Existential Time

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 08:11 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;162101 wrote:
Lovely poem, thank you. I am sure it is true - with the requisite poetic license. Think about this. If a sufficiently advanced alien species arrived here and were able to capture a single strand of human DNA, they would probably be able to infer from it the entire history of Planet Earth. So it ain't that far out, is it?



.


Well, that conjecture is pretty far out. I am not certain, of course, but I see no reason to suppose it would be true. It was a Romantic idea that every individual thing contains traces of the whole universe. But what reason is there to suppose it true? The aesthetic value of an idea is no guide to its alethic value.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 06:44 pm
@qualia,
It actually receives support from physics nowadays. The Bells Theorem experiments show that two related sub-atomic particles are somehow conjoined even when spatially separated. David Bohm's 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' is built on just this idea that the whole is implicated in each part

Quote:

Bohm's paradigm is inherently antithetical to reductionism, in most forms, and accordingly can be regarded as a form of ontological holismthings, structures, abstractions and processes, including processes that result in (relatively) stable structures as well as those that involve metamorphosis of structures or things. In this view, parts may be entities normally regarded as physical, such as atoms or subatomic particles, but they may also be abstract entities, such as quantum states. Whatever their nature and character, according to Bohm, these parts are considered in terms of the whole, and in such terms, they constitute relatively autonomous and independent "sub-totalities". The implication of the view is, therefore, that nothing is entirely separate or autonomous.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 08:23 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;162101 wrote:

Well, to respond to only one of the layers in your reply, perhaps we as a culture are dismissive of THE ONE because we generally have no clue as to what it means, in this tremendously complicated multiplex existence in which we now live. The perspective of THE ONE has only ever been available to those who are really able to simplify themselves and their life down to the bare physical basics. Granted, we can now contemplate it in a literary and philosophical kind of way. It has made its way back into the discourse of modernity mainly via the Sixties, Thomas Merton, Indian philosophy, and so on. But it remains a profoundly important idea and one that I think we should approach with great diffidence.


I definitely wouldn't charge into politics, for instance, with talk about the one. It's likely to be misunderstood as mysticism. The funny thing is, in my opinion, is that the concept of unity seems to lie at the heart of logic. But it seems, in my opinion, to be overlooked. Joyce talks about the unity of the aesthetic object in Portrait, and I believe he quotes Aquinas, but perhaps a different quote than that one. An art work must be framed, either literally or figurative. And all objects as objects are unities. In math, the one is absolutely fundamental. This is not to deny the beauty of unity, which seems connected to philosophical eros in general. What is Occam's razor if not movement toward unity?

I'll grant you that diffidence is perhaps ideal here, but on the other hand, this is a specialized philosophy forum. Scylla and Charybdis. Smile
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 09:26 pm
@qualia,
I think that the reason the idea of The One is such a big deal is because of what it represents in relation to the human situation. After all, multiplicity and division seems basic to the very nature of existence. So 'The One' is symbolic of 'that which is beyond division'. In Plotinus and Platonism, 'The One' is the origin of everything but is also beyond conceptualism because our concepts assume the existence of multiplicity. But that Platonic notion of The One is definitely present in Scholastic philosophy, as it came in via Augustine's reading of Plotinus and also the Celestial Hierarchy of (psdeudo) Dionysius, which were both fundamental to scholasticism.

So an interesting question is: was this understanding of the One a casuality of Nominalism? Sounds like an interesting research topic to me.....
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 09:38 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;162272 wrote:
I think that the reason the idea of The One is such a big deal is because of what it represents in relation to the human situation. After all, multiplicity and division seems basic to the very nature of existence. So 'The One' is symbolic of 'that which is beyond division'. In Plotinus and Platonism, 'The One' is the origin of everything but is also beyond conceptualism because our concepts assume the existence of multiplicity. But that Platonic notion of The One is definitely present in Scholastic philosophy, as it came in via Augustine's reading of Plotinus and also the Celestial Hierarchy of (psdeudo) Dionysius, which were both fundamental to scholasticism.

So an interesting question is: was this understanding of the One a casuality of Nominalism? Sounds like an interesting research topic to me.....


Excellent question. I feel that the stick folks use to beat "the one", is nothing but "ones ones ones." Just as an attack on logic relies upon logic. Hume is a bit absurd, really, despite his obvious genius. The more that certainty is attacked, for instance, the more such an attack devours itself. I think we've talked about it before, but maybe nominalism had egalitarian associations that increased its charm. Maybe it was the choice of a rising middle class? This is just a theory. Perhaps a history buff can fill me in. Weren't Hume and Adam Smith friends? I have a lot of sympathy with nominalism really. It used to the be the party I identified with. Perhaps what I'm really behind is a salted synthesis. But this is hardly a new idea...
Quote:

Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. The understanding can intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing. Only through their unison can knowledge arise.
Kant, of course...

I still argue that science has an implicit metaphysics, and agree w/ Schopenhauer than man is the metaphysical animal. We want to know why, as well as how, even if we question the validity of this "why."Smile
 
qualia
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 07:12 pm
@Reconstructo,
Thank you for a very stimulating read. Referring to what jeeprs has written about the notion of The One. The following might detract from the flow of the thread, but as a little footnote, I wonder if this idea of The One expresses the notion of religiousness par excelence. The One being a relationship between one's self and all that is, and that the optimal relationship of this coupling will reside in a reality and a self conceived within some kind of grand totality. If this is so, we could ask of anyone herein, anyone, that is, who wishes to derive some significant distinction between one given discipline and another, where does the distinction lie between the religiousness of differing human disciplines and discourses other than a division of prejudice and desires of the heart? This notion of The One, or Religiousnesss, ties in nicely to what Reconstructo has mentioned about the metaphysic of science. Drawing from the insight of jeeprs, I believe it is wrong for anyone to assert that religion, say, is a metaphysic whilst science is not. The defence of any theory is regulated by some ultimate assumption that comes before anything else. To assume that notions of consciousness, or time, for example, are rendered intelligible only when subsumed to the methods and laws of materialism or physicalism is itself a belief regulated by some metaphysical notion of reality which cannot be measured or tested a priori.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 07:46 pm
@qualia,
qualia;162616 wrote:
I wonder if this idea of The One expresses the notion of religiousness par excelence.


Beautifully said. But perhaps this points to a different type of religious outlook to that of the Hebrews - so different, in fact, as to warrant a different description to 'religion' as is now understood.

The idea of The One is much more like the Greek (Platonist) and Hindu (Vedic) conceptions. The Greek influences were, I think, preserved in the Catholic and Orthodox systems, but then lost in the Reformation, because of Luther and Calvin's rejection of everything outside Scripture as various forms of paganism.

This is documented in the excellent Theological Origins of Modernity by M. A. Gillespie. He shows how many of the Platonist insights of Ficino and Renaissance humanism, and, in a broader sense, many elements of the perennial philosophy, were basically rejected by Martin Luther and the nominalists, and replaced with the Lutheran attitude of 'faith only in the revealed word of God' who was understood to be completely inscrutable and all-powerful. This has had an enormous impact on the religious view of modernity ( which I think includes atheism), because it essentially precludes consideration of the existential meaning of religious truths in any terms other than Biblical.

It can be argued, furthermore, that much of the impetus behind New Age thought, and the influx of Eastern influences into modern Western culture, has been driven by the necessity of re-discovering these insights which were preserved in Catholic and Orthodox theology but driven out of Protestantism by Luther and Calvin.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 09:44 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;162640 wrote:
Beautifully said. But perhaps this points to a different type of religious outlook to that of the Hebrews - so different, in fact, as to warrant a different description to 'religion' as is now understood.

The idea of The One is much more like the Greek (Platonist) and Hindu (Vedic) conceptions. The Greek influences were, I think, preserved in the Catholic and Orthodox systems, but then lost in the Reformation, because of Luther and Calvin's rejection of everything outside Scripture as various forms of paganism.

This is documented in the excellent Theological Origins of Modernity by M. A. Gillespie. He shows how many of the Platonist insights of Ficino and Renaissance humanism, and, in a broader sense, many elements of the perennial philosophy, were basically rejected by Martin Luther and the nominalists, and replaced with the Lutheran attitude of 'faith only in the revealed word of God' who was understood to be completely inscrutable and all-powerful. This has had an enormous impact on the religious view of modernity ( which I think includes atheism), because it essentially precludes consideration of the existential meaning of religious truths in any terms other than Biblical.

It can be argued, furthermore, that much of the impetus behind New Age thought, and the influx of Eastern influences into modern Western culture, has been driven by the necessity of re-discovering these insights which were preserved in Catholic and Orthodox theology but driven out of Protestantism by Luther and Calvin.


Yes, tracing throughout the depths of history seems to be this recurrent problematic theme between the One and the many.

I see many of the post-modern movements, such as existential theology and phenomenology, as an attempt to revisit the age old question concerning the relationship between the One and the many. Hence Heidegger's focus on the differences, and relationship, between Being and beings.

The New Age movement is just an attempt to do what was already done before Christianity was modernized, but most fail to make the connections.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 09:54 pm
@qualia,
qualia;162616 wrote:
To assume that notions of consciousness, or time, for example, are rendered intelligible only when subsumed to the methods and laws of materialism or physicalism is itself a belief regulated by some metaphysical notion of reality which cannot be measured or tested a priori.

That's the essence of my gripe against anti-meta-physicians. Of course we can change the term, but the game remains the same. For me it's obvious that much of our world view does not involved quantified measurement.

To address time once again. I'll give a personal example of existential time. My passion is thought, study, etc. My problem, as a mortal being, is that there is simply not time to learn everything, to think about everything. My priority is to know and understand that best that can be known and understood. But I know enough not to expect some authority to tell me where this is. Indeed, there are all too many authorities with radically different opinions. It's my "existential burden" to wrestle with this, a proud person who is humble enough to seek wisdom in the words of others, and exposed enough to know that he is not as exposed as he wants to be. I have generally made choices in this regard toward a broad synthetic view. For instance, I don't choose to get bogged down in all the endless complexities of calculus, which nevertheless is beautiful to me in its fundamentals. And I also don't see the value of slogging through boring writers just for whatever questionable honor might be associated with such a slogging. As a mortal man with a lust for knowledge, I feel existential time. I generally am too absorbed in something to suffer this, but every once in a while, I am forced to make a choice. Hell, every trip to the library is a fork on the road. Reading about complexity lately, I can tell you that the smallest fork in the road now can put you on a different continent later. Smile
 
prothero
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 10:24 pm
@qualia,
Things of course do not actually exist in isolation or as enduring substances.
Things do not exist in isolation or except in the medium of space time
Things only exist in relationship to other things and to space time.
The concept of the "one" is intimately related to this notion of the interdependence of all of reality and the perceptive relationships between all things.

Perception and mind are not limited to humans for all "objects" perceive (prehend)their surroundings and have degrees of freedom in response that involve mind like and perceptive properties. In some sense all entities have interior (mind like and perception like) and exterior (physical) properties of which science only can measure and detect exterior properties. Thus the partial and incomplete view of science with relationship to the experiential aspects of reality. This also explains a great deal about quantum paradoxes for the observer and the event are all part of an interdependent and interrelated reality.

Reality is not composed of "substances" but of events that occur in space time and which have both material and mental aspects.
What we call substances are merely enduring or repetitive events
Reality consists of events droplets of experience actual occasions which occur in the medium of space time.

Time is merely the perception of the change which occurs in reality.
Time is the human subjective perception of the change which is fundamental reality.
This is essentially the process view of time, reality and quantum paradox.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 10:25 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;162692 wrote:
That's the essence of my gripe against anti-meta-physicians. Of course we can change the term, but the game remains the same. For me it's obvious that much of our world view does not involved quantified measurement.

To address time once again. I'll give a personal example of existential time. My passion is thought, study, etc. My problem, as a mortal being, is that there is simply not time to learn everything, to think about everything. My priority is to know and understand that best that can be known and understood. But I know enough not to expect some authority to tell me where this is. Indeed, there are all too many authorities with radically different opinions. It's my "existential burden" to wrestle with this, a proud person who is humble enough to seek wisdom in the words of others, and exposed enough to know that he is not as exposed as he wants to be. I have generally made choices in this regard toward a broad synthetic view. For instance, I don't choose to get bogged down in all the endless complexities of calculus, which nevertheless is beautiful to me in its fundamentals. And I also don't see the value of slogging through boring writers just for whatever questionable honor might be associated with such a slogging. As a mortal man with a lust for knowledge, I feel existential time. I generally am too absorbed in something to suffer this, but every once in a while, I am forced to make a choice. Hell, every trip to the library is a fork on the road. Reading about complexity lately, I can tell you that the smallest fork in the road now can put you on a different continent later. Smile


Much of our world view doesn't and can't involve quantification, hence the need for it's counterpart, qualification.

Those who view, however, that a fixed objective reality exists, fail to understand this "paradox" because they are under the illusion that qualities can be described to others in quantified terms. Under this illusion it is easy to see why metaphysics would seem a childish, as it is their belief that all of reality is reducible to numbers.

Very true about time, it seems more and more clear as you age that temporality is the essential structure of each individual being.

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 11:35 PM ----------

prothero;162702 wrote:

Perception and mind are not limited to humans for all "objects" perceive (prehend)their surroundings and have degrees of freedom in response that involve mind like and perceptive properties. In some sense all entities have interior (mind like and perception like) and exterior (physical) properties of which science only can measure and detect exterior properties. Thus the partial and incomplete view of science with relationship to the experiential aspects of reality. This also explains a great deal about quantum paradoxes for the observer and the event are all part of an interdependent and interrelated reality.



Is there a difference between mind and mind-like?

Are you suggesting that all animals experience a world per se?

It seems to me that animals do experience something, although I am cautious to call what they experience a world.

Also, Im wondering if you consider the interior world and exterior world separate phenomena, and what is the cut off between a form of life with and without a mind?
 
prothero
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 10:47 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;162703 wrote:
Is there a difference between mind and mind-like?
Are you suggesting that all animals experience a world per se?
It seems to me that animals do experience something, although I am cautious to call what they experience a world.
Also, Im wondering if you consider the interior world and exterior world separate phenomena, and what is the cut off between a form of life with and without a mind?
Those who maintain that human "mind" and human "perception" play a role in the construction of reality and have casual efficacy in the world as for example in "the quantum collapse" are essentially correct.

The fundamental flaw in this line of thinking is limiting properties of "mind" and properties of "perception" to humans and perhaps a few higher animals. In truth all of reality is perceptive of its surroundings and realitonships and all of reality has at least primitive properies of mind and casual efficacy. In short for the most part this line of thinking is still too anthropomorphic and anthrocentric. Natue is pan experientialist and pan psychist. We are not talking about sense based perception or conscious self awareness as mind but much more primitive and inherent modes of perception and interiority. The story of science essentially leaves out this experiential aspect of nature much as the objective description of mind leaves out mental experience.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 10:57 pm
@qualia,
prothero;162702 wrote:
Time is merely the perception of the change which occurs in reality.


actually a point which is coming out of all of this for me is that knowledge is active. This was said by Aristotle. We are not, as Locke says, a passive recpient of sensations which are impressed upon the tabula rasa of consciousness. In which case, time is not merely the perception of a change which occurs in reality, but the means by which the intellect orders the content of consciousness (cf Kant).

Somewhere, in all of this, there is a philosophical payoff associated with the idea of us being passive recipients of impressions......
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 11:27 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;162718 wrote:
actually a point which is coming out of all of this for me is that knowledge is active. This was said by Aristotle. We are not, as Locke says, a passive recpient of sensations which are impressed upon the tabula rasa of consciousness. In which case, time is not merely the perception of a change which occurs in reality, but the means by which the intellect orders the content of consciousness (cf Kant).

Somewhere, in all of this, there is a philosophical payoff associated with the idea of us being passive recipients of impressions......


Right, which is why the Mind was called the active intellect by Aristotle. Reality is pure activity but is dependent upon potential for it to manifest itself. Without material reality, or experience, we would not be able to come to know what has formed it.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 11:34 pm
@qualia,
as a sage once said, 'Bingo'.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 11:36 pm
@prothero,
prothero;162715 wrote:
Those who maintain that human "mind" and human "perception" play a role in the construction of reality and have casual efficacy in the world as for example in "the quantum collapse" are essentially correct.

The fundamental flaw in this line of thinking is limiting properties of "mind" and properties of "perception" to humans and perhaps a few higher animals. In truth all of reality is perceptive of its surroundings and realitonships and all of reality has at least primitive properies of mind and casual efficacy. In short for the most part this line of thinking is still too anthropomorphic and anthrocentric. Natue is pan experientialist and pan psychist. We are not talking about sense based perception or conscious self awareness as mind but much more primitive and inherent modes of perception and interiority. The story of science essentially leaves out this experiential aspect of nature much as the objective description of mind leaves out mental experience.


I think I get where you are going. You are subscribing to the idea that all reality is reducible to an absolute mind, or Being itself, and what we call minds are really just different manifestations of this absoluteness?

I agree with most of that, but I feel somewhere a distinction must be made between types or levels of experience because not all experience is equally relative. All of nature is essentially interconnected, but there needs to be some level of distinction within or else you are stuck in solipsism. This is where language, and temporality, become so essential as they are ways to differentiate Being.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:05 am
@prothero,
prothero;162702 wrote:

The concept of the "one" is intimately related to this notion of the interdependence of all of reality and the perceptive relationships between all things.

Agreed. Good point. It's at the center of philosophy, science, and mysticism, this unification notion.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 01:07 AM ----------

prothero;162702 wrote:

Reality is not composed of "substances" but of events that occur in space time and which have both material and mental aspects.


I must slightly disagree. For me, events are substances in the sense that all entities whatsoever as substances. This might be my idiosyncratic use of the word. If we make the atom "events" rather than "substances," we still have our discrete particles, be they mental, physical, or monical.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 01:15 AM ----------

prothero;162702 wrote:

Time is merely the perception of the change which occurs in reality.
Time is the human subjective perception of the change which is fundamental reality.
This is essentially the process view of time, reality and quantum paradox.


These are good lines. I can't help but feel you are leaving out the value element of time, which for me would be the difference between "existential" time and physics time.

I can't agree that change is the fundamental nature of reality, although I will agree that it is fundamental. There are permanent eddies in that river that Heraclitus can step in only once. Our body replaces its cells and yet we somehow remain ourselves. I also can't help but see something in man that doesn't change. His bodily form has certain constants, like ten fingers, excluding rare variations. I feel that there is a some structure to thought that is universal-transcendental-eternal, even if much or most of his thought-structure is not.

Eternity, Time, and the Concept. Great themes. I can only recommend to anyone Kojeve's little run through of Western Philosophy on the relation of the 3. Whether or not one agrees, it's great reading.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 01:17 AM ----------

prothero;162715 wrote:
Those who maintain that human "mind" and human "perception" play a role in the construction of reality and have casual efficacy in the world as for example in "the quantum collapse" are essentially correct.

The fundamental flaw in this line of thinking is limiting properties of "mind" and properties of "perception" to humans and perhaps a few higher animals. In truth all of reality is perceptive of its surroundings and realitonships and all of reality has at least primitive properies of mind and casual efficacy. In short for the most part this line of thinking is still too anthropomorphic and anthrocentric. Natue is pan experientialist and pan psychist. We are not talking about sense based perception or conscious self awareness as mind but much more primitive and inherent modes of perception and interiority. The story of science essentially leaves out this experiential aspect of nature much as the objective description of mind leaves out mental experience.


I like this. I can't help but note that we are still human beings talking, even if we strive to escape our anthrocentrism. Perhaps the desire to transcend anthrocentrism is no less anthrocentric, for we are still thinking of ourselves. Smile

But I think these are great ideas. Thanks for posting.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 01:18 AM ----------

prothero;162715 wrote:
Those who maintain that human "mind" and human "perception" play a role in the construction of reality and have casual efficacy in the world as for example in "the quantum collapse" are essentially correct.

The fundamental flaw in this line of thinking is limiting properties of "mind" and properties of "perception" to humans and perhaps a few higher animals. In truth all of reality is perceptive of its surroundings and realitonships and all of reality has at least primitive properies of mind and casual efficacy. In short for the most part this line of thinking is still too anthropomorphic and anthrocentric. Natue is pan experientialist and pan psychist. We are not talking about sense based perception or conscious self awareness as mind but much more primitive and inherent modes of perception and interiority. The story of science essentially leaves out this experiential aspect of nature much as the objective description of mind leaves out mental experience.


I like this. I can't help but note that we are still human beings talking, even if we strive to escape our anthrocentrism. Perhaps the desire to transcend anthrocentrism is no less anthrocentric, for we are still thinking of ourselves. Smile

But I think these are great ideas. Thanks for posting.
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:18 am
@MMP2506,
[QUOTE=MMP2506;162731] I think I get where you are going. You are subscribing to manifestations of this absoluteness the idea that all reality is reducible to an absolute mind, or Being itself, and what we call minds are really just different? [/QUOTE]I suppose you could phrase it like that although that is not precisely the language I would use. The assertion is more that mind and perception are inherent and ubiquitous properties of reality; not rare and emergent properties. of reality. Human mind conscious self awareness and human sensory perception are not unique but differ in degree not in kind.. Mind does not emerge from no mind or mindless inert matter. Perception does not emerge from insensate reality. There are primitive modes of perception (non sensory) to which process philosophers attach the term prehension. There are primitive qualities of interiority and self determination (freedom,)inherent in nature which process philosophers call pan experientialism or pansensationism or pan psychism. The notion that there is some form of purposeful rational cosmic intelligence or cosmic mind is not necessarily part of the speculative philosophy of process although it would not be excluded from possibility.
[QUOTE=MMP2506;162731]I agree with most of that, but I feel somewhere a distinctionmust be made between types or levels of experience because not all experience is equally relative. All of nature is essentially interconnected, but there needs to be some level of distinction within or else you are stuck in solipsism. This is where language, and temporality, become so essential as they are ways to differentiate Being. [/QUOTE]Temporality is an essential feature of the perception of reality. Without temporality there is no meaning for casaulity or for actualization. For a process worldview, events are reality, not substances. Reality is becoming ;process; not being; substance. The illusion of substance is created by incorporation of elements of the past into subsequent moments of experience or events. Substances are merely enduring or repetitive events. And all events prehend the past and anticipate the future. Time is the perception of change. Change is fundamental reality . Freedom and creativity, properties of mind and perception are all pervasive throughout reality and a quality of all events which occur in space time. There are differences of degree in both perception, freedom and prehension as you indicate.

If you have never encountered this line of thinking it is difficult at first but it fits well with what seem to be you natural inclinations. A.N.Whitehead process philosophy.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:24 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;162718 wrote:
actually a point which is coming out of all of this for me is that knowledge is active. This was said by Aristotle. We are not, as Locke says, a passive recpient of sensations which are impressed upon the tabula rasa of consciousness. In which case, time is not merely the perception of a change which occurs in reality, but the means by which the intellect orders the content of consciousness (cf Kant).

Somewhere, in all of this, there is a philosophical payoff associated with the idea of us being passive recipients of impressions......


I totally agree. And I can't help but feel that neuroscience is well aware of this, even if the conception of the passive recipient survives for many.

My opinion: "man" is the Begriff (system of concepts) is time. And philosophy is the self-consciousness of this system of concepts. The so-called individual seems to have only ever existed immersed in the so-called not-individual. Self and world are language imposed distinctions, more practical than logical. "The limits of my language are the limits of my world....the self is the limit of the world." = "The real is rational." = Logos = the Incarnation myth.

For "man," (or at least Faustian man) the Future is primary. Is this why so many great Western paintings feature a particular mother and Child?

Existential time is care. "Jesus" is the Project. What should be. What will be. This is the value element in time, I think. For humans, time is a live fish.
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:50 am
@Reconstructo,
[QUOTE=Reconstructo;162743] I must slightly disagree. For me, events are substances in the sense that all entities whatsoever as substances. This might be my idiosyncratic use of the word. If we make the atom "events" rather than "substances," we still have our discrete particles, be they mental, physical, or monical. [/QUOTE] Well perhaps just a difference in terminology. For events are all three, monistic with an experiential (mental) pole and a physical (material,substance) pole. These aspects of events are not separable they are unity. Dualism is false, monism (oneness) is true.


[QUOTE=Reconstructo;162743] I can't agree that change is the fundamental nature of reality, although I will agree that it is fundamental. There are permanent eddies in that river that Heraclitus can step in only once. Our body replaces its cells and yet we somehow remain ourselves. I also can't help but see something in man that doesn't change. His bodily form has certain constants, like ten fingers, excluding rare variations. I feel that there is a some structure to thought that is universal-transcendental-eternal, even if much or most of his thought-structure is not. [/QUOTE] It takes some getting used to this process view. Elements of the past are always incorporated into the present moment of experience. Some events appear as relatively stable "objects". Fundamentally however reality is composed of events not substances. Enduring static substances are an illusion a perceptive creation. Substances are merely stable enduring events. Now if you want to talk about eternal objects (essentially forms or ideals, subjective aims) that is a different topic. Reality as we directly measure and experience though is composed fundamentally of events. Objects are merely enduring events (events which incorporate most of the elements of the event which previously occupied that position in space time)

Tired now, going to bed. I will be back.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/16/2014 at 10:19:59