OK Eric. I denounce ahistorical perspective. By the way, I fixed the typo.
What's next?
bb
>During a time (having already happened, the only way to refer to this
>phenomenon is by framing it) in our existence we were all faced with
>unrelated stimuli that held separate control over our behavior. As time (I
>repeat my previous claim) goes by we have experienced enough common stimuli
>that we are able to group them into categories. Without a flow of connected
>stimuli there is no way for us to make these connections, it is my contension
>that time is this flow. Now, what is near and dear to everyone's heart is
>the subject of activity. If, in fact, a stimulus begins a novel and surprise
>stimuli,how are we to gage this unless we had a time in the past to reference
>this? 'How could one reference a surprise to the past?' I hear you asking.
>If time does not exist then surprises do not exist because without a flow
>there is nothing to reference. I will accept the premise that time is a
>non-entity only if Activity Theorists will denounce a Historical Perspective.
> For if we are to reference our present with past experiences, doesn't there
>have to be a continuation of those past experiences? How is it possible to
>have a continuation of past experiences without time?
>
>Reframing existence,
>Eric
-- Bill Barowy, Associate Professor Lesley University 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790 Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169 http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html _______________________ "One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful." [Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:32 PDT