What do you think?
Rate this book
On Creativity
Creativity is fundamental to human experience. In On Creativity David Bohm, the world-renowned scientist, investigates the phenomenon from all sides: not only the creativity of invention and of imagination but also that of perception and of discovery. This is a remarkable and life-affirming book by one of the most far-sighted thinkers of modern times.
192 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1998
109 people are currently reading
1721 people want to read
About the author
David Bohm
68 books459 followersDavid Joseph Bohm (December 20, 1917 – October 27, 1992) was an American scientist who has been described as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century and who contributed innovative and unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, neuropsychology and the philosophy of mind.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
February 25, 2020
While reading this book, a quote by Aldous Huxley kept coming to mind: "The secret of genius is to carry the spirit of the child into old age, which means never losing your enthusiasm." The spirit of the child is also defined by immense creativity, not moulded or limited yet by certain preconceived ideas.
In "On Creativity" Bohm highlights the importance of this exact spirit in scientific research and progress. He then proceeds to methodically analyse the constituents of the creative process, establishing differences between "imagination" and "fancy". He defines imagination as the process which creates a "new totality" in the mind, a totality built on completely new systems. It is only at this point that imaginative fancy is employed. Now the mind can begin to reason out more and more of the consequences implied by both the new systems and the new totality.
In Bohm's view, these are equally important in the developement of new hypothesis and theories, however he maintains that a radically new theory which seeks to describe natural phenomena of some deep universal significance will have its beginnings in a moment of a greater degree of imaginative insight rather than imaginative fancy.
Thus scientific theories may be regarded, as the name itself suggest (theoria: "to view"), as empirically supported ways in which to perceive or view reality, not as ultimate truths, as there are no such things.
Bohm raised some very interesting points in this book and as a biochemist I can attest to the importance of creativity in research. A flash of creative insight can modify perception, allowing the approach of a problem from a completely different standpoint, not undermining the other perspectives but unifying them towards a solution. Such has been the case in the recent decade with cancer treatment, namely immunotherapy approaches to cancer, which shifted the focus from inhibiting very specific molecules to harnessing and accentuating the body's own defense mechanisms against cancer.
Short but very stimulating read for anyone working or interested in science. Draws attention to the need of abandonimg mechanical thought processes implemented into the mind by years of conditioning, and harnessing the child-like imagination to change our perception.
In "On Creativity" Bohm highlights the importance of this exact spirit in scientific research and progress. He then proceeds to methodically analyse the constituents of the creative process, establishing differences between "imagination" and "fancy". He defines imagination as the process which creates a "new totality" in the mind, a totality built on completely new systems. It is only at this point that imaginative fancy is employed. Now the mind can begin to reason out more and more of the consequences implied by both the new systems and the new totality.
In Bohm's view, these are equally important in the developement of new hypothesis and theories, however he maintains that a radically new theory which seeks to describe natural phenomena of some deep universal significance will have its beginnings in a moment of a greater degree of imaginative insight rather than imaginative fancy.
Thus scientific theories may be regarded, as the name itself suggest (theoria: "to view"), as empirically supported ways in which to perceive or view reality, not as ultimate truths, as there are no such things.
Bohm raised some very interesting points in this book and as a biochemist I can attest to the importance of creativity in research. A flash of creative insight can modify perception, allowing the approach of a problem from a completely different standpoint, not undermining the other perspectives but unifying them towards a solution. Such has been the case in the recent decade with cancer treatment, namely immunotherapy approaches to cancer, which shifted the focus from inhibiting very specific molecules to harnessing and accentuating the body's own defense mechanisms against cancer.
Short but very stimulating read for anyone working or interested in science. Draws attention to the need of abandonimg mechanical thought processes implemented into the mind by years of conditioning, and harnessing the child-like imagination to change our perception.
February 7, 2008
An interesting book discussing the relationship between art and science. After reading this, I attempted (again) the quantum physics book that's been dogging me. The introduction is especially fascinating, written by a blackfoot native american covering (this guy's) philosophical interactions with Bohm regarding language and creative thinking. There could be a whole book written just about this. Anyhow, I started skimming "On Creativity" in a book store and had to buy it because I was getting a crimp in my neck and the introduction was so strong. The rest of the book is quite readable and although it is a fairly quick read, it does present plenty of ideas. I really enjoyed his 'reconstructions' of Einstein, Newton, and Hellen Keller's creative processes. As an artist it made me think very seriously about my own creative process.
December 27, 2014
เป็นหนังสือที่อ่านยากทั้งตัวเนื้อหาและวิธีเขียน แต่ถ้าใช้เวลา "สกัด" เอาสารที่ซ่อนอยู่ข้างในออกมา จะพบกับความมหัศจรรย์ยิ่งใหญ่ในวิธีคิด ในการสำรวจความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างศิลปะกับวิทยาศาสตร์ ซึ่งในบางแง่มีความเหมือนกันอย่างยิ่ง โดยเฉพาะเมื่อเราได้ "ยก" ตัวเองออกมาพ้นจาก "ต้นทุน" เดิมๆในการมองสิ่งต่างๆ ไม่ว่าจะมองอย่างศิลปินหรือนักวิทยาศาสตร์ก็ตาม คิดว่าหนังสือเล่มนี้นำไปประยุกต์ใช้ได้กับวิธีคิดทุกเรื่อง แม้กระทั่งเรื่องการเมือง
September 12, 2017
Hugely under-appreciated philosophy of science (and general perception of knowledge and ideas) that points out fundamental oversights in our currently dominant attitudes. Bohm's revelations should (and hopefully will) be world-changing in that they point the way to a much broader and more realistic understanding of the way we function, and how to avoid getting stuck in accidental self-delusion (for example, we think about the world around us in terms of a paradigm, but we should think of our paradigms in terms of the world – no human knowledge is guaranteed to remain correct indefinitely, and we must be open to the possibility of new ideas disproving old ones at any time rather than believe anything is the "real truth").
The only criticism I have of this book is the prose sometimes becomes dry and occasional sentences are convoluted.
The only criticism I have of this book is the prose sometimes becomes dry and occasional sentences are convoluted.
November 23, 2017
Let’s begin with a couple of basic statements.
• Physics is f’ing awesome.
• Its main question is – what is this (stuff)?
• Its answers have evolved. We used to think it’s a bunch of teeny tiny atoms. Now we see it as more fluctuations of waves.
• This author isn’t one of these Thou Shalt Not Doubt Science modern scholars. He “gets it,” it being the essential unity and harmony of all. He respects the trinity of tools we have thinking – art, math, and science.
One of the biggest leaps of faith is modern science. It’s astonishing how different the world is than what meets our eye. Perspective is a funny illusion, for everything is a wave of motion. I’ll explain, trust me this ramble will return to equilibrium. Things get a little loopy when you start to dabble in Newtonian meets Relativity meets Quantum physics. Ready?
The other month, National Geographic had a cover story “On Genius.” The first paragraph basically said, no one knows what genius is so let’s just talk about creativity. I was literally laughing. We can’t even define genius! Sometimes the simplest questions uncover the most profound truths. This book is titled “On Creativity,” but it could be called a number of other titles. Here are a few I think are better:
• Science, Math, Art and Oneness
• Perceptions of Self in a Quantum World (Spoiler alert – you do not exist)
• Truth is Beauty
• All is One
• Om
The first chapter of The Perennial Philosophy is called “I am That,” and it’s about the same fundamental truth this book addresses – there is one oneness. We are a part of it. Here’s where it starts to get interesting - The default view that WE see it (the world) and we are separate from it is an illusion. We are a part of the very fabric. Differences between objects are a matter of perception, not fact. In sum – we are one.
The way we see our thoughts as different from the objects they describe is again, an illusion. Picture it not as an eyeball and a thing but more of a wave, as our thoughts give shape to idea which latch onto “objects.” Objects are really just combinations of waves we see as different things. Think about it, is that really a man’s face in the cloud or do you just trace that shape there?
According to the author (in this case, a physicist though this stuff could have easily been written by a religious mystic) children see life creativity. Later, we teach paradigms (there are nonliving and living things and then humans and then YOU as separate) that lead to confusion or disunity. Creativity is simply the process of stitching together what has come apart, seeing yourself and your thoughts as part of the whole. Any idea or action that is noble “fits” with the harmony that exists. That harmony can be felt more than it can be seen. It is one with harmony, totality, and the feeling of beauty.
A mind that sees creativity is alert, attentive, aware, and sensitive. I love the and sensitive element, because the first three a’s could trick you into trusting your perceptions too much. Our trained thinking is deductive, we break down large things into smaller and smaller parts, but creative thinking is inductive. It builds from below and within (also without). It is open and wholehearted as a child learning to walk. It undoes a lot of what it had been conditioned to think and in so doing becomes more free in how it sees the world. But the prize is this – more harmony, beauty, and freedom to exhibit within the sacred whole.
Listen, there’s a hell of a beautiful oneness right here. Let’s go.
Quotes
What he [or she, a scientist] is really seeking to learn something new that has a certain fundamental kind of significance: a hitherto unknown lawfulness in the order of nature, which exhibits unity in a broad range of phenomena. Thus, he wishes to find in the reality in which he lives a certain oneness and totality, or wholeness, constituting a kind of harmony that is felt to be beautiful. In this respect, the scientist is perhaps not basically different from the artist, the architect, the musical composer, etc. who all want to create this sort of thing in their work. 3
Harmony and beauty can be found…we all feel a fundamental need to discover and create something that is whole and total, harmonious and beautiful…deep down, it is probably what very large numbers of people in all walks of life are seeking when they attempt to escape the daily humdrum routine by engaging in every kind of entertainment, excitement, stimulation, change of occupation and so forth, through which they ineffectively try to compensate for the unsatisfying narrowness and mechanicalness of their lives. 3
Real perception that is capable of seeing something new and unfamiliar requires that one be attentive, alert, aware, and sensitive. 5
Nature is a creative process, in which not merely new structures but also new orders of structure are always emerging (although the process [evolution] takes a very long time by our standards]. 12
What, then, is the creative state of mind, which so few have been able to be in? As indicated earlier, it is, first of all, one whose interest in what is being done is wholehearted and total, like that of a young child. With this spirit, it is always open to learning what is new, to perceiving new differences and new similarities, leading to new orders and structures, rather than always tending to impose familiar orders and structures in the field of what is seen. 21
The key is on the state of mind of the individual. 23
When we try to apply a mechanical pattern to the functioning of the mind as a whole, then we are extending this order beyond its proper domain…A similar effort is implied when the child is told what he should think (on the basis of authority, to adopt certain opinions as to what is “right and proper”) and what he should feel (love for his parents and hatred for the enemies of his country). Because the mind is not a mechanical thing, it cannot actually hold to such an order. 24
Whenever this is happening [a conflict of mechanical frameworks for thinking], we tend to say that the mind is in a state of “disorder.” In the long run no really subtle, deep, and far-reaching problems can be solved in any field whatsoever, except by people who are able to respond in an original and creative way to the ever changing and developing nature of the overall fact by which they are confronted…Each person has to discover what it means to be original and creative. After all, generally speaking, the childlike quality of fresh, wholehearted interest is not entirely dead in any of us. 27
The question of assimilation is always one of establishing a harmoniously ordered totality of structural relationships…[back in the day] science was concerned not only with practical problems of assimilating nature to man’s physical needs, but also with the psychological need to understand the universe – to assimilate it mentally so that man could feel “at home.”..As for art, it evidentially helped man to assimilate the immediately perceptual aspects of experience into a total structure of harmony and beauty…religion has been concerned centrally with the question of experiencing all life, all relationships, as one unbroken totality, not fragmented, but whole and undivided. 34
As one approaches the broadest possible field of science, one discovers closely related criteria of “truth” and “beauty.” For what the artist creates must be “true to itself,” just as the broad scientific theory must be “true to itself.” 40
What the scientists can learn from art is first of all to appreciate the artistic spirit in which beauty and ugliness are, in effect, taken as sensitive emotional indicators of truth and falsity. 45
No form of insight remains relevant and fruitful indefinitely. Thus, after several centuries of working very well, the Newtonian form of insight, when extended into new domains, eventually led to unclear results. In these new domains, new forms of insight were developed (the theory of relativity and quantum theory). These gave a radically different picture of the world from that of Newton…theories are ways of looking which are neither true nor false, but rather clear and fruitful in certain domains, and unclear and unfruitful when extended beyond these domains. [Now if that doesn’t explain that science and religion can coexist in harmony I don’t know what does.] 57
If this fragmentation is to come to an end, it is clearly necessary to inquire deeply into the actual function of our thought…through series and sustained attention to one’s own thoughts. 86
Theory comes from the Greek word for “theatre” in a verb, meaning “to view.” This suggests that we might regard a theory as, “a view,” or “a form of insight,” rather than as a “well-defined and certain knowledge about reality.” 88
In the quantum context one can regard terms like “experimental conditions” and “observed object” as aspects of a single overall “pattern” that are, in effect, abstracted or “pointed out” by our mode of description. Thus, to think of an “observed instrument” interacting with a separately existing “observed particle” has no meaning. [it’s all one!] 93
“Movement gives shape to all forms.
Structure gives order to movement.” –Leonardo da Vinci
One may ask: “What does it mean to fit” Evidently, this cannot possibly be given a complete analysis or explanation. Indeed, even if we thought we have one, we would have to ask: “Does it fit the real nature of fitting?” Thus, we would be thrown back into an act of perception, feeling, and skilled response to what is actually going on in life as a whole. For example, we would not attempt to define what sort of fitting makes a great work of art. Why, then, should we ask for a similar definition in connection with life as a whole, the understanding of which requires an art of yet higher order? 106
Metaphysics is in essence a systemic way of attempting to say something relevant about all. 109
From early childhood we learn to accept the notion that the world is constituted out of a tremendous number of different and separately existing things. Some of these things are inanimate objects, some are alive, some are human beings. And to each person there is a certain very special one of these things, which is himself…It has to be emphasized that this generally accepted metaphysics is not commonly known in the form of an explicit statement as given above. Rather, it is built up, mainly tacitly, in countless conclusions from an experience over a lifetime. Because this accumulated residue of tactic metaphysical thought is largely automatic and habitual, we are not aware of it as such. And so, as pointed out in an earlier section, we do not see the one undivided movement in which the thought actually functions to give shape to outward perception and to inward feelings, motivation, urges, and so forth. 121
• Physics is f’ing awesome.
• Its main question is – what is this (stuff)?
• Its answers have evolved. We used to think it’s a bunch of teeny tiny atoms. Now we see it as more fluctuations of waves.
• This author isn’t one of these Thou Shalt Not Doubt Science modern scholars. He “gets it,” it being the essential unity and harmony of all. He respects the trinity of tools we have thinking – art, math, and science.
One of the biggest leaps of faith is modern science. It’s astonishing how different the world is than what meets our eye. Perspective is a funny illusion, for everything is a wave of motion. I’ll explain, trust me this ramble will return to equilibrium. Things get a little loopy when you start to dabble in Newtonian meets Relativity meets Quantum physics. Ready?
The other month, National Geographic had a cover story “On Genius.” The first paragraph basically said, no one knows what genius is so let’s just talk about creativity. I was literally laughing. We can’t even define genius! Sometimes the simplest questions uncover the most profound truths. This book is titled “On Creativity,” but it could be called a number of other titles. Here are a few I think are better:
• Science, Math, Art and Oneness
• Perceptions of Self in a Quantum World (Spoiler alert – you do not exist)
• Truth is Beauty
• All is One
• Om
The first chapter of The Perennial Philosophy is called “I am That,” and it’s about the same fundamental truth this book addresses – there is one oneness. We are a part of it. Here’s where it starts to get interesting - The default view that WE see it (the world) and we are separate from it is an illusion. We are a part of the very fabric. Differences between objects are a matter of perception, not fact. In sum – we are one.
The way we see our thoughts as different from the objects they describe is again, an illusion. Picture it not as an eyeball and a thing but more of a wave, as our thoughts give shape to idea which latch onto “objects.” Objects are really just combinations of waves we see as different things. Think about it, is that really a man’s face in the cloud or do you just trace that shape there?
According to the author (in this case, a physicist though this stuff could have easily been written by a religious mystic) children see life creativity. Later, we teach paradigms (there are nonliving and living things and then humans and then YOU as separate) that lead to confusion or disunity. Creativity is simply the process of stitching together what has come apart, seeing yourself and your thoughts as part of the whole. Any idea or action that is noble “fits” with the harmony that exists. That harmony can be felt more than it can be seen. It is one with harmony, totality, and the feeling of beauty.
A mind that sees creativity is alert, attentive, aware, and sensitive. I love the and sensitive element, because the first three a’s could trick you into trusting your perceptions too much. Our trained thinking is deductive, we break down large things into smaller and smaller parts, but creative thinking is inductive. It builds from below and within (also without). It is open and wholehearted as a child learning to walk. It undoes a lot of what it had been conditioned to think and in so doing becomes more free in how it sees the world. But the prize is this – more harmony, beauty, and freedom to exhibit within the sacred whole.
Listen, there’s a hell of a beautiful oneness right here. Let’s go.
Quotes
What he [or she, a scientist] is really seeking to learn something new that has a certain fundamental kind of significance: a hitherto unknown lawfulness in the order of nature, which exhibits unity in a broad range of phenomena. Thus, he wishes to find in the reality in which he lives a certain oneness and totality, or wholeness, constituting a kind of harmony that is felt to be beautiful. In this respect, the scientist is perhaps not basically different from the artist, the architect, the musical composer, etc. who all want to create this sort of thing in their work. 3
Harmony and beauty can be found…we all feel a fundamental need to discover and create something that is whole and total, harmonious and beautiful…deep down, it is probably what very large numbers of people in all walks of life are seeking when they attempt to escape the daily humdrum routine by engaging in every kind of entertainment, excitement, stimulation, change of occupation and so forth, through which they ineffectively try to compensate for the unsatisfying narrowness and mechanicalness of their lives. 3
Real perception that is capable of seeing something new and unfamiliar requires that one be attentive, alert, aware, and sensitive. 5
Nature is a creative process, in which not merely new structures but also new orders of structure are always emerging (although the process [evolution] takes a very long time by our standards]. 12
What, then, is the creative state of mind, which so few have been able to be in? As indicated earlier, it is, first of all, one whose interest in what is being done is wholehearted and total, like that of a young child. With this spirit, it is always open to learning what is new, to perceiving new differences and new similarities, leading to new orders and structures, rather than always tending to impose familiar orders and structures in the field of what is seen. 21
The key is on the state of mind of the individual. 23
When we try to apply a mechanical pattern to the functioning of the mind as a whole, then we are extending this order beyond its proper domain…A similar effort is implied when the child is told what he should think (on the basis of authority, to adopt certain opinions as to what is “right and proper”) and what he should feel (love for his parents and hatred for the enemies of his country). Because the mind is not a mechanical thing, it cannot actually hold to such an order. 24
Whenever this is happening [a conflict of mechanical frameworks for thinking], we tend to say that the mind is in a state of “disorder.” In the long run no really subtle, deep, and far-reaching problems can be solved in any field whatsoever, except by people who are able to respond in an original and creative way to the ever changing and developing nature of the overall fact by which they are confronted…Each person has to discover what it means to be original and creative. After all, generally speaking, the childlike quality of fresh, wholehearted interest is not entirely dead in any of us. 27
The question of assimilation is always one of establishing a harmoniously ordered totality of structural relationships…[back in the day] science was concerned not only with practical problems of assimilating nature to man’s physical needs, but also with the psychological need to understand the universe – to assimilate it mentally so that man could feel “at home.”..As for art, it evidentially helped man to assimilate the immediately perceptual aspects of experience into a total structure of harmony and beauty…religion has been concerned centrally with the question of experiencing all life, all relationships, as one unbroken totality, not fragmented, but whole and undivided. 34
As one approaches the broadest possible field of science, one discovers closely related criteria of “truth” and “beauty.” For what the artist creates must be “true to itself,” just as the broad scientific theory must be “true to itself.” 40
What the scientists can learn from art is first of all to appreciate the artistic spirit in which beauty and ugliness are, in effect, taken as sensitive emotional indicators of truth and falsity. 45
No form of insight remains relevant and fruitful indefinitely. Thus, after several centuries of working very well, the Newtonian form of insight, when extended into new domains, eventually led to unclear results. In these new domains, new forms of insight were developed (the theory of relativity and quantum theory). These gave a radically different picture of the world from that of Newton…theories are ways of looking which are neither true nor false, but rather clear and fruitful in certain domains, and unclear and unfruitful when extended beyond these domains. [Now if that doesn’t explain that science and religion can coexist in harmony I don’t know what does.] 57
If this fragmentation is to come to an end, it is clearly necessary to inquire deeply into the actual function of our thought…through series and sustained attention to one’s own thoughts. 86
Theory comes from the Greek word for “theatre” in a verb, meaning “to view.” This suggests that we might regard a theory as, “a view,” or “a form of insight,” rather than as a “well-defined and certain knowledge about reality.” 88
In the quantum context one can regard terms like “experimental conditions” and “observed object” as aspects of a single overall “pattern” that are, in effect, abstracted or “pointed out” by our mode of description. Thus, to think of an “observed instrument” interacting with a separately existing “observed particle” has no meaning. [it’s all one!] 93
“Movement gives shape to all forms.
Structure gives order to movement.” –Leonardo da Vinci
One may ask: “What does it mean to fit” Evidently, this cannot possibly be given a complete analysis or explanation. Indeed, even if we thought we have one, we would have to ask: “Does it fit the real nature of fitting?” Thus, we would be thrown back into an act of perception, feeling, and skilled response to what is actually going on in life as a whole. For example, we would not attempt to define what sort of fitting makes a great work of art. Why, then, should we ask for a similar definition in connection with life as a whole, the understanding of which requires an art of yet higher order? 106
Metaphysics is in essence a systemic way of attempting to say something relevant about all. 109
From early childhood we learn to accept the notion that the world is constituted out of a tremendous number of different and separately existing things. Some of these things are inanimate objects, some are alive, some are human beings. And to each person there is a certain very special one of these things, which is himself…It has to be emphasized that this generally accepted metaphysics is not commonly known in the form of an explicit statement as given above. Rather, it is built up, mainly tacitly, in countless conclusions from an experience over a lifetime. Because this accumulated residue of tactic metaphysical thought is largely automatic and habitual, we are not aware of it as such. And so, as pointed out in an earlier section, we do not see the one undivided movement in which the thought actually functions to give shape to outward perception and to inward feelings, motivation, urges, and so forth. 121
September 13, 2020
دربارهی جزمیت عنوان بهتری بود ؛
غامض ، ارتجاعی ، بد نثر ، بی ارتباط به هنر !
غامض ، ارتجاعی ، بد نثر ، بی ارتباط به هنر !
May 2, 2020
Many describe Bohm's prose as dry or academic prose, and I couldn't disagree, but this does not make it less interesting. There are few ways to philosophically/scientifically/rationally address the substance of the universe, humanity, and thought and find (at their base) a great deal in common. Nevertheless, the vision/image he presents of our thinking --with human motivation, action, and perception being essential parts of the pattern/fit/structure of our intervention with it -- shakes a great deal of the foundations of physics and social binaries. Hearkening along the way to the Dalai Lama's argument in The Universe in a Single Atom, I was pleased to hear that he has studied with both the Dalai and Krishnamurti. This does not mean that his argument is inherently spiritual, but that what he defines through science and reason finds a metaphor in both the phenomenological and spiritual realms. Compelling and heady! I will have to think quite a bit more on this to find questions about his approach, but on the whole, a worthy and necessary addition to the argument for our social conscience.
April 27, 2021
In this bundle of essays on creativity Bohm shifts between practical observations towards metaphysical thought. Not easy to comprehend, as expected for a quantum physicist, but yet insightful throughout his discourse.
He touches many different subjects, from science to language towards society (still relevant in this time). For me the main message stood out as all the different disciplines being interconnected.
Being familiar with writings of Alan Watts and Itzhak Bentov it's a refreshing take on esotherical wordings of oneness.
Bohm doesn't offer direct advice, he wants to create awareness. Dialogue should lead to the practice of thought, but that in itself, is a paradox of its own. Would very much recommend, a book to read twice or thrice.
He touches many different subjects, from science to language towards society (still relevant in this time). For me the main message stood out as all the different disciplines being interconnected.
Being familiar with writings of Alan Watts and Itzhak Bentov it's a refreshing take on esotherical wordings of oneness.
Bohm doesn't offer direct advice, he wants to create awareness. Dialogue should lead to the practice of thought, but that in itself, is a paradox of its own. Would very much recommend, a book to read twice or thrice.
November 8, 2019
Turns out Bohm is an A/R/Tographer, decades before this unwieldy acronym became a thing in some academic circles. His desire to fit much that he knows into an artamovement makes more of an attempt to think creatively than most of his boxed-in contemporaries like Einstein (I’m pretty sure Pauli would have had no problem grasping the implicate order). The upshot of each of his essays can be summed up with a paraphrase of Hamlet’s line about there being more things in (under and around) heaven than dreamt up in philosophy.
September 21, 2013
Sinceramente uno de los mejores libros que he leído en mi vida.
A veces denso. Siempre complejo, pero tremendamente profundo.
Bohm explora la naturaleza humana desde lo mas profundo de su esencia: la creatividad y sus contextos.
A veces denso. Siempre complejo, pero tremendamente profundo.
Bohm explora la naturaleza humana desde lo mas profundo de su esencia: la creatividad y sus contextos.
February 12, 2013
Pure genius, must read for anyone interested in the philosophy of science and the common threads of artistic & scientific inquiry
December 19, 2019
Science is art, everything is a singular fluid motion.
September 25, 2025
Creativity is one of those big shimmering concepts that everyone feels they understand intuitively but that becomes maddeningly elusive the moment someone tries to pin it down with definitions or frameworks.
Bohm, who was by all accounts a very sharp physicist and a not-unimaginative thinker, makes a noble attempt here. But reading him on the subject feels a bit like listening to a brilliant engineer explain why a symphony is moving: the terms are precise, the reasoning airtight, and yet something essential never quite makes it into the room. His scientific perspective is stimulating in flashes, but the book focuses on the symptoms of creativity rather than the roots of it.
The quixotic quest to find a better discussion on creativity remains ongoing for me
Bohm, who was by all accounts a very sharp physicist and a not-unimaginative thinker, makes a noble attempt here. But reading him on the subject feels a bit like listening to a brilliant engineer explain why a symphony is moving: the terms are precise, the reasoning airtight, and yet something essential never quite makes it into the room. His scientific perspective is stimulating in flashes, but the book focuses on the symptoms of creativity rather than the roots of it.
The quixotic quest to find a better discussion on creativity remains ongoing for me
Read
April 18, 2024This is the most approachable work of philosophy I’ve ever read. Bohm doesn’t reference other philosophers but rather gives examples from science to explain his concepts. I would recommend this book to anyone as Bohm champions open-mindedness, the importance of dialogue, and that all human life is art (p.109).
The following are my notes from reading. Lee Nichol’s foreword is a helpful summary. When you read it before Bohm’s writing, you question what it means. When you refer to it whilst reading Bohm, you find Nichol’s writing beautifully succinct.
Bohm mentioned art, science, and architecture rather than trying to claim architecture belongs more so to either art or science. He specifically mentions architects when discussing creatives who are capable of aspiring beyond the various preconceived ideas and mechanical procedures that stymie creation (p.21). Bohm further clarifies, “any effort to impose an overall order in this “mess” (of conflicting, fragmented orders) will serve only to make it worse” (p.23). This is the question that plagues urbanism. To combat this, Bohm offers that working on oneself, that is, working on one’s ability to perceive with an open mind and wholeheartedly confront their own world will be the best approach to devising paradigms, or structures, for the sake of the beauty they afford and their ability for everyone to realize similarly innovative paradigms of their own, i.e. we all end up assimilating the world we occupy. For Bohm, creation is something crafted that is entirely new to the creator. He gives the example of a child learning to walk. They must wholeheartedly devote themselves to this “self-innovation” (my term, not Bohm’s). Creativity also means one is able to move beyond symbolism, comparison, and our tendency to rely heavily on preconceived ideas. There may be a contradiction in Bohm’s example of a child learning to walk as the child will have observed someone walking before they attempt to do so.
“it is remarkable that science, art, and mathematics have thus been moving in related directions, towards the development of what is, in effect, a mode of experiencing, perceiving, and thinking in terms of ‘pure structure’, and away from the ‘comparative, associative, symbolic method of responding mainly in terms of something similar that was already known earlier in the past.” (P. 44)
“the art need not represent or symbolize anything else at all, but rather that it may involve the creation of something new- ‘a harmony parallel to that of nature,’ as Cezanne put it.” (page 43)
Mathematic expressions in the “axiomatic-approach” to devising mathematical theories “were ‘initially’ given no meanings in themselves, all their meanings being in their relationships to other terms in a theory, these relationships having to be expressed as purely abstract ‘mathematical operations.’” (p.42)
This brings to mind Louis Kahn’s statement “even a brick wants to be something.” Earlier in the book (p. 11), when explaining structures and orders, Bohm discusses bricks and that their structure can yield walls via similar differences. This process of similar difference can grow to eventually yield entirely new orders. For Bohm and Kahn, our man-made environment does not require symbolism to be creative, if anything it may need to actively avoid this and strive for an “axiomatic architecture.” Only this would “lead to new ways of perceiving man’s environment…” (p.43), something that art and science both strive for, albeit in different, yet subtly similar, ways.
The range of imagination is a polarity of primary imagination and fancy. This gives way to Bohm’s four facets of the imagination 1.) Imaginative Insight (a vision, often a question, that is neither associative or deductive) 2.) Rational Insight (Connecting the dots by way of relationships and proportion, or Ratios) 3.) Imaginative Fancy (Dreaming of hypotheses based on the previously mentioned associative process) 4.) Rational Fancy (The hypotheses are tested and the resultant theory is stress tested via axiomatization). The axiom may reveal cracks in one’s theory and therefore engenders new imaginative insights so that the process renews. However, many people may begin to abuse the axioms and fall into a trap of purely reactive and reflective thought. While reactive and reflective thought are beneficial and necessary, they can also be damning. Bohm explains the often overemphasized reflective reactions form binaries and implies this can lead to destructive tendencies such as racism. The mode in which one breaks from this mechanical thought process is “intelligence.” This definition of intelligence is beautiful as it encourages creativity and is something of which everyone is capable. Bohm explains this alertness and perception through the mind “cannot ultimately be a mere product of memory and training, because in each case it has to be seen anew.” Bohm goes on to explain “rather, what is required is a general alertness which makes us aware, from moment to moment, of how the process of thought is getting caught in fixed sets of categories… And so it may perhaps be said that it is just in such creative perception of disharmony in the process of thought, that man may come upon the deepest harmony that is open to him.” (p.75)
World views should be regarded for their content but more importantly for their function. Bohm’s process for explaining this involves the function of language and I struggled to grasp what he meant by this. I was initially turned off by Bohm’s description of what he refers to as “the symbolic function of abstract thought in terms of language” (p.84). His example of language is a red stop light and how this symbol not only communicates the word “stop” but also “directly gives rise to all the mental, emotional, and physical reactions that are involved in actually stopping.” I could agree with that statement, however, he goes on to explain that “ So the main function of a language symbol is not to stand for or represent an object to which it corresponds. Rather, it initiates a total movement of memory, imagery, ideas, feelings, and reflexes, which serves to order attention to and direct action in a new mode that is not possible without the use of such symbols.” That last statement, “without the use of such symbols,” still rubs me the wrong way. I believe phenomena occur and only then can language catch up. Our minds do not require us to specifically envision mental symbols and images for us to act or communicate. If you’re about to get in a wreck, you feel the impulse to stop or evade without the need of symbols. But as I continued to read, I realized this is the point Bohm is making. Regardless of how language comes to be, our inevitable use of it does affect how we interface with this world and this aspect of language, something that we often overlook, is what Bohm describes as its “function.” This reminds of a claim in cognitive neuroscience that if someone actually vocalizes, even if only to themselves, that they will attempt something, there will be an increase in dopamine. Bohm goes to say that similarly, our world views (including metaphysics) have a similar function. This has proven problematic following advancements in quantum physics that posit the elementary particles that constitute atoms that are not separate building blocks. Instead, the elementary particles, or baseline, is a total movement out of which abstractions such as atoms, people, buildings, and everything else we attempt to consider as separate and distinct fragments arise.
At one point, after explaining the need to quit viewing things in a fragmentary way, Bohm makes a statement that really troubled me. “Nature may be regarded as that which takes shape by itself, while human activity leads to the creation of artifacts, shaped by human participation in the natural process, ordered and guided by thought.” (p.79) Separating man from nature in this manner seems like a fragmentary outlook that Bohm previously told us to avoid. However, after further explaining the role of art (“to fit” or piece things together, p.99), incessant movement at the quantum level and at large, the art of perceiving and crafting a sense of order within this movement (a process he calls artamovement, or “the movement of fitting”, p.111) he revisits this statement about man’s relationship with nature and fits the two together beautifully. The prevailing metaphysical world view constituted by fragmentation (e.g. atoms as building blocks) means that “from early childhood we learn to accept the notion that the world is constituted out of a tremendous number of different and separately existent things. Some of these things are inanimate objects, some are alive, some are human beings. And to each person there is a certain very special one of these things, which is ‘himself.’” (p.120) This unavoidable, self-centered vantage every human possesses only reinforces the prevailing worldview that things are separate. However, when we consider the many things that are exchanged by us and our environment physically (food, water, air) the lines begin to blur. Also, “it is important to realize that each man’s thought arises in a cyclical movement in which he is exposed to the thought of other people and responds with a generally similar but somewhat different thought of his own.” There is no “self.” Only relations within the movement. Our worldview, regardless of what it happens to be at any given time, must be treated as that which it is, an art that can be dropped when it no longer “fits” or only used within the limits in which it fits.
“Ordinarily we aim for a literal picture of the world, but in fact we create a world according to our mode of participation, and we create ourselves accordingly.” (p.130)
The following are my notes from reading. Lee Nichol’s foreword is a helpful summary. When you read it before Bohm’s writing, you question what it means. When you refer to it whilst reading Bohm, you find Nichol’s writing beautifully succinct.
Bohm mentioned art, science, and architecture rather than trying to claim architecture belongs more so to either art or science. He specifically mentions architects when discussing creatives who are capable of aspiring beyond the various preconceived ideas and mechanical procedures that stymie creation (p.21). Bohm further clarifies, “any effort to impose an overall order in this “mess” (of conflicting, fragmented orders) will serve only to make it worse” (p.23). This is the question that plagues urbanism. To combat this, Bohm offers that working on oneself, that is, working on one’s ability to perceive with an open mind and wholeheartedly confront their own world will be the best approach to devising paradigms, or structures, for the sake of the beauty they afford and their ability for everyone to realize similarly innovative paradigms of their own, i.e. we all end up assimilating the world we occupy. For Bohm, creation is something crafted that is entirely new to the creator. He gives the example of a child learning to walk. They must wholeheartedly devote themselves to this “self-innovation” (my term, not Bohm’s). Creativity also means one is able to move beyond symbolism, comparison, and our tendency to rely heavily on preconceived ideas. There may be a contradiction in Bohm’s example of a child learning to walk as the child will have observed someone walking before they attempt to do so.
“it is remarkable that science, art, and mathematics have thus been moving in related directions, towards the development of what is, in effect, a mode of experiencing, perceiving, and thinking in terms of ‘pure structure’, and away from the ‘comparative, associative, symbolic method of responding mainly in terms of something similar that was already known earlier in the past.” (P. 44)
“the art need not represent or symbolize anything else at all, but rather that it may involve the creation of something new- ‘a harmony parallel to that of nature,’ as Cezanne put it.” (page 43)
Mathematic expressions in the “axiomatic-approach” to devising mathematical theories “were ‘initially’ given no meanings in themselves, all their meanings being in their relationships to other terms in a theory, these relationships having to be expressed as purely abstract ‘mathematical operations.’” (p.42)
This brings to mind Louis Kahn’s statement “even a brick wants to be something.” Earlier in the book (p. 11), when explaining structures and orders, Bohm discusses bricks and that their structure can yield walls via similar differences. This process of similar difference can grow to eventually yield entirely new orders. For Bohm and Kahn, our man-made environment does not require symbolism to be creative, if anything it may need to actively avoid this and strive for an “axiomatic architecture.” Only this would “lead to new ways of perceiving man’s environment…” (p.43), something that art and science both strive for, albeit in different, yet subtly similar, ways.
The range of imagination is a polarity of primary imagination and fancy. This gives way to Bohm’s four facets of the imagination 1.) Imaginative Insight (a vision, often a question, that is neither associative or deductive) 2.) Rational Insight (Connecting the dots by way of relationships and proportion, or Ratios) 3.) Imaginative Fancy (Dreaming of hypotheses based on the previously mentioned associative process) 4.) Rational Fancy (The hypotheses are tested and the resultant theory is stress tested via axiomatization). The axiom may reveal cracks in one’s theory and therefore engenders new imaginative insights so that the process renews. However, many people may begin to abuse the axioms and fall into a trap of purely reactive and reflective thought. While reactive and reflective thought are beneficial and necessary, they can also be damning. Bohm explains the often overemphasized reflective reactions form binaries and implies this can lead to destructive tendencies such as racism. The mode in which one breaks from this mechanical thought process is “intelligence.” This definition of intelligence is beautiful as it encourages creativity and is something of which everyone is capable. Bohm explains this alertness and perception through the mind “cannot ultimately be a mere product of memory and training, because in each case it has to be seen anew.” Bohm goes on to explain “rather, what is required is a general alertness which makes us aware, from moment to moment, of how the process of thought is getting caught in fixed sets of categories… And so it may perhaps be said that it is just in such creative perception of disharmony in the process of thought, that man may come upon the deepest harmony that is open to him.” (p.75)
World views should be regarded for their content but more importantly for their function. Bohm’s process for explaining this involves the function of language and I struggled to grasp what he meant by this. I was initially turned off by Bohm’s description of what he refers to as “the symbolic function of abstract thought in terms of language” (p.84). His example of language is a red stop light and how this symbol not only communicates the word “stop” but also “directly gives rise to all the mental, emotional, and physical reactions that are involved in actually stopping.” I could agree with that statement, however, he goes on to explain that “ So the main function of a language symbol is not to stand for or represent an object to which it corresponds. Rather, it initiates a total movement of memory, imagery, ideas, feelings, and reflexes, which serves to order attention to and direct action in a new mode that is not possible without the use of such symbols.” That last statement, “without the use of such symbols,” still rubs me the wrong way. I believe phenomena occur and only then can language catch up. Our minds do not require us to specifically envision mental symbols and images for us to act or communicate. If you’re about to get in a wreck, you feel the impulse to stop or evade without the need of symbols. But as I continued to read, I realized this is the point Bohm is making. Regardless of how language comes to be, our inevitable use of it does affect how we interface with this world and this aspect of language, something that we often overlook, is what Bohm describes as its “function.” This reminds of a claim in cognitive neuroscience that if someone actually vocalizes, even if only to themselves, that they will attempt something, there will be an increase in dopamine. Bohm goes to say that similarly, our world views (including metaphysics) have a similar function. This has proven problematic following advancements in quantum physics that posit the elementary particles that constitute atoms that are not separate building blocks. Instead, the elementary particles, or baseline, is a total movement out of which abstractions such as atoms, people, buildings, and everything else we attempt to consider as separate and distinct fragments arise.
At one point, after explaining the need to quit viewing things in a fragmentary way, Bohm makes a statement that really troubled me. “Nature may be regarded as that which takes shape by itself, while human activity leads to the creation of artifacts, shaped by human participation in the natural process, ordered and guided by thought.” (p.79) Separating man from nature in this manner seems like a fragmentary outlook that Bohm previously told us to avoid. However, after further explaining the role of art (“to fit” or piece things together, p.99), incessant movement at the quantum level and at large, the art of perceiving and crafting a sense of order within this movement (a process he calls artamovement, or “the movement of fitting”, p.111) he revisits this statement about man’s relationship with nature and fits the two together beautifully. The prevailing metaphysical world view constituted by fragmentation (e.g. atoms as building blocks) means that “from early childhood we learn to accept the notion that the world is constituted out of a tremendous number of different and separately existent things. Some of these things are inanimate objects, some are alive, some are human beings. And to each person there is a certain very special one of these things, which is ‘himself.’” (p.120) This unavoidable, self-centered vantage every human possesses only reinforces the prevailing worldview that things are separate. However, when we consider the many things that are exchanged by us and our environment physically (food, water, air) the lines begin to blur. Also, “it is important to realize that each man’s thought arises in a cyclical movement in which he is exposed to the thought of other people and responds with a generally similar but somewhat different thought of his own.” There is no “self.” Only relations within the movement. Our worldview, regardless of what it happens to be at any given time, must be treated as that which it is, an art that can be dropped when it no longer “fits” or only used within the limits in which it fits.
“Ordinarily we aim for a literal picture of the world, but in fact we create a world according to our mode of participation, and we create ourselves accordingly.” (p.130)
August 17, 2022
I read this thinking about creativity in the context of organisational change and strategy. Some aspects of it that I feel are worthy of exploring in this context:
1. The fragmentation of art and science - both are about creating a coherent ‘fit’ between experience and understanding.
2. How can we become aware of preconceptions we have absorbed in order to “feel out” and explore what is unknown?
3. How has the recurrence of day and night contributed to seeing reality as recurrent?
4. How has formal logic trapped us into thinking about the world in clear bounded categories?
5. Fragmentation, movement, fit, identity - how are these concepts related to our perception of organisations and how can they be explored to provide new insight?
1. The fragmentation of art and science - both are about creating a coherent ‘fit’ between experience and understanding.
2. How can we become aware of preconceptions we have absorbed in order to “feel out” and explore what is unknown?
3. How has the recurrence of day and night contributed to seeing reality as recurrent?
4. How has formal logic trapped us into thinking about the world in clear bounded categories?
5. Fragmentation, movement, fit, identity - how are these concepts related to our perception of organisations and how can they be explored to provide new insight?
August 21, 2025
The stars shouldn’t reflect the actual quality of this work. Rather it should demonstrate the reader’s apparent ability to put a heavy book on her To Read list 15 or so years ago, finally get it and read it, and immediately realize she has NO sense of the discourse community she is reading and is basically nose deep in theory she knows nothing about. Certain essays made a little more sense and were therefore easier to read than others. Although, others I think just sparked thoughts about similar things I’ve read that likely have no bearing on the actual discourse taking place, but happen to be adjacent to it. I did enjoy every etymological moment in the book. Bless these genius polymaths.
May 27, 2020
Excellent collection of short essays on the fundamental nature of creativity by theoretical physicist David Bohm and implications for art, science, religion, culture, etc. It’s a short book, and dense - though importantly, not inaccessible. You will find yourself having to read sentences and passages over again to really grasp what he’s getting at. But he clearly thought about these issues from a more holistic and spiritual point-of-view than most physicists, considering the implications of quantum mechanics and quantum theory on all aspects of human endeavour and insight.
July 1, 2025
A set of thought provoking essays on the relationship between art and science, the fragmented nature of modern knowledge across domain-specific professionals, and the preconditions for creativity and imaginative thought
Would be lying if I said I fully grasped Bohm's ideas, but definitely gleaned enough to help reframe & deepen my thinking on his selected topics
Would be lying if I said I fully grasped Bohm's ideas, but definitely gleaned enough to help reframe & deepen my thinking on his selected topics
March 8, 2020
Incoherent
Incoherent. Bohm keeps rambling on about his ideas, but it doesn't make any sense. Although his idea that science, math, and art are connected is interesting, I can't say the same for his other ideas.
Incoherent. Bohm keeps rambling on about his ideas, but it doesn't make any sense. Although his idea that science, math, and art are connected is interesting, I can't say the same for his other ideas.
May 11, 2021
I have read this book looking for thoughts to boost creativity. However, it is more of a theoretical concepts and analysis for the broad ideas. It was interesting read but I perhaps I was looking for something a little bit different at the time.
July 30, 2022
brilliant; changed my thinking on how to understand things like life (living), growth (growing) or change (changing). it's all a process. that's not really a perspective, it's the nature of the universe.
January 1, 2025
An astounding work. This book provides insight and value on our everyday perceptions and really brings life and our paradigms to the fundamental layer. It will make you look at teaching, learning, and compassion for the human race as a whole very differently. Enriched my soul, and I highly recommend it to anyone with a curious heart.
July 5, 2017
อ่านยากมาก หลุดโฟกัสโคตรง่าย ต้องมีสมาธิหน่อย แต่ชอบบบบบ หนังสือพูดถึงเกี่ยวกับความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างศิลปะและวิทยาศาสตร์ไปจนถึงเรื่องต่างๆ ถือว่าเปิดโลกใหม่มากกับเล่มนี้
June 11, 2018
I don't understand what is this level of thinking even though it is talking about thinking and it's origin. This is next level thinking and to perceive 5 pages, it may take 1 hour. So let it go.
October 12, 2021
Did not enjoy nearly as much as his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order."
October 15, 2023
The book deals with various aspects of creativity.
August 21, 2025
4.5 stars. My first David Bohm work but definitely not my last.
February 9, 2020
El libro es un conjunto de ensayos sobre nociones como la originalidad, el arte, la ciencia, la religión o la mente; lo que lo hace único es la visión de Bohm alejada de fórmulas simplistas e ideas fragmentarias, p.e.: un paso esencial para despertar la accion creativa es aceptar y ser consciente de que no hay técnicas ni métodos ni tutores que puedan hacer surgir la creatividad, de modo que no es una meta fijada sino el subproducto del funcionamiento normal de la mente. También reubica al ser humano en lo que el llama el orden implicado, el movimiento universal o campo unificado e indivisible, y de esta manera reconcilia muchas situaciones conflictivas al creer que somos agentes independientes, así mismo, propone nuevas y novedosas formas de orientar la investigación científica sin tener que buscar verdades absolutas.
Un bello libro, con ideas muy interesantes y que deja reflexiones muy profundas y duraderas. 4.8
Un bello libro, con ideas muy interesantes y que deja reflexiones muy profundas y duraderas. 4.8
February 7, 2012
This is a thoughtful series of essays which considers the nature of creativity, and the relationship between art and science. For Bohm, true creativity can only flourish when we cease to think mechanically. He identifies a trend in art and science away from symbolism towards pure paradigms which centre around relationships and the 'structure of ideas'. Much of what he writes seems like an intellectual gloss over the principles of mindfulness and 'the power of now'. Some useful references and inspiring musings for any frustrated creatives out there! Worth a gander, certainly.
June 7, 2016
A very interesting book addressing many concept in new light. Science, art, language, are discussed in a new connected whole existence. There are many mind provoking concepts. I liked how he defined ontelligence: " the art of perception through the mind". A book worth exploring.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews