Comments on: Beneath the World of Logic

By: Immanuel Ghim

Immanuel Ghim — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:35:16 +0000

Thanks Anne for you kind reply^^

seems you and I have lots of things to share.
Recently I went through your post on
Bohm and John Car..(what was this Frechman’s name?..)
and it fascinated me.

Definitely D. Bohm is interesting and even more I’m looking forward to read your upcoming post on his book.

Well, in my case, I’m concentrating on ‘Works of Love’ by Soren Kierkegaard, and maybe will post some of my lingu-ethical comments on them.

Hope to see you soon, take care ^^

By: Annemieke

Annemieke — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:54:57 +0000

Hi Immanuel, you have some very interesting things to say with which I agree mostly. I also ‘doubt the throne of reason and rational thinking’, not so much because of what is said in ordinary philosophy (because most of that I only know in a superficial way) but more that I feel that words do not ‘cover’ the meaning most of the time.

I think it is interesting that you say ‘there is no such thing as communication’. I think I also agree with that to some extend. That is, if you mean that people often misinterpret each others words.

When you say ‘there is no shared meaning at all’, I also think I kind of agree. Maybe not that extreme, but I also think we are often far off with our interpretation of what the other meant to say.

So I certainly do not think you have ‘a crazy linguistic view’. But maybe that is just because my own views are just as crazy :-)

At the moment I started a book called ‘Wholeness and the implicate order’ from David Bohm. There is a chapter in that book that seems to cover these views. He does an experiment with language and thought, which he calls the ‘rheomode’. The reason for that experiment was that he found that the western language is not suitable to explain certain phenomenon in the physical world, especially those on the quantum level, because our language is to static. So he experiments with a language that is more flowing to describe what is going on.

It is also a way to describe development, and that was what I was looking for. So I just started in that book and want to explore it further on my blog in the coming time. That is, if I can understand it enough to be able to write something understandable about it.

But if so, I would be most interested to hear your views on that.

By: Immanuel Ghim

Immanuel Ghim — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:42:19 +0000

My blog just re-newed, try here Anne ^^;;;

http://ighim.tistory.com/notice/?page=9

Thanks^^

By: Immanuel Ghim

Immanuel Ghim — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 07:55:37 +0000

Oops, I mean posting "late". lol. .-= Immanuel Ghim´s last blog ..SOUND AND RECORDINGS; GOULD AND THE CD: MADE FOR EACH OTHER =-.

By: Immanuel Ghim

Immanuel Ghim — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 07:54:27 +0000

Hi Anne, I’m sorry for posting my reply on your request on the basical thinking of my linguistic view. I’ve just posted in my blog, and you can read it here at :

http://ighim.tistory.com/notice/?page=7

Thanks.
.-= Immanuel Ghim´s last blog ..SOUND AND RECORDINGS; GOULD AND THE CD: MADE FOR EACH OTHER =-.