Participatory Thought & Planet Plundering
David Bohm informs us that in early culture we humans exercised “participatory thought; this form of thinking is still common today—people felt that they were participation in the big picture—plains Indians felt that there were many buffalo that were displays of the spirit of buffalo and that in hunting and eating this buffalo the Indians participated in this world spirit—likewise the Eskimo felt similarly being a participant of the spirit of seals—these people felt that in their thoughts they participated in these worldly spirits.
Modern man has converted somewhat from such thoughts “We want to have a thought about something where we don’t participate, where we think about it and know just what it is.—the form of thought which we modern man prefers are what is called “literal thought.
Literal thought is intended to reflect just reality as it really exists—it is thought that focus on “just the facts mam—technology aims for literal thought--the scientific method enthrones literal thought
Some compare this attitude about literal thought as being a form of idol worship—when we construct an idol it is a representative of some force, after awhile the idol becomes in our thoughts that force—example is when the flag becomes a literal thought of a nation—thus we overvalue the symbol—literal thought and participatory thought stand side by side but generally those things that we value most involve participatory thought—“the tribe and the totem—we are identical—when my country is attacked, I am attacked; when my conclusions are attacked I am attacked.
Explicitly we give supreme value to literal thought—tacitly we give supreme value to participatory thought—literal thought makes technology possible and participatory thought went underground, the crazy aunt in the attic.
Participatory thought creates a sense of belonging; it does not create a separation of subject and object. “That way of thinking would not lead anybody to plunder the planet.
Participatory thought however has some dangers. When Indian tribes thought of them selves as human beings and ‘human being’ became a word for tribal members then when engaging other tribes in battle that tribe were not ‘human beings’. Likewise in Hitler’s Germany a similar situation prevailed.
As society began to develop larger groups literal thought became more prevalent; these societies need much better organization. They organized society by saying “You belong here, you do this, and you do that¦They began, therefore, to treat everything as a separate object, including other people. They used people as a means to an end.
How do these characteristics of thought affect our ability to communicate and to “just get along?
Participatory Thought Planet Plundering
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Participatory Thought Planet Plundering
coberst;879430 wrote: Participatory Thought & Planet Plundering
David Bohm informs us that in early culture we humans exercised “participatory thought; this form of thinking is still common today—people felt that they were participation in the big picture—plains Indians felt that there were many buffalo that were displays of the spirit of buffalo and that in hunting and eating this buffalo the Indians participated in this world spirit—likewise the Eskimo felt similarly being a participant of the spirit of seals—these people felt that in their thoughts they participated in these worldly spirits.
Modern man has converted somewhat from such thoughts “We want to have a thought about something where we don’t participate, where we think about it and know just what it is.—the form of thought which we modern man prefers are what is called “literal thought.
Literal thought is intended to reflect just reality as it really exists—it is thought that focus on “just the facts mam—technology aims for literal thought--the scientific method enthrones literal thought
Some compare this attitude about literal thought as being a form of idol worship—when we construct an idol it is a representative of some force, after awhile the idol becomes in our thoughts that force—example is when the flag becomes a literal thought of a nation—thus we overvalue the symbol—literal thought and participatory thought stand side by side but generally those things that we value most involve participatory thought—“the tribe and the totem—we are identical—when my country is attacked, I am attacked; when my conclusions are attacked I am attacked.
Explicitly we give supreme value to literal thought—tacitly we give supreme value to participatory thought—literal thought makes technology possible and participatory thought went underground, the crazy aunt in the attic.
Participatory thought creates a sense of belonging; it does not create a separation of subject and object. “That way of thinking would not lead anybody to plunder the planet.
Participatory thought however has some dangers. When Indian tribes thought of them selves as human beings and ‘human being’ became a word for tribal members then when engaging other tribes in battle that tribe were not ‘human beings’. Likewise in Hitler’s Germany a similar situation prevailed.
As society began to develop larger groups literal thought became more prevalent; these societies need much better organization. They organized society by saying “You belong here, you do this, and you do that¦They began, therefore, to treat everything as a separate object, including other people. They used people as a means to an end.
How do these characteristics of thought affect our ability to communicate and to “just get along?
Assuming your analysis is accurate and I have no choice but to accept that as true, it would seem to me that particpatory thought is broken down into the various groups representing human beings in total, some large, some small and both perhaps coexisting at the same time, states within a country, cities within a state, neighborhoods within a city, etc.
To me this says that it is impossible for us all to ever truly get along mainly because any one of the groups can be corrupted by one single person sometimes under the guise of using literal thought to persuade others.
Could this be why there has never been peace in the world? And it appears never will be. :-1
David Bohm informs us that in early culture we humans exercised “participatory thought; this form of thinking is still common today—people felt that they were participation in the big picture—plains Indians felt that there were many buffalo that were displays of the spirit of buffalo and that in hunting and eating this buffalo the Indians participated in this world spirit—likewise the Eskimo felt similarly being a participant of the spirit of seals—these people felt that in their thoughts they participated in these worldly spirits.
Modern man has converted somewhat from such thoughts “We want to have a thought about something where we don’t participate, where we think about it and know just what it is.—the form of thought which we modern man prefers are what is called “literal thought.
Literal thought is intended to reflect just reality as it really exists—it is thought that focus on “just the facts mam—technology aims for literal thought--the scientific method enthrones literal thought
Some compare this attitude about literal thought as being a form of idol worship—when we construct an idol it is a representative of some force, after awhile the idol becomes in our thoughts that force—example is when the flag becomes a literal thought of a nation—thus we overvalue the symbol—literal thought and participatory thought stand side by side but generally those things that we value most involve participatory thought—“the tribe and the totem—we are identical—when my country is attacked, I am attacked; when my conclusions are attacked I am attacked.
Explicitly we give supreme value to literal thought—tacitly we give supreme value to participatory thought—literal thought makes technology possible and participatory thought went underground, the crazy aunt in the attic.
Participatory thought creates a sense of belonging; it does not create a separation of subject and object. “That way of thinking would not lead anybody to plunder the planet.
Participatory thought however has some dangers. When Indian tribes thought of them selves as human beings and ‘human being’ became a word for tribal members then when engaging other tribes in battle that tribe were not ‘human beings’. Likewise in Hitler’s Germany a similar situation prevailed.
As society began to develop larger groups literal thought became more prevalent; these societies need much better organization. They organized society by saying “You belong here, you do this, and you do that¦They began, therefore, to treat everything as a separate object, including other people. They used people as a means to an end.
How do these characteristics of thought affect our ability to communicate and to “just get along?
Assuming your analysis is accurate and I have no choice but to accept that as true, it would seem to me that particpatory thought is broken down into the various groups representing human beings in total, some large, some small and both perhaps coexisting at the same time, states within a country, cities within a state, neighborhoods within a city, etc.
To me this says that it is impossible for us all to ever truly get along mainly because any one of the groups can be corrupted by one single person sometimes under the guise of using literal thought to persuade others.
Could this be why there has never been peace in the world? And it appears never will be. :-1
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Participatory Thought Planet Plundering
Participatory thought however has some dangers. When Indian tribes thought of them selves as human beings and ‘human being’ became a word for tribal members then when engaging other tribes in battle that tribe were not ‘human beings’. Likewise in Hitler’s Germany a similar situation prevailed.
I came back after reading this post this afternoon, and really think the comparison is a long stretch in your example. You went from the example of Native Americans with their relationship to animal spirits, to genocide and Hitler. I think the example of Native Americans, and their reasons for intertribal warfare was based on more than finding the opposing group non-human. They were not part of their tribe, or their version of how their perceived themselves. Warfare was based on land possession, needed resources and survival, and other reasons.
The tribes unified in many instances, in their responses to other cultures invading their land. So in many cases, this quote is not true at all.
I came back after reading this post this afternoon, and really think the comparison is a long stretch in your example. You went from the example of Native Americans with their relationship to animal spirits, to genocide and Hitler. I think the example of Native Americans, and their reasons for intertribal warfare was based on more than finding the opposing group non-human. They were not part of their tribe, or their version of how their perceived themselves. Warfare was based on land possession, needed resources and survival, and other reasons.
The tribes unified in many instances, in their responses to other cultures invading their land. So in many cases, this quote is not true at all.
Participatory Thought Planet Plundering
Quinns
It appears to me that ideology induces participatory thinking but when OUR ideology meets THEIR ideology a clash ensues and literal thinking takes over. When ideology confronts another, a good example when Clinton Democrats confront Obama Democrats we get an US versus THEM, it is then that confrontation and literal thinking begins. This confrontation is resolved and the confrontation becomes Republicans versus Democrats.
This results in a paradox, i.e. a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. A problem is a question raised for inquiry consideration, or solution.
How does one solve a paradox? If we treat a paradox as a problem we can only aggravate the matter! Perhaps we have not found a solution because we have yet to discover how to deal with a paradox.
It appears to me that ideology induces participatory thinking but when OUR ideology meets THEIR ideology a clash ensues and literal thinking takes over. When ideology confronts another, a good example when Clinton Democrats confront Obama Democrats we get an US versus THEM, it is then that confrontation and literal thinking begins. This confrontation is resolved and the confrontation becomes Republicans versus Democrats.
This results in a paradox, i.e. a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. A problem is a question raised for inquiry consideration, or solution.
How does one solve a paradox? If we treat a paradox as a problem we can only aggravate the matter! Perhaps we have not found a solution because we have yet to discover how to deal with a paradox.
Participatory Thought Planet Plundering
Chonsigirl
You are correct. I did not mean to equate the two situations as my statement might have indicated. I guess it is that both are ideologies and when we are inside an ideology we use participatory thought and when opposing another ideology we use literal thinking. I all gets rather confusing.
You are correct. I did not mean to equate the two situations as my statement might have indicated. I guess it is that both are ideologies and when we are inside an ideology we use participatory thought and when opposing another ideology we use literal thinking. I all gets rather confusing.
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Participatory Thought Planet Plundering
coberst;879648 wrote: Quinns
It appears to me that ideology induces participatory thinking but when OUR ideology meets THEIR ideology a clash ensues and literal thinking takes over. When ideology confronts another, a good example when Clinton Democrats confront Obama Democrats we get an US versus THEM, it is then that confrontation and literal thinking begins. This confrontation is resolved and the confrontation becomes Republicans versus Democrats.
This results in a paradox, i.e. a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. A problem is a question raised for inquiry consideration, or solution.
How does one solve a paradox? If we treat a paradox as a problem we can only aggravate the matter! Perhaps we have not found a solution because we have yet to discover how to deal with a paradox.
A few examples of a such a paradox would help.
It appears to me that ideology induces participatory thinking but when OUR ideology meets THEIR ideology a clash ensues and literal thinking takes over. When ideology confronts another, a good example when Clinton Democrats confront Obama Democrats we get an US versus THEM, it is then that confrontation and literal thinking begins. This confrontation is resolved and the confrontation becomes Republicans versus Democrats.
This results in a paradox, i.e. a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. A problem is a question raised for inquiry consideration, or solution.
How does one solve a paradox? If we treat a paradox as a problem we can only aggravate the matter! Perhaps we have not found a solution because we have yet to discover how to deal with a paradox.
A few examples of a such a paradox would help.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Participatory Thought Planet Plundering
Quinns
Take the prevailing tendency toward nationalism. Every reasonable person recognizes the need for common human feelings and truthfulness. However, in times of great stress and danger the reaction of fear is so strong that every one immediately is ready to take up arms against another nation.
Each side treats the other as non-humans. At home we accept all kinds of curtailments of liberty. We are readily willing to accept self-deception, what is false becomes true. Self deception is necessary for survival. We recognize what we are doing and that we have behaved equally in the past and have regretted it later but each time we repeat the same formula and we know we will do the same later.
Take the example of a man who recognizes that he is susceptible to flattery. He might try consciously to become defensive against flattery. But the flattered is often driven by deep seated sense of inadequacy. This sense of inadequacy is so painful that the consciousness is repressed except for occasional moments when something causes attention to the unpleasant feeling.
When someone comes along and tells him how well he did so-and-so he feels great pleasure and he has a strong tendency to feel that he is being told the truth. In order to defend himself he unconsciously seeks and accepts flattery. It is clear that if he sees the matter as a problem he will try his best to solve the problem by stopping deceiving himself.
It becomes clear that each attempt at solving the problem fails because of the inner need to deceive him for the pleasurable release from pain that is the origin of the whole tendency in the first place.
When we treat something as a problem we face it until it is resolved but some situations have a source so deep seated that there can be no solution until very deeply established matters are comprehended and dealt with. So when we treat a paradox as a problem we only create more confusion and frustration until we recognize that we are dealing with a complex pattern which is the seat of the paradox that requires a completely different attack.
I think that the example of the ideology inherent in politics provides such an example of the paradox; we always repeat the irrational tendencies when one ideology faces another. Even while recognize how foolish our behavior is, our deep seated feelings are allowed to overcome our rational behavior.
I have known individuals who constantly go back to the same type of character as a lover when they know that this type of character is not suitable. They seem to have a magnetic attraction to the wrong kind of mate. The tendency is probably deep set in their personality or past experience which prevents solution until they manage to dig deeply and find the basic source of their problem. They remain locked in a contradiction. They know that Joe is not the right guy for them but Joe is the kind of guy that attracts them.
Take the prevailing tendency toward nationalism. Every reasonable person recognizes the need for common human feelings and truthfulness. However, in times of great stress and danger the reaction of fear is so strong that every one immediately is ready to take up arms against another nation.
Each side treats the other as non-humans. At home we accept all kinds of curtailments of liberty. We are readily willing to accept self-deception, what is false becomes true. Self deception is necessary for survival. We recognize what we are doing and that we have behaved equally in the past and have regretted it later but each time we repeat the same formula and we know we will do the same later.
Take the example of a man who recognizes that he is susceptible to flattery. He might try consciously to become defensive against flattery. But the flattered is often driven by deep seated sense of inadequacy. This sense of inadequacy is so painful that the consciousness is repressed except for occasional moments when something causes attention to the unpleasant feeling.
When someone comes along and tells him how well he did so-and-so he feels great pleasure and he has a strong tendency to feel that he is being told the truth. In order to defend himself he unconsciously seeks and accepts flattery. It is clear that if he sees the matter as a problem he will try his best to solve the problem by stopping deceiving himself.
It becomes clear that each attempt at solving the problem fails because of the inner need to deceive him for the pleasurable release from pain that is the origin of the whole tendency in the first place.
When we treat something as a problem we face it until it is resolved but some situations have a source so deep seated that there can be no solution until very deeply established matters are comprehended and dealt with. So when we treat a paradox as a problem we only create more confusion and frustration until we recognize that we are dealing with a complex pattern which is the seat of the paradox that requires a completely different attack.
I think that the example of the ideology inherent in politics provides such an example of the paradox; we always repeat the irrational tendencies when one ideology faces another. Even while recognize how foolish our behavior is, our deep seated feelings are allowed to overcome our rational behavior.
I have known individuals who constantly go back to the same type of character as a lover when they know that this type of character is not suitable. They seem to have a magnetic attraction to the wrong kind of mate. The tendency is probably deep set in their personality or past experience which prevents solution until they manage to dig deeply and find the basic source of their problem. They remain locked in a contradiction. They know that Joe is not the right guy for them but Joe is the kind of guy that attracts them.
Participatory Thought Planet Plundering
Quinns
I copied this paragraph from Bhom"s book.
“More generally, one can say that when something goes wrong psychologically, it is confusing to describe the resulting situation as a “problem. Rather it would be better to say that one was confronted by a paradox. In the case of the man who was susceptible to flatter, the paradox is that he apparently knows and understands the absolute need to be honest with himself and yet he feels an even stronger “need” to deceive himself, when this helps to release him from an unbearable sense of inadequacy and to substitute a sense of inward rightness and well being. What is called for in such a case is not some procedure that “solves the problem". Rather it is to pause and to give attention to the fact that his thinking and feeling is dominated, through and through, by a set of self- contradictory demands or “needs” so that as long as such feeling and thinking prevails, there is no way to put things right. It takes a great deal of energy and seriousness to “stay with” an awareness of this fact rather than to “escape” by allowing the mind to dart into some other subject, or otherwise lose awareness of the actual state of affairs.”
I copied this paragraph from Bhom"s book.
“More generally, one can say that when something goes wrong psychologically, it is confusing to describe the resulting situation as a “problem. Rather it would be better to say that one was confronted by a paradox. In the case of the man who was susceptible to flatter, the paradox is that he apparently knows and understands the absolute need to be honest with himself and yet he feels an even stronger “need” to deceive himself, when this helps to release him from an unbearable sense of inadequacy and to substitute a sense of inward rightness and well being. What is called for in such a case is not some procedure that “solves the problem". Rather it is to pause and to give attention to the fact that his thinking and feeling is dominated, through and through, by a set of self- contradictory demands or “needs” so that as long as such feeling and thinking prevails, there is no way to put things right. It takes a great deal of energy and seriousness to “stay with” an awareness of this fact rather than to “escape” by allowing the mind to dart into some other subject, or otherwise lose awareness of the actual state of affairs.”