Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes

From: Dace (
Date: Sat Mar 16 2002 - 01:49:18 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes"

    Received: by id BAA13621 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:54:01 GMT
    Message-ID: <003901c1cc8c$ca314980$9124f4d8@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes
    Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:49:18 -0800
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0036_01C1CC49.BB230D40"
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    > >This was actually Descartes' insight, not Einstein's. Descartes invented
    > >the graph bearing three axes, one for each physical dimension. Then he
    > >realized time would simply be the fourth axis. In fact, the spatialization
    > >of time goes deeper still, right to the core of the human intellect.
    > >Julian Jaynes discusses this in *The Origin of Consciousness in the
    > >Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.* We think of everything spatially,
    > >even time. That's because the intellect operates visually, and you can't
    > >visualize time. You can only visualize it in terms of clock-faces or
    > >calendars, etc. Vision is inherently spatial. That's the basic problem.
    > >That's why we try to make time into a kind of space. We don't like
    > >mystery; we prefer certainty. Time is the very essence of mystery.
    > >Without time, all would be perfectly transparent to the rational intellect.
    > >
    > >Ted
    > >
    > You've probably read my theory on dimensions in earlier posts. They are
    > merely ways of dividing up an unidivded universe within our minds in an
    > attempt to understand what our senses are reporting to us. Time is not a
    > mystery, it's a measurement of motion.

    And where do we find this motion? Is it a property of space? All the space in the universe can't make motion. Take away time, and everything freezes.
    Time isn't just the measurement of motion. It's what motion is made of.

    Mystery is a product of time, which is why positivistic science wants to eliminate it. That the future is fundamentally different from the past means there are things we don't know, things that can't ever be dug up.

    > Time is relative because all measurements are taken from the point of
    > view of the measurer and no two measurers can occupy the same point in
    > the universe at the same time.

    You're assuming the existence of time here. If it were an illusion, there would be no such thing as "at the same time." Past, present, and future would collapse into a fourth dimension of space. The "present" would then be arbitrary, and "past" and "future" would be symmetrical.

    > Without someone to do the measuring, there is no spacetime.

    Agreed. And without time, there would be no act of measurement and
    therefore no spacetime.

    > There are only the things that spacetime measures plus the things it can't
    > measure.
    > Cheers,
    > Grant

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 16 2002 - 02:04:27 GMT