RE: ality, Pt. II

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Tue Jan 29 2002 - 08:05:07 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "RE: Abstractism"

    Received: by id JAA06369 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:09:20 GMT
    Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:05:07 -0800
    Message-Id: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Content-Disposition: inline
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
    X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116)
    X-Originating-Ip: []
    From: "Joe Dees" <>
    Subject: RE: ality, Pt. II
    Precedence: bulk

    ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)

    >By physicalist standards, time is an appearance, while reality, which is static and eternal, is unfolded before us. Incidentally, this is the actual meaning of the term evolution, "unfoldment," which is why Darwin, a materialist who hated any sort of transcendental nonsense, be it theological of physicalist, initially opposed the use of the term evolution to describe his theory of descent by natural selection.
    The term 'enfoldment' contains the connotative deterministic baggage-assumption of everything already being there, just folded; the term would have to be cleansed of this connotation to avoid leading uncritical thinkers into conceptual error.
    >Did you think Einstein was kidding with that God-playing-with-dice comment? If you accept Einstein on his own terms, you accept determinism (and determinism is forever-- super or unleaded). The key is to accept Einstein but not on his own terms. Yes, all objective phenomena are spatio-temporal. But that doesn't make time in any way spatial and fixed. Time is real. It's all really happening, and what's to come is undetermined.
    Einstein was not brilliant across the board; his deterministic bias led Heisenberg and Feynmann, among others, to have to leave some of his contentions behind in order to advance.
    >> >Only when viewed from the outside-- that is, from the point of view of
    >> >space-- does it appear to be purely relative to space.
    >> >
    >> Neither is dependent upon the other; they are interrelationally correlative with neither being prior or posterior.
    >Time is both prior and posterior to space. What exists, objectively, right now, is space, which we now know as spacetime. Time is past and potential, memory and novelty. To the extent that time is present, it's identical to space (hence spacetime). To the extent that time is motion it's identical to itself. This is why space (spacetime) is relative while time is absolute. Time is reality while spacetime is derivative, ephemeral, fleeting. If reality were spacetime, then there would be no freedom, no self, no mind. If life has the same relation to time that branches have to their treetrunk, then we too are self-existent and free, and it's this self-existence that constitutes the mind. This is why memory and will are mental. This is why we know time from within. Time is the one thing we observe in everything around us that's also inside of us, at our core. We seem to be made of it, and we are. Time is universal self-existence, and life is local self-existence. W!
    e can talk about all this because we inhabit a mental environment, because humanity is mental self-existence. We are mental creatures, making use of primitive primate bodies to propagate ourselves. And we, in turn, our used by our own mental offspring, culture and cult, both of which are made up of myriad cells, i.e. memes.
    Your cryptoreligios pseudoassertion that unless people accept your flawed schema they must forsake self, mind and freedom is ludicrous, especially when compounded by such unsupported (because unsupportable, because wrong) statements such as "Time is both prior and posterior to space". Could you have been there *before* the Big Bang to experience same? The very idea is absurd and nonsensical, and impossible even in principle or imagination, as was abundantly and amply shown by the disproof of the notion of a "spaceless time" above.
    >> >Yet, no matter how fast you travel, you still perceive time-- from within--
    >> >the same way you always have. At no point does the person on the rocket
    >> >ship perceive a change in tempo. As far as the direct experience of time is
    >> >concerned, nothing has changed. The rate of time's passage varies only in
    >> >its external relation to space and the objects moving through it more
    >> >slowly.
    >> >
    >> That is because you are not distinguishing between the subjective experience and the objective passage. The objective passage of time is indeed relative to a frame of reference, and one resides in a referential frame moving at one's own velocity in either case. But, subjective, existential duration experience may vary. An evening in the arms of Catherine Zeta-Jones might seem to just speed by (time flies when you're having fun), but that same afternoon strapped to a hot eye on an electric oven would seem to last much longer.
    >While our senses enable us to obtain precise measurements of time, only in our imprecise, inner sense of it can we know its existence intrinsically. Without this direct knowledge, we couldn't say whether Einstein was right or wrong. A planet of robots would never know. And that seems to be the planet we're living on now.
    Actually, it is exactly that sort of apodictic study into self, body, world and other from the inside that phenomenology has been pursuing in a disciplined and careful manner for some time now, with solid results, as enumerated above; genetic epistemology has been studying these same phenomena from the outside. Phenomenology can offer apodictic certainty regarding the mature invariant structures of these phenomena, but can offer no information concerning the evolutionary development of then in the individual, for one must possess them in their mature form and be capable of abstract speculation upon them in order to philosophize (and perception develops propr to conception). IOW, phenomenology is an irreduceably synchronic discipline. Genetic epistemology can offer us diachronic information on the evolutionary development of these structures from their genesis to their maturity, but its evidence, gleaned from experimenting with and questioning children and interpreting the!
     results, is statistical and probable rather than apodictically certain. Thus these two disciplines possess a kind of synchronic-diachronic complementarity in the realm of being, each being able to provide what the other does not, and with the combination of their respective insights providing the most complete view, just as the complementary disciplines of synchronic semiotics and diachronic memetics do in the realm of meaning.
    >Ted Dace
    ><< msg2.html >>

    Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

    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 : Tue Jan 29 2002 - 09:53:18 GMT