On Languages With or Wo Rheomodes and Their Shaping Of Our World Views

Or language and the limitations implicit in it frame our world view that we wish to illuminate with Rheomodes:

…our inquiry will have to begin by emphasizing the role of language in shaping our overall world views as well as in expressing them more precisely in the form of general philosophical ideas. For as suggested in the previous chapter these world views and their general expressions (which contain tacit conclusions about everything, including nature, society, ourselves, our language, etc.) are now playing a key role in helping to originate and sustain fragmentation in every aspect of life.

As one inquires into language, through the concept and experimentation of rheomodes, one is able to explore the effects of rheomodes in the midst of the use of them whereas:

… the ordinary mode of thought and language does not properly call attention to its own function

We can establish the rheomode concept more by considering the studying of science. With rheomodes its as if studying a science, while also considering linguistics effects on that science, and also on your self and how the language affects your social and internal interactions with that field of science etc.:

One may suppose, for example, that as the function of the world of nature is studied in physics, and that of society is studied in sociology, and that of the mind in psychology, so the function of language is given attention in linguistics. But of course such a notion would be appropriate only if all these fields were actually clearly separated and either constant or slowly changing in their natures, so that the results obtained in each field of specialization would be relevant in all situations and on all occasions in which they might be applied. What we have been emphasizing, however, is that on questions of such broad and deep scope, this sort of separation is not appropriate and that in any case the crucial point is to give attention to the very language (and thought) that is being used, from moment to moment, in the inquiry into the function of language itself, as well as in any other form of inquiry in which one may engage. So it will not be adequate to isolate language as a particular field of inquiry and to regard it as a relatively static thing which changes only slowly (or not at all) as one goes into it.

For this reason a rheomode is a pointer to the living moment, which is a qualifier or feature for words we aren't used to:

…then, that in developing the rheomode, we will have to be especially aware of the need for language properly to call attention to its own function at the very moment in which this is taking place.

On World Views

Bohm has us experiment with experimentation and in that experiment observe the nature, limitations, and implicit fragmentation of language and thought as we change them:

So we do not make a sharp distinction between the act of perception and experimentation, the action of that which we perceive and of which we experiment, and the activity of communicating verbally about what we have observed and done.

Here is an innocent paragraph that fits our works well (ie with low complexity distance). A metaphorical-like framing of a vase of an ancient culture as a symbol of that culture, while on that vase is probably a symbol, which acted the same for its past owner as the vase does for us (like a religious symbol on the vase would contain the whole religion for the owner):

Evidently, this use of the rheomode fits very well with the world view in which apparently static things are likewise seen as abstractions of relatively invariant aspects from an unbroken and undivided whole movement. However, it goes further in implying that the fact about such things is itself abstracted as just that relatively constant aspect of the whole movement appearing in perception and experienced in action, which ‘stands together’ in a continuing state, and which is thus suitable for communication in the form of a statement

Bohm wants to call attention to the observation that 'static' and 'fragmented' notions are only static and fragmented in the notionary fashion. Every thing is part of a total order, unfragmented, ever-flowing. We just represent things otherwise.

"The Rheomode And Its Implications For Our Overall World View"

Experimenting with rheomodes intrinsically lifts the hidden limitations from our language:

In seeing (as pointed out in the previous section) that the rheomode does not allow us to discuss the observed fact in terms of separately existent things of an essentially static nature, we are led to note that the use of the rheomode has implications for our general world view.

Bohm notes that language and our use of it bears reference to our world views. The ‘form’ that this implies makes it difficult for language to catch its own misgivings:

Indeed, as has already been brought out to some extent, every language form carries a kind of dominant or prevailing world view, which tends to function in our thinking and in our perception whenever it is used, so that to give a clear expression of a world view contrary to the one implied in the primary structure of a language is usually very difficult. It is therefore necessary in the study of any general language form to give serious and sustained attention to its world view, both in content and in function

This implicit form naturally hides its own limiting effects:

As indicated earlier, one of the major defects of the ordinary mode of using language is just its general implication that it is not restricting the world view in any way at all, and that in any case questions of world view have to do only with ‘one’s own particular philosophy’, rather than with the content and function of our language, or with the way in which we tend to experience the overall reality in which we live.

Our normal use of language implies habit of an implicit and intrinsic world view, not questioned or questionable and not changing or changeable etc:

By thus making us believe that our world view is only a relatively unimportant matter, perhaps involving mainly one’s personal taste or choice, the ordinary mode of language leads us to fail to give attention to the actual function of the divisive world view that pervades this mode, so that the automatic and habitual operation of our thought and language is then able to project these divisions (in the manner discussed earlier) as if they were actual fragmentary breaks in the nature of ‘what is’.

Bohm spent the first chapter expanding on the concept of a holistic frame of reference, and this was before now in his book where he has expressed a language to see where this frame of reference applies and fits. This is conducive with our expression of Hayekien fields:

It has become evident in this chapter that the world view implied in the rheomode is in essence that described in the first chapter, which is expressed by saying that all is an unbroken and undivided whole movement, and that each ‘thing’ is abstracted only as a relatively invariant side or aspect of this movement

Rheomodic language we suggest helps us communicate about and observe Hayekian fields:

It is clear, therefore, that the rheomode implies a world view quite different from that of the usual language structure

More specifically, we see that the mere act of seriously considering such a new mode of language and observing how it works can help draw our attention to the way in which our ordinary language structure puts strong and subtle pressures on us to hold to a fragmentary world view