fundamentalisms as are now sweeping the world. We need, I believe, spiritual ideas which are appropriately advanced for our times, and especially the Bohm-Peirce connection (if one can be established) might be promising towards reviving interest in an approach to spirituality which is reality based (as in Scholastic Realism, not unlike Bohm's definition. . .), deep, scientific (in the sense in which it can form a wing of metaphysics, etc), and lively, imbuing cold science, logic, computer sci, etc. with the warm glow of our humanity finally beginning to explore its deep connectedness to the cosmos at the moment of what I believe to be its most serious ecological crisis. Some selected, brief excerpts from "Art, Dialogue, and the Implicate Order: David Bohm interviewed by Louwrien Wijers," Chapter 5 in David Bohm: On Creativity edited by Lee Nichol, Routledge, London, 1996. Q [Wijers]What was reality for you, then? BOHM Well, reality would mean something that would have some existence independently of being known. It might be that we would know it, but it didn't require that we would know it in order to exists. . . . . Q Was it your belief that there were destructive powers in the then prevailing mechanistic views in science? BOHM I was certainly dissatisfied with mechanism. I felt that mechanism and reductionism were destructive, as you say, that they would lead to a narrowing down of human thought, to focusing on some small thing, making it very rigid. Trying to contain life and mind and society and everything within this mechanism I think would have a bad effect. I don't think Bohr was actually a mechanist, but I felt that if we did not have some view of reality, it was unclear what we were talking about at all. I felt also that Bohr's view could lead to a certain kind of dogmatism, in which all these questions were just simply dismissed as having no significance. [127] ************ Q Is it true that the scientific spirit comes close to a kind of religious awareness? BOHM Yes, I would like to say that I read along ago, in some ancient saying, that there were three basic attitudes of spirit: the scientific, the artistic, and the religious. [GR: Peirce's trichotomy is somewhat different: the scientific, 3ns, the religious-artistic, 1ns, the politico-economic-practical, 2ns] They have certain things in common and certain differences. I think this is essential.      One of the most essential points of the scientific spirit is to acknowledge the fact, or the interpretation of the fact, whether you like it or not. This means not to engage in wishful thinking , and not to reject something just because you don't like it. This is not a common attitude in life generally, and scientists have been at great pains in the struggle to establish this spirit. This is obviously necessary for the artist too. . . The religious spirit requires the same thing, otherwise it will get lost in self-deception, as happens so easily. . . . . [O]ne needs to understand the reality of the process. [128] ************ [re: quantum theory and the implicate order]      Now, I tried to get some idea what might be the process implied by the mathematics of the quantum theory, and this process is what I call enfoldment. The mathematics itself suggests a movement in which everything, any particular element of space, may have a field which unfolds into the whole and the whole enfold in it. An example of that would be a hologram. . .      The suggestion is that if you look at the mathematics of the quantum theory it describes a movement of just this nature, a movement of waves that unfold and enfold throughout the whole of space. You could therefore say that everything is enfolded in this whole, or even in each part, and that it then unfolds. I call this the implicate order, the enfolded order, and this unfolds into the explicate order, in which everything is separated. . .      . . . The best analogy to illustrate the implicate order is the hologram, as I said. I contrast this to a photograph. Every part of the hologram contains some information about the object, which is enfolded. . . . . .   In the implicate order everything is thus internally related to everything, everything contains everything, and only in the explicate order are things separate and relatively independent. [129] ************ . . . . .   Everybody has many experiences of this implicate order. The most obvious one is ordinary consciousness, in which consciousness enfolds everything that you know or see. It doesn't merely enfold the universe, but you act according to that context as well. Therefore you are internally related to the whole in the sense that you act according to the consciousness of the whole.      The enfolded order is a vast range of potentiality, which can be unfolded. The way it is unfolded depends on many factors. The way we think and so on is among those factors. The implicate order implies mutual participation of everything with everything. No thing is complete in itself, and its full being is realized only in that participation. [130] ************ Q Does a creator God also exist in your implicate order? BOHM The issue is not raised. I have an idea of an implicate order and beyond that a super-implicate order, and so on, to orders that are more and more subtle. I say there are many more subtle levels. . . I think there is an intelligence that is implicit there. A kind of intelligence unfolds. The source of intelligence is not necessarily in the brain. The ultimate source of intelligence is much more enfolded into the whole.      Now, as far as the question whether you want to call that "God," this depends on what you mean by the word, because taking it as a personal God might restrict it in some way. The suggestion is that there is something like life and mind enfolded in everything. If you carry that to the ultimate, then that might be what some of the religious people mean by the world "god." But the word "god" means many different things to different people, and it becomes hard to know exactly what is implied. The implicate order does not rule out God, nor does it say there is a God. But it would suggest that there is a creative intelligence underlying the whole, which might have as one of the essentials that which was meant by the word "god." . . . . . [A]s you say more about the unlimited you begin to limit it. If you say "The unlimited is God, and by God I mean this and this and this," then you begin to limit it. I think it is essential not to limit God, if you believe in God." [131] I think that perhaps that's enough for now to suggest that there might be--at least in places--a correspondence of Bohm's and Peirce's understanding concerning "a creative intelligence underlying the whole." Gary Gary Richmond wrote: Thomas, No intrusion at all. Thanks for identifying the "The Law of Love and the Law of Reason are quite at one" quotation, which I had commented on recently in a discussion of the goal of inquiry & learning as the proper one for the university, but couldn't remember exactly where I'd found it when I posted my recent post-script. Now as for your PS, that was very interesting indeed. You wrote: If you accept that ���love consists in striving to fulfill the highest  aspiration of someone else��� and compare this with what a sign is and so consider that  . . .(CP 2.92) and further consider e.g. what the Interpretant wishes to do for its sign  (which latter is an interpretant itself in turn)... Now, I don't know who defined love as above, but it seems to me reasonable  and quite logical though it ain't that easy then;-) No, it ain't that easy! You asked who defined love as consisting "'in striving to fulfill the highest  aspiration of someone else." Perhaps you are thinking of another passage in Peirce, in the article "Evolutionary Love" where he writes: CP 6.289   Everybody can see that the statement of St. John [viz., that "God is Love" GR] is the formula of an evolutionary philosophy, which teaches that growth comes only from love, from I will not say self-sacrifice, but from the ardent impulse to fulfill another's highest impulse. Was that "ardent impulse to fulfill another's highest impulse" the idea you had in mind? In any event, the rest of that passage is well worth quoting as it puts an interesting slant on especially the "reasonable" part of the equation: law of love == law of reason. Peirce continues: Suppose, for example, that I have an idea that interests me. It is my creation. It is my creature; for as shown in last July's Monist, it is a little person. I love it; and I will sink myself in perfecting it. It is not by dealing out cold justice to the circle of my ideas that I can make them grow, but by cherishing and tending them as I would the flowers in my garden. The philosophy we draw from John's gospel is that this is the way mind develops; and as for the cosmos, only so far as it yet is mind, and so has life, is it capable of further evolution. Love, recognizing germs of loveliness in the hateful, gradually warms it into life, and makes it lovely. That is the sort of evolution which every careful student of my essay "The Law of Mind"†2 must see that synechism calls for. Well, more on this and I'll have to move it to the thread "Peircean prayer" where I'd like soon to discuss a possible connection of Peirce's ideas on evolutionary love with David Bohm's implicate order, especially as it's expressed in his interview with L. Wijers (which can be found as the last chapter On Creativity, Bohm, Routledge, 1996). For example, as part of an answer to Wijers' question: "Q Does a creator God also exist in your implicate order?" Bohm replies (this is a mere snippet in a long reply): I think there is an intelligence that is implicit there. A kind of intelligence unfolds. The source of intelligence is not necessarily in the brain. The ultimate source of intelligence is much more enfolded into the whole. . .  [T]here is a creative intelligence underlying the whole, which might have as one of the essentials that which was meant by the word "God." (Bohm, op. cit., 131) There are several other Peirce-like comments in the interview. For example when asked: "Q What was reality for you, then?" Bohm begins his reply by saying: Well, reality would mean something that would have some existence independently of being known.[127] Perhaps I will move this response to the other thread (but change its Subject) in case there's anyone on the list who's been thinking about the Peirce-Bohm connection. Gary Thomas Riese wrote: On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:36:52 +0100, Gary Richmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote: "the law of Love and the law of Reason are one" (I'm not sure that's an  exact quote). GR "The Law of Love and the Law of Reason are quite at one." in: Review of Clark University, 1889-1899. Decennial Celebration", Science  11 (1900), p. 620; reprinted in P. P. Wiener, ed., Charles S. Peirce: Selected  Writings. (Values in a Universe of Chance), Dover, New York, 1966, p. 332. Regards Thomas Riese. P.S. If you accept that ���love consists in striving to fulfill the highest  aspiration of someone else��� and compare this with what a sign is and so consider that A Sign is anything which is related to a Second thing, its Object, in  respect to a Quality, in such a way as to bring a Third thing, its Interpretant, into relation  to the same Object, and that in such a way as to bring a Fourth into relation to that Object  in the same form, ad infinitum. (CP 2.92) and further consider e.g. what the Interpretant wishes to do for its sign  (which latter is an interpretant itself in turn)... Now, I don't know who defined love as above, but it seems to me reasonable  and quite logical though it ain't that easy then;-) Sorry for intruding, just had this at my fingertips. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com