Hi all,
I think I've always considered time as a pure intellectual pattern. That's why I
had to be sure that the "which comes first" question was not referring to time.
There's a point in ZAMM , chapter 20,
He'd been speculating about the relationship of Quality to mind and matter and
had identified Quality as the parent of mind and matter, that event which gives
birth to mind and matter. This Copernican inversion of the relationship of
Quality to the objective world could sound mysterious if not carefully
explained, but he didn't mean it to be mysterious. He simply meant that at the
cutting edge of time, before an object can be distinguished, there must be a
kind of nonintellectual awareness, which he called awareness of Quality. You
can't be aware that you've seen a tree until after you've seen the tree, and
between the instant of vision and instant of awareness there must be a time lag.
We sometimes think of that time lag as unimportant, But there's no justification
for thinking that the time lag is unimportant...none whatsoever.
The past exists only in our memories, the future only in our plans. The present
is our only reality. The tree that you are aware of intellectually, because of
that small time lag, is always in the past and therefore is always unreal. Any
intellectually conceived object is always in the past and therefore unreal.
Reality is always the moment of vision before the intellectualization takes
place. There is no other reality. This preintellectual reality is what Phdrus
felt he had properly identified as Quality. Since all intellectually
identifiable things must emerge from this preintellectual reality, Quality is
the parent, the source of all subjects and objects.
Well, I know that ZAMM is pre-MOQ, so it could well be surpassed; but here I
find that all the universe is in the present. Even the past and the future are
in the present, that is dynamic and .... entropically changing. If it's so, time
is our perception of the changing.
Jonathan:
> The second law of thermodynamics states that systems
> tend to a state of higher disorder. Obviously, this tendency
> is a tendency over time
Yes, even if I have doubts about your *obviously*. I agree with you that we can
measure time on the basis of entropy. I'd say , (hoping it will not be found it
is a huge platypus.... ) entropy is not reversable, ok, but it's not a constant
process. Only when we arrange things to make it constant, we get time.
Marco
"If you move quickly, they get a fuzzy snapshot"
(Gabriele Salvatores - "South")
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST