Noting the Flow: A Brief Look at David Bohm’s Rheomode

My interest in language as a creative force in itself, and as a field for creative exploration, started quite young for me when I was inspired by fantasy authors like J.R.R. Tolkien to try my hand at conlanging. I created probably 2 or 3 complete languages, one called Ilthoë as I recall, before I was 16 years old. But my grammar-nerd inclinations (which, yes, virtually guaranteed I was un-dateable during my teen years) received a decisive boost at 17 or 18, when I first read about David Bohm’s “Rheomode” in Wholeness and the Implicate Order. His — novel? quirky? — linguistic experiment, as well as Robert Anton Wilson’s e-prime, really got me thinking about the philosophical, spiritual, and psycho-phenomenological dimensions of language in a new way.

In this mini-installment in my integral perspectival math series, I want to briefly introduce and discuss the Rheomode, and then look at how we might illuminate and extend it using the expanded notation I’ve been developing.

The Rheomode

One of Bohm’s primary philosophical concerns was the prevalent “fragmentation” of thought — the tendency of conventional language to break apart what is fundamentally inseparable and to treat these fragments as if they existed independently. From a practical standpoint, Bohm saw this fragmentation as a source of widespread misunderstanding and conflict, both in science and in everyday life. He proposed that many of the dilemmas and contradictions apparent in philosophy and physics (like the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics) arise largely because of inadequate linguistic and conceptual structures.

Benjamin Whorf, of course, is one of the most well-known thinkers to have to explored the question of the influence of language on both the forms and possibilities for thought and perception:

We are inclined to think of language simply as a technique of expression, and not to realize that language first of all is a classification and arrangement of the stream of sensory experience which results in a certain world-order, a certain segment of the world that is easily expressible by the type of symbolic means that language employs. In other words, language does in a cruder but also in a broader and more versatile way the same thing that science does….. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way — an agreement that holds through our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language (Whorf, Language, Thought, and Reality).

Although strong linguistic determinism or relativism no longer holds water, neither does the universalist rejection of it: the influence of language and grammar on thought, perception, and behavior is an accepted fact in linguistics, and the debate now centers around the extent of this influence. Is this something that merits exploring? How can we approach it?

David Bohm took up this question in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. He was concerned, in particular, with the limitations of the relatively static subject-object structure of Western Indo-European (WIE) language, and suggested experimenting with a more verbally centered grammar:

We can ask in a preliminary way whether there are any features of the commonly used language which tend to sustain and propagate this fragmentation, as well as, perhaps, to reflect it. A cursory examination shows that a very important feature of this kind is the subject-verb-object structure of sentences, which is common to the grammar and syntax of modern languages. This structure implies that all action arises in a separate entity, the subject, and that, in cases described by the transitive verb, this action crosses over the space between them to another separate entity, the object… Is it not pssible for the syntax and grammatical form of language to be changed so as to give a basic role to the verb rather than to the noun? This would help to end the sort of fragmentation indicated above, for the verb describes actions and movements, which flow into each other and merge, without sharp separations or breaks. Moreover, since movements are in general always themselves changing, they have in them no permanent pattern of fixed form with which separately existent things could be identified. Such an approach to language evidently fits in with the overall world view discussed in the previous chapter, in which movement is, in effect, taken as a primary notion, while apparently static and separately existent things are seen as relatively invariant states of continuing movement (e.g., [as in] the example of the vortex)…

One way he explored this was through the creation of an experimental, more explicitly verbal mode of English, which he called the rheomode (from the Greek “rheo,” meaning “to flow”). According to Bohm, “One of the best ways of learning how one is conditioned by habit (such as the common usage of language is, to a large extent) is to give careful and sustained attention to one’s overall reaction when one ‘makes the test’ of seeing what takes place when one is doing something significantly different from the automatic and accustomed function.” His experiment, in other words, was to attempt to explore the enactive potential of language by altering its present structure and examining the results, rather than simply (or primarily) promoting an idealized form of language. The goal of the new structure was to create a grammar “in which movement is to be taken as primary in our thinking and in which this notion will be incorporated into the language structure by allowing the verb rather than the noun to play a primary role,” but his approach to this was open-ended and exploratory — “making the test” and seeing what happens.

The rheomode was one way he encouraged us to make this test. I don’t intend to fully unpack Bohm’s proposal here, but just to introduce enough of it that we can begin to explore its structure through the expanded perspectival mathematics notation. In his well-known chapter on the topic, David Bohm proposes a processual inflection of English grammar centered around a series of verbs — levate, vidate, dividate, ordinate, verrate, etc. — each of which follows a four-part structure.

The term “levate,” for instance, serves as the foundation for a set of related words that explore the concept of relevance. “To levate” is defined as a spontaneous act of lifting any content up into attention, implying an “unrestricted breadth and depth of meaning” that is not confined to static limits. Building upon this, “to relevate” means to lift a certain content into attention again for a specific context, as indicated by thought and language, emphasizing the repetition of the act of levation within a particular context.

The adjective “relevant” describes the state where the act of relevation fits or is coherent with the observed context, indicating the appropriateness or fittingness of a relevation to the context. On the other hand, “irrelevant” refers to the state where the act of relevation does not fit or is incoherent with the observed context, highlighting the inappropriateness or non-fittingness of the act.

This set of words in the rheomode allows for a more nuanced and dynamic understanding of relevance, emphasizing the active process of bringing content into attention and evaluating its coherence with a specific context. Interestingly, this pattern — which is repeated not only for ‘levate’ but for the other verb forms Bohm introduces as well — mirrors the recursively iterating process of relevance realization discussed by John Vervaeke. Both models emphasize how understanding or perception is not static but dynamically evolves through continual holistic re-engagement and reassessment within varying contexts.

Here’s a breakdown of the four-part pattern Bohm follows:

Root Verb (Base Form):

• The root verb represents a spontaneous, primary action or process.
• Examples: Levate, Vidate, Dividate, Ordinate, Verrate, Factate, Constatate.
• This root verb encapsulates the essential nature of a dynamic process or state, reflecting the fluid and ever-changing reality Bohm emphasizes.

Re- Form (Iterative/Repetitive Action):

• The addition of “Re-” before the root verb signifies a repetition or revisiting of the original action in a specific context.
• Examples: Relevate, Revidate, Redividate, Reordinate, Reverrate, Refactate, Reconstatate.
• This form implies a reassessment or re-engagement with the process, highlighting the evolving and contextual nature of understanding and perception.

-Ant Form (State of Fittingness or Appropriateness):

• Derived from the iterative form, ending in “-ant” to denote a state or quality resulting from the iterative action.
• Examples: Relevant, Revidant, Redividant, Reordinant, Reverrant, Refactant, Reconstatant.
• This form indicates whether the re-engaged action or process is fitting, appropriate, or congruent with the current context or reality.

Ir- Form (State of Non-fittingness or Inappropriateness):

• Prefixed with “Ir-” to the “-ant” form, signifying the negative or opposite state.
• Examples: Irrelevant, Irrevidant, Irredividant, Irreordinant, Irreverrant, Irrefactant, Irreconstatant.
• This form is used to denote a mismatch or inappropriateness of the iterative action or process in the given context, emphasizing the importance of context and change in determining the relevance or truth of a concept.

Each verb set begins with a dynamic action (root verb), evolves through a process of re-examination or repetition (Re- form), and then concludes by assessing the congruence or incongruence of this process within the context (-Ant and Ir- forms). This structure, incorporating contextual awareness and iterative change in core verbal forms, supports the processual nature of perception and meaning-making that Bohm felt was important to emphasize, if we are to address the fragmentation in thinking that drives many of our ills.

“Bohm, Meet Wilber” (And Me!)

The structure of Bohm’s rheomode verb forms can be fairly simply represented using the expanded integral perspectival mathematics notation I’ve introduced and demonstrated in several recent papers:

1. Root Verb (Base Form): 1p(1p) x 1p(3p)

This notation represents the simple, spontaneous action or process of the root verb form, involving a first-person perspective (1p) engaging with a third-person object or reality (3p) — although, of course, this can also apply to interior (1p) objects of attention. The absence of the perspectival hyphen indicates a more immediate, unreflective form of perception or engagement.

2. Re- Form (Iterative/Repetitive Action): [1p(1p) x 1p(3p)] ↩ {[1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) x 1p(3p)] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]}

This notation captures the iterative or repetitive nature of the “Re-” form, with the “↩” operator indicating a recursive process. The original first-person perspective [1p(1p) x 1p(3p)] is revisited and expanded through the inclusion of a more intentional first-person perspective-taking [1p(1-p)]. This expanded perspective is then understood as being situated within a specific context, represented by the third-person contextual perspective [3p(3p)^c].

3. Ant Form (State of Fittingness or Appropriateness): {[1p(1p) x 1p(3p)] ↩ [1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) x 1p(3p)] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]} ≈ [1p(1-p) x 1p(3p) ⊂ 3p(3p)^c]

This notation represents the state of fittingness or appropriateness of the iterative action within a specific context. The “≈” operator indicates a resonance or attunement between the expanded first-person perspective [1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) x 1p(3p)] situated within the context [3p(3p)^c] and the contextually appropriate perspective [1p(1-p) x 1p(3p) ⊂ 3p(3p)^c].

4. Ir- Form (State of Non-fittingness or Inappropriateness): {[1p(1p) x 1p(3p)] ↩ [1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) x 1p(3p)] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]} ↯ [1p(1-p) x 1p(3p) ⊂ 3p(3p)^c]

This notation represents the state of non-fittingness or inappropriateness of the iterative action within a specific context. The “↯” operator indicates a conflict or opposition between the expanded first-person perspective [1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) x 1p(3p)] situated within the context [3p(3p)^c] and the contextually inappropriate perspective [1p(1-p) x 1p(3p) ⊂ 3p(3p)^c].

I’m using the superscript, “c,” to denote context, of course — following the superscript conventions I introduced in several earlier papers. This highlights the important role that context plays in the iterative, reflective, and evaluative aspects of the rheomode verb forms.

A More Granular Application

In Bohm’s rheomode, the root verb “dividate” represents the spontaneous act of seeing or perceiving things as separate or divided. This includes the act of noticing whether or not this perception of division fits with the actual observed context. The verb “dividate” draws attention to the inherent division present in the very act of using language to distinguish and categorize elements of experience.

Building upon this foundation, Bohm introduces the verb “re-dividate,” which means to perceive or consider a particular content again in terms of division or separation. This form emphasizes the repetition of the act of dividation within a specific context, as indicated by thought and language. The adjective “re-dividant” describes the state or condition in which the act of re-dividation is seen to fit or cohere with the context under consideration. In other words, it indicates that perceiving a particular distinction or separation is appropriate and relevant within the given context. And conversely, the adjective “irre-dividant” points to a state in which the act of re-dividation does not fit or align with the observed context. This suggests that imposing a division or separation in a particular situation is inappropriate or irrelevant.

Bohm also introduces the noun “dividation,” which refers to the overall, generalized act of perceiving or imposing divisions and separations. However, he notes that “dividation” is not fundamentally distinct from “vidation,” or the holistic act of perception. Rather, dividation is a particular mode of vidation, and the two ultimately merge and interpenetrate.

We divide the world up with our concepts and categories, in other words, and sometimes that is quite useful and appropriate for the task at hand, but we should not forget that we have divided it.

To put this into perspectival math, we can use not only the generalized notation, but introduce an additional operator to highlight this process of division:

Root Verb (Dividate): 1p(1p) ÷ 1p(3p)

Re- Form (Redividate): [1p(1p) ÷ 1p(3p)] ↩ {[1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) ÷ 1p(3p)] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]}

-Ant Form (Redividant): {[1p(1p) ÷ 1p(3p)] ↩ [1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) ÷ 1p(3p)] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]} ≈ [1p(1-p) ÷ 1p(3p) ⊂ 3p(3p)^c]

Ir- Form (Irredividant): {[1p(1p) ÷ 1p(3p)] ↩ [1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) ÷ 1p(3p)] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]} ↯ [1p(1-p) ÷ 1p(3p) ⊂ 3p(3p)^c]

Not all of the Rheomode words may lend themselves to such a direct treatment, but I’ve found several that do.

Before closing, I’d like to explore how these Rheomode notations might connect to some of the earlier work we’ve done.

The Rheomode in Double- and Triple-Loop Learning

The iterative nature of the Rheomode structure, with its progression from the root form to the re- form and the recognition of fit or non-fit in the -ant or ir- forms, suggests it might interface well with the recursive, self-reflective dynamics of double-loop and triple-loop learning.

If you haven’t read my earlier installment, Mathing the Loops, you might look at that first to be able to follow the following notations.

Double-Loop Learning with the Rheomode:

{{

{[1p(1p) x 1p(3p)] ↩ [1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) x 1p(3p)] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]} ↯ [1p(1-p) x 1p(3p) ⊂ 3p(3p)^c]

}

↩

{

[1p(1p)^y x 1p(3-p)^y x 1p(3p)^x] ↩ [1p(1p)^y x 1p(1-p)^y x 1p(3p)^x] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c’]

}

}

→

{[1p(1p)^y x 1p(3-p)^y x 1p(3p)^xy] ↩ [1p(1p)^y x 1p(1-p)^y x 1p(3p)^xy] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c’]} ≈ [1p(1-p)^y x 1p(3p)^xy ⊂ 3p(3p)^c’]

And to break this down and unpack it:

· {[1p(1p) x 1p(3p)] ↩ [1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) x 1p(3p)] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]}

This line represents the Rheomode’s re- form, where the initial perspective [1p(1p) x 1p(3p)] is expanded to include a more intentional perspective-taking [1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) x 1p(3p)] within a specific context [3p(3p)^c]. The ↩ symbol indicates the recursive nature of this process.

· ↯ [1p(1-p) x 1p(3p) ⊂ 3p(3p)^c]

This line introduces the Rheomode’s ir- form, representing a state of non-fittingness or inappropriateness between the expanded perspective [1p(1-p) x 1p(3p)] and the contextual perspective [3p(3p)^c]. The ↯ symbol signifies this conflict or opposition.

· ↩

This line indicates a second recursive loop, triggered by the recognition of non-fit in the previous line.

· [1p(1p)^y x 1p(3-p)^y x 1p(3p)^x] ↩ [1p(1p)^y x 1p(1-p)^y x 1p(3p)^x] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]

This line represents a further iteration of the Rheomode’s re- form, where the transformed perspective [1p(1p)^y x 1p(3-p)^y x 1p(3p)^x] is expanded to include an even more refined perspective-taking [1p(1p)^y x 1p(1-p)^y x 1p(3p)^x] within a given context [3p(3p)^c]. The superscript y indicates the transformation of the perspective, while the superscript x denotes the modification of the individual’s actions or behaviors [1p(3p)^x^], resulting from the transformation of their perspective.

· →

This line signifies a transition or implication, leading to the final state of the double-loop learning process.

· {[1p(1p)^y x 1p(3-p)^y x 1p(3p)^xy] ↩ [1p(1p)^y x 1p(1-p)^y x 1p(3p)^xy] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]} ≈ [1p(1-p)^y x 1p(3p)^xy ⊂ 3p(3p)^c]

This line represents the achievement of a state of fittingness (≈) between the fully transformed perspective [1p(1p)^y x 1p(3-p)^y x 1p(3p)^xy] and the contextual perspective [1p(1-p)^y^ x 1p(3p)^xy ⊂ 3p(3p)^c]. This marks the successful completion of the double-loop learning process, where the perspective has been refined through recursive iterations to align with the context in question.

Triple-Loop Learning with the Rheomode:

{{

{[1p(1p) x 1p(3p)] ↩ [1p(1p) x 1p(1-p) x 1p(3p)] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]} ↯ [1p(1-p) x 1p(3p) ⊂ 3p(3p)^c]

}

↩

{

[1p(1p)^y x 1p(3-p)^y x 1p(3p)^x] ↩ [1p(1p)^y x 1p(1-p)^y x 1p(3p)^x] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c]

}

}

→

{[1p(1p)^y x 1p(3-p)^y x 1p(3p)^xy] ↩ [1p(1p)^y x 1p(1-p)^y x 1p(3p)^xy] ⊂ [3p(3p)^c^]} ≈ [1p(1-p)^y x 1p(3p)^xy ⊂ 3p(3p)^c]

↩

{

[1p(1pp) x 1p(3-pp) x 1p(3pp)] ↩ [1p(1p)^yz x 1p(3-p)^yz x 1p(3p)^xyz + 1p(3pp)]

}

⇒

[1p(1p)^yz x 1p(3-p)^yz x 1p(3p)^xyz] ≈ [1p(1pp) x 1p(3-pp) x 1p(3pp)] ⊂ [3p(3pp)^c’]

The first two-thirds of the equation is identical to the double-loop learning notation, representing the recursive process of perspective transformation and contextual adaptation until a state of fittingness is achieved.

· ↩

This line introduces a third recursive loop, indicating the move from double-loop to triple-loop learning.

· {[1p(1pp) x 1p(3-pp) x 1p(3pp)] ↩ [1p(1p)^yz x 1p(3-p)^yz x 1p(3p)^xyz + 1p(3pp)]}

This line represents the triple-loop learning phase, where a collective perspective [1p(1pp) x 1p(3-pp) x 1p(3pp)] is introduced and integrated with the individual’s transformed perspective [1p(1p)^yz x 1p(3-p)^yz x 1p(3p)^xyz]. The integration is represented by the addition operation (+ 1p(3pp)), and the superscript z indicates a further transformation of the individual’s perspective in light of the collective understanding.

· ⇒

This line signifies the emergence or implication of a new state, resulting from the integration of the individual and collective perspectives.

· [1p(1p)^yz x 1p(3-p)^yz x 1p(3p)^xyz] ≈ [1p(1pp) x 1p(3-pp) x 1p(3pp)] ⊂ [3p(3pp)^c’]

This line represents the achievement of a higher-order state of fittingness (≈) between the fully transformed individual perspective [1p(1p)^yz x 1p(3-p)^yz x 1p(3p)^xyz] and the collective perspective [1p(1pp) x 1p(3-pp) x 1p(3pp)]. Importantly, this state of fittingness is now situated within a modified context [3p(3pp)^c’], indicating that the context itself has been transformed as a result of the triple-loop learning process. The shift from [3p(3p)^c] to [3p(3pp)^c’] suggests that the context is now understood from a collective (paradigmatic) perspective (3pp) and has been modified (c’) through the integrative learning process.

The incorporation of collective perspectives in the triple-loop learning notation, in other words, is intended to represent the paradigmatic change that characterizes this level of learning. By integrating the individual perspective with the collective understanding, the notation aims to capture the shift towards a more holistic, integrative mode of thinking that transcends the limitations of individual viewpoints. (There is an additional, more intensive — and I mean to highlight the temporal connotations of this word here — framing of triple-loop learning that I discussed in “Mathing the Loops,” but I’m leaving that aside for now.)

The selected notations in both the double-loop and triple-loop learning expressions aim to capture the recursive, self-reflective dynamics of perspective transformation and contextual adaptation. The use of the Rheomode’s re- and ir- forms, along with the recursive loops (↩) and the symbols for non-fittingness (↯) and fittingness (≈), help to represent the iterative process of refining perspectives in response to evolving contexts and collective understandings.

Technically, of course, contexts continue to evolve in the process of perspective-taking, so a modified context marker (^c’) could be used throughout, but I wanted to highlight here the impact of triple-loop, paradigmatic transformation on the whole perceptual situation.

Closing Thoughts

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

I suspect that most of my readers don’t make it this far into my grammar papers. If you did, and noticed the above, you have a special place in my heart.

And for you, my special words are these: One of Bohm’s interests, through his Dialogue, mostly, but also through his Rheomode and ongoing language discussions, was to encourage greater proprioception of the movement of thought — really, greater 4thPP and 5thPP insight into contextuality and conditioning; the embodied, participatory interplay of language, concept, and percept (soma-significance); and possibly, ultimately, the circumincessional compenetration of forms in the holoflux.

I am hopeful that these linguistic experiments, and my extensions of the perspectival math, will prove useful for the first two aims. I invite feedback and experimentation in these areas, as always. But the latter is possible, too, as we thin through the need for language to be ‘useful.’