Re: MD Time

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue May 24 2005 - 19:13:21 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD The Carousel of Faux Philosophy"

    Hi Mike --

    > It seems to me that DQ can be slotted very neatly into our existing SOM
    language - > Time.

    Time is an intellectualized aspect of experience, so it "fits" into the
    DQ/SQ concept. However, it is only one dimension of the experienced world.
    Space (which some regard as three additional dimensions) must also be fitted
    in, since man's physical reality is a space/time world.

    > This raises a whole lot of questions. How does it fit in to the scientific
    > understanding of space and time as an integrated four-dimensional
    continuum?
    > How does it stand next to Kant, who saw time as a "mode of perception"?
    > But what I should really be asking first, is: does this sound crazy to
    you?

    Not crazy at all, and Kant was correct that time is a mode of perception --
    as is space. Man stands at the crossroads of space and time. His finite
    perspective is limited to the ever-changing "present", although connected by
    memory to the past, and his cogizance of space is anthropcentric, that is,
    relative to his perceived position as the locus of all material phenomena.
    My reading of discussions by leading astrophysicists indicates they hold a
    similar view, so I don't think you're observations thus far are in any way
    "unscientific".

    The principal distinction between man's conscious awareness and the
    objective world he surveys is that the former is proprietary (subjective to
    the self) while the latter is objective (other to the self.) I think that's
    a fundamental truth, and I explain "other" as the "content" of proprietary
    experience.

    Incidentally, this is the proper starting point for a metaphysical thesis,
    and I commend you on this approach. I don't know how you're going to apply
    it to the MoQ, but it would seem that someone should have by now -- perhaps
    you're the one. Anyway, I'm sure we'll all be watching how your theory
    develops.

    Essentially yours,
    Ham

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 24 2005 - 19:17:37 BST