David
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997, diane celia hodges wrote:
> At 8:56 PM 11/21/97, Jay Lemke wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >I can indeed imagine some cases where a local event might appear to send
> >ripples spreading in the longer time dimension, though it is not clear to
> >me that this will always be readily visible.
>
> y'know, and I'm as surprised as anyone, but... I actually "get" this.
> and I wonder how culture is organized/organizing the "readability" of
> time scales; given that our interpretations are linguistically-contingent
>
Terrific
> on specific cultural frames of our articulations: what I mean is,
> 'descriptions' of
> what takes place in 'longer' (thicker?) time dimensions
> are historically restricted by the reseacher's own temporality.
>
> it's a little like depicting 3-D within two dimensional 'scales' - what
> gets drawn, or modeled,
> is both defying and describing the limitations of the two-dimensional
> place. This is effectively the principle motivating Cubism
> and so how do you see yr time-scales somehow overcoming/acknowledging this?
One way was tipped off by Susan Leigh Star's discussion of the
mechanical and personal forms of time. I don't see these as either or but
rather as different practices for perceiving time -- although, I might be
opening a can of philosophical worms with this one, I see two clocks:
given the "scientific" apparatuses, one uses an intersubjective clock,
attending to what one has just done, one uses a subjective clock. One gets
the sensation of reeling time, when one compares them (as space "reels"
when one's eyes are moved by something else than oneself).
> [that is, defying and describing the limitations of temporarility/the utter
> historicity of
> 'consciousness,' a la Leonte'ev (sp?)]
>
> >It is also the inverse case of
> >the one that conceptually worries me more: not events with longterm
> >consequences (I suspect we actually overplay this paradigm as it is), but
> >large-scale processes that affect events on time-scales much shorter than
> >is supposed to be 'normal'. We might need some other sort of visual
> >representation to make that more vivid.
>
> How do you see "large-scale processes" affecting (effecting?) events
> on shorter-than-'normal' time scales?
I don't think that time is doing the a(e)ffecting. Rather things unfold in
time.
>
> isn't this concept only available 'historically'?/'descriptively'?
>
> [I'm thinking of a (1960s) film: "Look Back in Anger'? or is it 'Don't
> Look Back in Anger'?]
>
> or am I missing something?
>
I'm not quite sure I understand this last question.
David