Bohm: The Rheomode, Levation

[sophiaserpentia]

Bohm begins his exploration of the rheomode by observing that relevance supercedes truth or falsehood. That is, it is meaningless to talk of the truth value of an irrelevant statement. He is concerned, though, that there is some danger in making the distinction between relevance and irrelevance. As situations change, a conceptualization that was relevant may become irrelevant, or vice-versa. For example, as human understanding of celestial mechanics increased, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system became irrelevant, and the heliocentric concept took its place.

Calling etymology a way of looking into the developmental history of human thought, Bohm prefers to use Latin words related to English words in the development of the rheomode. 'Relevant,' he writes, is derived from an old Latin verb, "to relevate."

So the first word Bohm proposes is "to levate."

As a step in developing the rheomode, we then propose that the verb "to levate" shall mean, "The spontaneous and unrestricted act of lifting into attention any content whatsoever, which includes the lifting into attention of the question of whether this content fits a broader context or not, as well as that of lifting into attention the very function of calling attention which is initiated by the verb itself." This implies an unrestricted breadth and depth of meaning, that is not fixed within static limits.

I'm reminded of G. Spencer Brown's Laws of Form, which begins with the act of drawing a boundary in a void. Brown's approach is to underscore the act of perception as apprehension of the "distinctive thingness" (or essence) of a thing -- to draw a boundary between a thing and everything else.

Bohm's approach is to say that this idea of perception as separation -- as if we were the God of Genesis 1, using words to create firmaments to impose order on chaos -- contains a fatal error, because it inevitably leads us down the path to dualism.

Bohm's "levation" is not the drawing of a boundary that separates the "distinctive essence" of a thing from that which does not share the essence. (In fact, it denies the idea of "essence.") It is not a separation of "this" from "other things." It is, instead, a self-conscious observation that we can understand one piece of the greater whole by calling attention to some aspect of the implicate wholeness which we can specifically define. When we "levate" we call attention thusly, by also calling attention to a thing's place in the greater scheme, and also to the act of calling attention in general.

This last piece is important -- the self-consciousness of levation. Keeping in mind always that we are levating prevents us from reifying the "object of levation" (which I will put in quotes because levation is not specifically defined as something we do to an object) -- prevents us from drawing a boundary around it and making it, in our minds, a "thing." We are understanding it always in the context in which we see it.

Finally, levation, as defined, makes the levating person as much an "object of levation" as the "object" at which it is directed. It also makes "the act of levation" an "object of levation." So, a single act of levation draws our focus simultaneously to a "thing," its context, "me" as observer, and the general act of levation as it occurs in all places and all times. This is an important aspect of using the rheomode which is very difficult to grasp when it is contrasted against the "usual" mode of objective thought which parses reality into subjects, verbs, and objects.

Comments

[cktraveler.livejournal.com]

So, in a way, it is kind of like looking at a comic strip. A comic strip is nothing more than a flat plane with various colors on it; it is a whole and undifferentiated object. However, by choosing to interpret a black line as demarcating the edges of an object, we can perceive characters, backgrounds, and scenes. This would be mental focusing of one's attention on the area within a black line and interpreting that area as something discrete unto itself.

In this, we are then able to understand the meaning of the comic strip as a whole and how it relates to the object -- for instance, by isolating the individual elements, examining them, and comparing them, we can understand that this is a joke about military discipline or a chapter in the continuing story of a detective, and what role each character and prop has in the telling.

In the case of a comic strip, the black line has become so ingrained within us as a demarcator (within me, anyway) that it is difficult to perceive the comic as meaning anything other than what it is. However, I wonder about van Gogh in relation to this concept, although I can't articulate why I make that connection.

Am I understanding correctly? I think I need to read this myself.