Content deleted Content added
add link |
added an analogy of 'aboutness' in 'context' |
||
Line 8:
Many, along with Bohm himself, have seen strong connections between his ideas and ideas from the East. Some proponents of [[new age| alternative religions]] (such as [[shamanism]]) claim a connection with their belief systems as well.
Bohm may have known that his idea is a striking analogy to "intensional and extensional aboutness" to which [[R. A. Fairthorne]] (1969) insightfully referred information scientists but few paid attention as evidenced by googling. [[John Searle]] treated ''aboutness'' and ''network'' in his [[Intentionality]] (1983), contemporarily with Bohm's ''Wholeness'' (1983)! ''Aboutness'' is as odd as ''wholeness'' in sharp contrast. As the former is to the ''content'', so the latter is to the ''context'' to the last as the ultimate determiner of meaning. The holistic view of ''context'', hence another striking analogy of ''wholeness'', was first put forward in [[The Meaning of Meaning]] by [[C. K. Ogden]] & [[I. A. Richards]] (1923), including the ''literary, psychological,'' and ''external''. These are respectively analogous to [[Karl Popper]]'s ''world 3, 2,'' and ''1'' appearing in his ''Objective Knowledge'' (1972 and later ed.). Bohm's worldview of "undivided wholeness" is contrasted with Popper's three divided worlds. The direct causality among these and other authorships may be ''actually'' evident in the implicate order, though ''apparently'' not in the explicate order in spite of a great deal of reasonable doubt in terms of locality, ethnicity, ideology, academic tendency, and so on. Bohm and Popper favored Einstein above all.
Supposing that someone intends to convey a definite thought or story with the following word string:
: woman, street, crowd, traffic, noise, haste, thief, bag, loss, scream, police, .....
which looks almost non-sensical as a whole. Then, what will happen to us listeners? We have a dictionary, but we cannot simply sum up the meanings of individual words. That "a whole is more than the sum of the parts" is too plain a saying. There seems to be no grammar to which the speaker might have conformed. He merely suggests rather than tells the story, which in other words is implied or implicit in the word string. From this awkward symbology we can guess the story with varying accuracies, if we are ready to take risks. In this case, the meaning of such symbology may be said to be connotative, implicit, implicate or intensional, in contrast to denotative, explicit, explicate or extensional. Consult a [http://www.m-w.com/ dictionary] for these words. And, note that the more context of explication, the less uncertainty of implication. Most importantly, note that this fashion of ''explicate in implicate order'', that is, ''aboutness in context'' or ''wholeness'' is an outstanding analogy as well as the very principle of subject indexing as a prerequisite of [[information retrieval]] that has become everybody's everyday concern now! This principle's ''actual'' implication for and impact on a number of other disciplines should be ''unfolded'' if any. Why not ''unfold'' who on earth played an inspiring and leading role in shaping [[contextualism]] in the spotlight.
==See also==
| |||