Why are some intellectectuals attracted by esotericism.

Not sure about Bohm. but when you go all the way back to Sir Isaac Newton, that's easy enough. People of his generation -- and even more so of preceding generations -- no doubt started with alchemy and astrology as their fields of study. What was "esoteric" was turning astrology into the genuine science of astronomy and discovering some unexpected results from their dabblings in alchemy, which, in turn, led to the development of modern chemistry.

People like Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho Brahe and Galileo were astrologers first. They became reluctant astronomers and physicists (and some, like Galileo got into serious trouble because they wouldn't accept anything a priori but insisted on verification of observable facts). Newton was a direct inheritor of the traditions these earlier practicioners of what was then called "natural philosophy" had established. In Newton's own time, what was "esoteric" about his thinking was his outlandish notion of the theory of gravity and related matters. His contemporaries would not have seen anything esoteric in his attempts to transmute base matter into gold or to discover the philosopher's stone.

How does this relate to your original question? Perhaps Bohm and others of his ilk are merely thinking in new tracks. To them, their thoughts on matters that seem to veer away from physics and into the metaphysical may not seem esoteric at all. Dare I say, new directions for a new era? (We are in one, you know.)

Welcome back, fresco.

M.A. What do you mean by Newton's outlandish theory of gravity?

Hi, Letty. What I mean is that that's the part his contemporaries would've considered esoteric or "outlandish", if you will, not his interest in alchemy. The adjective "outlandish" was a poor attempt at irony.

Btw, Fresco, speaking of Bohm, some in the so-called "Green" movement have embraced bits and pieces of his thinking and I've even read where a few green intellectuals or pseudo-intellectuals are debating whether the planet Earth is actually a living entity and whether all surface "life" (read: homo sapiens) isn't really of the nature of parasites. In this scenario, of course, hurricanes and other natural disasters would just be examples of Mother Nature scratching her parasite-infested head.

I don't think people with rational minds are less likely to be creative and adventurous with their thinking (many of the best Sci-Fi writers are professional scientists). But I do think that productive testable science is more attractive and rewarding than speculative pursuits which aren't testable with standard science.

welcome back my old friend.

seems to me Bohm is describing a form of Emergence or the Theory of Levels, to which both Ken Wilbur and I probscribe,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Bohm is simply describing the property at a particular level, self awareness, while a guy like Wilbur takes the "unfolding" to what might lay beyond it.

Thankyou all for those thoughtful responses.

It seems to me that what we normally call "rationality" is firmly enmeshed with "logicality" . However if we scrutinise traditional logic itself we find there are epistemological and ontological assumptions made about its axioms based on static set membership which are counter-intuitive to the dynamics of existence. It may be that a degree of such “unease” motivates some thinkers to seek “metalogical systems” which are insightful of this problem.

The epitome of such thinking might well be captured by Bohr’s celebrated statement:….“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth..”… It is certainly the case that Bohm sought to resolve Bohr’s picture of an “uncertain” universe, but the question remains as to whether he achieved a tenable “transcendent” position or whether he merely yearned for “certainty” at any price.

Newton's theory was considered outlandish at the time. Action at a distance? Everything in the Universe acting on everything else simultaneously? Absurd!

How is this different from monadism?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

DrewDad,
As far as I know Bohm advocated wholism over division. Even though "monads" might eliminate the dichotomy of the physical and the mental, their description of being diverse in number seems to go against Bohm's idea that "the whole" is always present in "the parts". Perhaps Bohm is closer to Spinoza's view that there is only one existent entity (which some might call "God").