[MD] Logos is not ergon

[X Acto]

----- Original Message ----
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:49:46 PM
Subject: [MD] Logos is not ergon

a conversation between David Bohm and Krishnamurti
 
K: What did you say just now?

DB: I said something other to emptiness, which therefore is not emptiness - does that make sense?

K: Then it is substance.

DB: Yes that is what seemed to be implied: if it is not emptiness it is substance.

K: Substance is matter, is it?

DB: Not necessarily but having quality of substance.

K: What do you mean by that?

DB: Well, you see matter is a form of substance in the sense that it is...

K: Matter is energy.

DB: It is energy but having the form of substance as well because it has a constant form and 
it resists change, it is stable, it maintains itself.

K: Yes. But when you use the word 'substance', beyond emptiness, does that word convey, does 
that word have a meaning then?

DB: Well, we are exploring the possible meaning of what you want to say. Now if you are saying 
it is not emptiness then it would not be substance as we know it in matter but we can see a 
certain quality which belongs to substance in general, if it has that quality we could use 
the word 'substance', extend the meaning of the word 'substance'.

K: Yes, I understand. So could we use the word 'quality'?