twyvel wrote:Quote:fresco wrote:
Within this definition the nature of the relationship can obviously vary, but if the "past" or "the future" in any way influence present action or thought they are deemed to be "real".
How can the present be influenced?
.......The twyvel which reading this is in its "present" and is doing so because of its action in its "past" which anticipated a response event in its "future."......
.......The twyvel which read the last sentence is now a newer "present twyvel" which may take further actions to influence its future as the result of its past reading........
Youse guys are driving me nuts!
Demento
fresco wrote:
Quote:How can the present be influenced?
Quote:.......The twyvel which reading this is in its "present" and is doing so because of its action in its "past" which anticipated a response event in its "future."......
.......The twyvel which read the last sentence is now a newer "present twyvel" which may take further actions to influence its future as the result of its past reading........
If all we have of the past is memory occurring in the present, how could that memory influence or affect the present when the memory
IS the present?
twyvel,
There are two levels of discourse, one which accepts "change" as a differential segmentation of "reality" over time, and one which which does not and sees segmentation as illusion. This very act of communication affirms the first level even if part of what I call "me" is prepared to accept the second level as a meditational position. To talk at all is to talk of "separate things which persist in time". A "fresco" which is inseparable from a "twyvel" (or any thing else) has no need to communicate. !
This essentially means it is futile to play a game (communication) if we keep remarking "but its only a game". All we can do is occasionally examine the local rules in the light of paradigmatic developments. Examples of this might be Physicists examination of "time" or anthropological investigations of languages with less than three tenses. In general we should note that even if we are conscious of a potentially "superior overview" (such as the heliocentric solar system) the parochial (geocentric) model tends to persist for most practical purposes in daily communications/reality due to the range of focus.
this whole thread should be renamed an ode to confusion...
Yes, Fresco. I'm glad you stepped back to put this "discursive process" in perspective. We cannot talk, as you say, without "assuming" (as a rule of the game, but forgetting for the moment that it is a game) that we are fictionalizing. In writing this, I am exploiting a dualistic paradigm consisting of fictional "things" (e.g., subjects, objects and "time-segments"). And I cannot avoid doing so unless I'm willing to remain silent or confuse minds with paradoxes (which, by the way, I cannot do nearly as well as can Tywvel).
JLN
Yes - the problem lies not so much with "time" but with the word "existence" itself. It might be worth opening a thread on ontology with the proviso that somebody needs to be acquainted with Heideggar for major aspects of the relationship between "being" and "time" (
Sein und Zeit)
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80254/Heidegger/SZHomePage.html
Back to Twyvel's question, "How can the present be influenced?" I've read arguments maintaining that mind (the realm of plans, motives and intentions) cannot "cause" body movements. This, the argument went, is because non-material "mind" cannot logically cross the ontological bridge that separates it from material "body." I find this a non-problem, but I wonder if the supposed "influence" of a non-(no longer) existent past and non-(not yet) existent future ON THE EXISTENT PRESENT is of a similar nature, a false problem (which may be Tywvel's intimation?).
It seems to me that there is no substantial "now." All is in a state of becoming in which "past", "present" and "future" are not ontologically real "segments" of a thing called time but conceptual fictions imposed on a unitary flowing non-existent "present." Note that I painted myself into the "present" corner even though I deny its existence. Moreover, the "meaningfulness" of this non-existent "present" depends upon the meanings "past" and "future." With this I have an urge to be mentally still and lingustically silent--but only for a short period of time.
Now, if that can even be said.
fresco wrote
Quote:
A "fresco" which is inseparable from a "twyvel" (or any thing else) has no need to communicate. !
JLNobody wrote:
Quote: In writing this, I am exploiting a dualistic paradigm consisting of fictional "things" (e.g., subjects, objects and "time-segments"). And I cannot avoid doing so unless I'm willing to remain silent or confuse minds with paradoxes.
Who's exploiting the dualist paradigm?
(no I'm not bugging you about using I,
)
JLN,
I think your analysis of the meaning of "present" being contingent on "past" and "future" is correct.
Twyvel essentially denies "segmentation" but any sequence of "separate events" could be visualized as a singularity by extension of the "event window".
So segmentation is to some extent arbitrary, but if we allow it at all, its rationale is ordination along a "time axis".
Who is exploiting our culture's dualistic paradigm? I don't "know" (in an intellectual sense). "I" am a (useful) fiction.
want it einstein that said that 'the only reason for time is so that eveything doesnt happen at once'
yeah, well everything does happen at once. You have to see it as a chain of events. The big bang, for those who subscribe to that theory, was the first event in a chain that led up to my birth.
Creation does not stand still while time goes through it. The present is like a meatgrinder, and creation is the meat that goes through. The grinder stands still.
twyvel wrote:In order for there to be a relation between a past event and a present one they would both have to occur simultaneously, i.e. atemporally, which would contradict the distinction between past and future.
Please explain.
Is simultaneity a necessary condition for a relation between two or more events?
quex,
Welcome to A2K.
You may be familiar with Einsteins analysis of "simultaneity" being a function of the observers frame of reference. It follows that "simultaneous events" are necessarily connected through an observer who names them as such. From a nondualistic point of view neither observer nor observed have independent existence. Twyvel tends to take the extreme position in this that "nothing changes"...that change may be an illusion whereby we mistake flickering images from the webcam of consciousness as "the truth".... but I take the view that for all practical purposes "acts of naming" and other "communications" reflect the dynamic nature of "social reality".
Irrespective of whether you take up nondualistic position or not there are still major philosophical problems with the concept of "causality" and its relationship to "time". One example is how to account for teleological explanation...how a prior event may happen in order to cause a future event. It may be that the epistemological resolution of these problems involves the collapse of the timeline.
A very provocative post, Fresco. I want to give some thought to it before responding.
