No offense intended, but what's with all this post stuff. It
doesn't seem to creative. What will happen when the post era is
done. Who is this Post person that makes these kinds of
decision? I hope s/he doesn't get paid too much.
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Graham <pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: signals, communication, and bunnies
>Maturana on time:
>
>full text who-is-at
>
>http://www.inteco.cl/biology/nature.htm
>
>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. Furthermore,
in this
>process I have also shown that as time arises as a primary
abstraction of
>the flow of experiences
>of the observer, it arises with directionality and
irreversibility, and
>that reversible time arises only as a secondary further
abstraction of the
>experiences of the observer that is possible only in a domain
of
>unidirectional and irreversible time. Finally, I claim that the
notion of
>time is frequently used as an explanatory principle giving to
it a
>trascendental ontological status.
>
>The observer is not a physical entity, the observer is a manner
of
>operation of human beings in language. It is through the
operation of the
>observer that all domains of cognition arise, even the domain
of observing.
>Physics is the manner through which the observer explains with
the
>coherences of his or her experiences a particular domain of
experiences
>that is connoted with the word physics. Indeed, the observer
itself arises
>as an entity of which we observers may talk through the
operation of the
>observer constituting the fundament for all that we humans do.
No doubt we
>behave in our living as if we lived in a world that existed
with
>independence of what we do, and that we call reality. And it is
basically
>for this that we may ask about how do
>we know reality, or time, as if we were properly referring to
something
>that exists independent from what we do. My concern has been
different. My
>question is not about reality of time, or any other kind of
entity, as if
>its independent existence could be taken for granted. My
question is and
>has been here about the experiences or operations that we do as
observers
>when we use
>different notions, concepts or words as implying distinctions
of entities
>or features of an independent world.
>
>---
>
>Phil
>Phil Graham
>pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au
>http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html
>