Talk:Implicate and explicate order

message: One editor feels that the following provides a better discussion of this issue:  User:Togo/Holomovement.
----
Lets face it Implicate and Explicate Order is not equal to Holomovement nor do you really explain it nor have nearly the completenes of the Holomovement article!
Of course I dont mind if you contribute to Holomovement as long as I don't get any of those 'deleted because I don't understand'. If you were to try to formualte anything that you don't understand in a simpler way I'd help you! Togo 05:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is full of accusations that the Implicit and Explicit order amount to metaphysics. Perhaps I'm missing something. This seems to be more of a general criticism of the philosophy of physics then anything else. Where is the metaphysics? Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysticism? 

message: "David Bohm believed that true reality is different from appearance, or the reality we perceive".  This opening is problematic.  Firstly, what is the difference between "true reality" and "reality"?  The true is rudundant because the term reality implies truth (implies is a fitting word here, becuse it has the same root as implicate, as Bohm seemed fond of pointing out).  In Bohm's paradigm, reality consists of the implicate and explicate order.  On this, Bohm (1980, p. 197) said “the explicate order can be derived as a particular, distinguished case of the implicate order”.  While I understand the intention of the statement, it doesn't seem to me to capture and convey the essence of implicate and explicate order as Bohm conceived it.  With regards to perception, he spoke about us having a more immediate sense (or something along these lines) of the implicate order - i.e. of an unbroken, flowing whole.  Indeed, he characterised consciousness in such terms.  It's true, he also siad something to the effect that the explicate (as he characterised it) may seem primary.  A key point is that he thought primacy should be given to the implicate order; hence, the implicate order is deeper, more fundamental.  This doesn't mean "true reality is different from appearance" though.
Any objections to be me having another go at this?  Regarding the previous comment -- I don't know that we need an 'expert' on this -- I think it's reasonable to say that within Bohm's view, expertise has to do with rigrorous and specialised understanding of some aspect of the explicate order.  What is really needed is an understanding of and characterisation of the essence of this paradigm.  Whether 'right or wrong', ultimately productive or otherwise, it is one of the most thought-provoking viewpoints I have ever encountered.  Stephenhumphry 14:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes needed 

message: Too much of this article appears to be written as advocacy of this theory, rather than description. Please edit to use NPOV style. -- The Anome 06:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
===please be specific===
"Too much of this article appears..."?  Could you please be specific. I've changed some of the earlier statements, becuase I could see your point. If you have specifics, let me know ... but I'll take the NPOV off for now coz frankly, I spent a lotta time making sure I cited Bohm! (and I don't have the time to do much more on this).
Note the following phrases that used in the article:
In proposing this new notion of order ...
In Bohm’s conception of order ...
Bohm maintained that ...
Central to Bohm's schema is the notion that ...
In this view of order ...
Bohm (1980, p. 147) asks us to "consider the possibility that ..."
Consistent with Bohm, this potentially calls into question whether ....
He argued, however, that ...
...a confusion he perceived to exist...
According to Bohm ...
I have now added more qualifications, particularly early on, to set the tone ...  From NPOV "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so". "... an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source".  Bohm is cited repeatedly, and for my own part, I went out of my way to make it clear that what is presented are his arguments, contestations, perceived problems, etc.  In addition, I hope others will come along and present some more alternative views in time, but you gotta start somewhere Stephenhumphry 09:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: "Too much of this article appears..."?  Could you please be specific. I've changed some of the earlier statements, becuase I could see your point. If you have specifics, let me know ... but I'll take the NPOV off for now coz frankly, I spent a lotta time making sure I cited Bohm! (and I don't have the time to do much more on this).
Note the following phrases that used in the article:
In proposing this new notion of order ...
In Bohm’s conception of order ...
Bohm maintained that ...
Central to Bohm's schema is the notion that ...
In this view of order ...
Bohm (1980, p. 147) asks us to "consider the possibility that ..."
Consistent with Bohm, this potentially calls into question whether ....
He argued, however, that ...
...a confusion he perceived to exist...
According to Bohm ...
I have now added more qualifications, particularly early on, to set the tone ...  From NPOV "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so". "... an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source".  Bohm is cited repeatedly, and for my own part, I went out of my way to make it clear that what is presented are his arguments, contestations, perceived problems, etc.  In addition, I hope others will come along and present some more alternative views in time, but you gotta start somewhere Stephenhumphry 09:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: please be specific

message: it is not clear whether the list contains presuppositions or challenges. --MarSch 16:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, fair enough - I'll have a go at making it clearer soon as I get a chance Stephenhumphry 23:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Bohm's challenges to some generally prevailing views 

message: The present title, Implicate and Explicate Order according to David Bohm is somewhat long and unwieldy.  Since the title of the book Wholeness and the Implicate Order redirects here, and the entirety of the article appears to discuss the book, would there be objection to moving the present title to the title of the book? --Blainster 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, change it. Implicate order and explicate order both redirect here already. The book is a collection of essays, but this is the title Bohm gave to the collection, and so I think that is the most appropriate title. I agree the current title is unweildy. Holon 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree that the title is WAY too long. It coudl just be shortened to Implicate and Explicate Order (David Bohm). --JudelFoir (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed title change

message: There is much discussion about Bohm's theories and their correspondence with Buddhist and Taoist ideas. Has no-one thought to investigate the relationship between his ideas and the Jewish Mystical tradition of Kabbalah? The theories of Wholeness And the Implicate Order have striking parallels with Kaballistic ideas of the Microcosm and the Macrocosm, the simultaneous Separateness and Oneness of everything within the En Sof and the the relationship between human consciousness and reality. Hmmm. Food for thought. ThePeg 23:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bohm & Kaballah

message: Bohm's theories are also directly related to Metaphysics. Leibniz called it "Monadology". 
"The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has." (Aristotle, 340BC)
"It follows from what we have just said, that the natural changes of monads come from an internal principle, and that change is continual in each one. … Now this connection of all created things with each, and of each with all the rest, means that each simple substance has relations which express all the others, each created monad represents the whole universe." (Leibniz, 1670) 
"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)
BakuninXL 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphysics: Aristotle & Leibniz 

message: As I understand it, better-known interpretations of quantum physics such as the Copenhagen, Many Worlds, and others are still being modified and are still under debate. In light of that, it not be appropriate to create a section that mentions some of the major criticisms of Bohm's interpretation and evidence that (at least in some physicists' opinion) fails to support it?
This is true, but without a satisfactory presentation of Bohm's own concepts, it is easy to get lost in very secondary debates.  Bohm and Hiley deal quite extensively with various versions of the Many Words interpretation in Undivided Wholeness, pointing out similarities and differences with their own ontological interpretation.  That would be a good place to start, though as these debates are very much ongoing it seems to me to make more sense, for purposes of an informational article, to focus on Bohm's own historical contributions and the development of his ideas. Sfwild 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I think that picture of a real brain is gross. I don't want to let my personal feelings interfere with something that may be necessary for the article though. So, does anyone think the gross picture is necessary?--Neptunerover (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A more aesthetically appealing image could be found, but the brain image is fine for now. — goethean ॐ 15:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross Out 

message: This article states: 
"Kant held that the parts of an organism, such as cells, simultaneously exist to sustain the whole, and depend upon the whole for their own existence and functioning."
This is false and entirely anachronistic; cell theory was not developed at least 20 years after Kant's death and thus he could not have held this view as presented here.
I do not want to officiously intervene, but it is imperative that this either be clarified, removed, or otherwise corrected. Perhaps the author is imposing modern knowledge on Kant's principles for the sake of accessibility, but it is far too divergent to be permitted.
150.135.210.78 (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Kant's "part-whole" analogy has been applied to every possible concept distinguishing parts from whole since his era.  Including, regularly, that of cells and organs as parts of the whole creature that they compose.  (Nevertheless, the whole reference was since removed.)  – SJ + 04:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Implicate and explicate order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010303172350/http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm to http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812064507/http://tkpi.org/tags/implicate-order to http://tkpi.org/tags/implicate-order
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified