In maturana's Nature of Time the following quotation was found
"I have answered the question what distinctions we connote when we talk of
time? by showing: 1), that we do not and cannot connote an entity or natural
dimension that exists with independence of what we do as observers (humans);
and 2), by showing that we use in daily life the word time to indicate or to
connote an abstraction of our experiences of the succession of processes. In
other words, I have shown that the foundations of the notion of time in any
domain rests on the biology of the observer, not on the domain of physics
which is a domain of explanations of a particular kind of experiential
coherences of the observer."
Adhereing to the truth of this statement would explain away any aspect of our
existence. Agreeing upon a label to explain phenomenon we experience as
outside ourselvelves is what collects us socially. Stating that because time
is something we observe and therefore cannot apply it as a nuetral, objective
entity is absurd. Things exist within reality and time is a pehenomenon that
is separate and unique from any individual's existence. It is the alpha and
omega that contains Hegel's dialectic. Within each moment is the option for
a million beyond infinity of options, one thing happens and then the moment
transitions to another moment where the same million beyond infinity of
options is available again. Call time whatever you'd like; possibly
transitioning, or being mobile, or a bargain becasue each moment starts fresh
with a new dialectic of possibilities. If time did not flow then the
dialectic would run dry. The only reason the dialectic holds any substance
is the renewable resource of time.
I see a new day dawning,
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:29 PDT