January 28, 1980, Bohm wrote: Part of the trouble is that K and I have not really been communicating for about six years. Whe we had the dialogues which they decided not to publich, I felt at last that things were changing. But with he decision not to publish, and with no chance for us to discuss this decision things got even worse. Meanwhile my own views have developed independently, and in many ways they are significantly different from those of K. What I wonder is wheter there is a real possibility of discussing seriously with K in free and wide-raging way so as to clear all this up without first basically accepting the assumption that he is basically right about all the deep questions, and that I have, in these discussions, to do nothing but discover what is wrong with my own approach. Of course, I realize that K is getting older, and perhaps more rigid than he once was. Also, I accept, at the very beginning, thatparto of the responsibility for the breakdown of the communication is my own. One way in which this has happened is that I feel that K has dismissed and tried to push aside my own work in science and philosphy in a way that is not justified, because I think it makes a signifficant contribution to what is being attempted by all of us. If I could see that what he dimissed is wrong, I would accept it. But it it is right, I find myself getting angry, not at first, but rather in a slow way, after many years. But this slow is deeper than just a sudden reaction. Certainly, I have to be free of it. Moreover, it might be the pain in the chest. Nevertheless, K is on of the few people who is seriously able to pursue these deep questions. It would be a pitty if I had to go on growing more and more distant from him. Dear Fritz, This is just a little note, mainly about what is happening at Brockwood. I can see that (as in Ojai) the crucial question is for people to talk freely to each other without fear, especially in meetings. Everybody is afraid of creting a disturbance, and of producing hostile reactions. Very often they are not clear and require freedom to talk in a confused way for 10 or 15 minutes, before they can even state what they mean. When everybody does this, unity arises, even when some people still don’t agree; as long as everybody knows what all the others have in mind. There is trust. I feel that some progress is being made around this in Brockwood. But K’s approach of jumping on people who are confused or who don’t agree with him makes an absolute block and gets frear going. Also, K dismisses everybody and frequently says that nobody is doing anyting – not at Brockwood, nor in Ojai, nor in Canada, nor in India. This simply blocks everything. He also dismisses what people outside the “organizations” are doing or anything connected with what is outside his approach. For example, in India, he gave a talk, in which he dismissed physics as “limited”, saying that he was glad that I was not present to hear him say it. He doesn’t seem to realize that of course, we all agree that by itself, physics is limted. But it has a part to play “in the whole picture.” Every activity (including the creating? of a school) is limited. If you limit yourself to the community of K’s schools you will just be learning in a little world of your own. I feel this deeply, as it was always my hope that physics, philosophy, etc would play a part in the whole work. I have fears that the attempt to limit myself to what K says, and to the work he wants to do is “crushing” me (literally, the pain in the chest). Also, I have learned much in other areas that provides a different perception, enabling me (and some others) to go furhter. I don’t know whether this can be clared up. But I regard this question as crucial. What do you think? Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm F. David Peat P.328-329Moins