Einstein's work starts in observation and leads us into the cage of the speed of light. He essentially observes what cannot be seen - initially aiming to 'size' molecules. Here, he could not muck about with the molecules themselves, other than through complex theorising which lead to the design of experiments (mostly done by Hopf) which would confirm the theory and let us use it to design a way out of the cage. The cage. as Gabby points out, is cunning, perhaps existing as a series of Russian Dolls. Authenticity is, of course, dreck - a word Heidegger favoured and failed to apply to his own work, based according to Jackson on his rather poor Greek. The search for a place of safety for the intellect might well be based on something as simple as the fact that thinkers live in rotten societies full of Idols and intrigue - or seen as a pursuit of chattering classes in need to a slap in the face with a wet fish. Dasein my Royal Irish as we might discover in complex literature. We show as little sign of escaping this upper-class claptrap as we do of killing our tvs.
On 14 Mar, 06:15, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Re: > > >Equally, WHEN would a non-temporal event occur? > > http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/heidegge.htm > > Heidegger's fundamental analysis of Dasein from Being and Time points > to temporality as the primordial meaning of Dasein's being. Dasein is > essentially temporal. Its temporal character is derived from the > tripartite ontological structure: existence, thrownness, and > fallenness by which Dasein's being is described. Existence means that > Dasein is potentiality-for-being (Seinkönnen); it projects its being > upon various possibilities. Existence represents thus the phenomenon > of the future. Then, as thrownness, Dasein always finds itself already- > in a certain spiritual and material, historically conditioned > environment; in short, in the world, in which the space of > possibilities is always somehow limited. This represents the > phenomenon of the past as having-been. Finally, as fallenness, Dasein > exists in the midst of beings which are both Dasein and not Dasein. > The encounter with those beings, 'being-alongside' or 'being-with' > them, is made possible for Dasein by the presence of those beings > within-the-world. This represents the primordial phenomenon of the > present. Accordingly, Dasein is not temporal for the mere reason that > it exists "in time," but because its very being is rooted in > temporality: the original unity of the future, the past and the > present. Temporality cannot be identified with ordinary clock time - > with simply being at one point in time, at one 'Now' after another - > which for Heidegger is a derivative phenomenon. Dasein's temporality > does not have also a merely quantitative, homogeneous character of the > concept of time found in natural science. It is the phenomenon of > original time, of the time which "temporalizes" itself in the course > of Dasein's existence. It is a movement through a world as a space of > possibilities. The 'going back' to the possibilities that have been > (the past) in the moment of thrownness, and their projection in the > resolute movement 'coming towards' (the future) in the moment of > existence, which both take place in 'being with' others (the present) > in the moment of falleness, provide for the original unity of the > future, the past, and the present which constitutes authentic > temporality. > > As authentically temporal, Dasein as potentiality-for-being comes > towards itself in its possibilities of being by going back to what has > been; it always comes towards itself from out of a possibility of > itself. Hence, it comports itself towards the future by always coming > back to its past; the past which is not merely past but still around > as having-been. But in this "going back" to what it has been which is > constitutive together with "coming towards" and "being with" for the > unity of Dasein's temporality, Dasein hands down to itself its own > historical "heritage," namely, the possibilities of being that have > come down to it. As authentically temporal Dasein is thus > authentically historical. The repetition of the possibilities of > existence, of that which has been, is for Heidegger constitutive for > the phenomenon of original history which is rooted in temporality. > > On Mar 11, 9:07 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10 Mar, 22:29, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Existence itself is the property that places us (and > > > > anything) within the confines of space-time. > > > > I think you are right with respect to time but I do not think you are > > > right with respect to space. Space is accidental with respect to > > > existence - it is not essential. It is possible to experience non- > > > spatial existence and for the current universe to evolve to a non > > > spatial state at some time in the future. > > > If so, where would that occur? if an event (such as the one you > > describe or, indeed ANY event) occurs, it occurs at a particular place > > at a particular time. I cannot envisage an event that can occur at a > > given time and, yet, occurs nowhere, as that is what MUST happen if a > > purely spatial event occurs. The only way around that, perhaps, is to > > declare that all purely spatial events are everlasting, i.e., taking > > up all of time. > > > >Indeed the spatial > > > structures that we intuit may be more properly conceived of in terms > > > of experience. When I say possible I mean logically possible. In fact, > > > it may also not evolve that way and there is no evidence that it > > > necessarily will. Still, we should not rule out the possibility of non- > > > spatial existence nor define our terms too narrowly. > > > Boil it down, though. Where would a non-spatial existence take > > place? Equally, WHEN would a non-temporal event occur? These > > questions appear koan-like because space and time are intrinsically > > joined to one another in a space-time continuum. There is no way to > > separate them and have non-temporal or non-spatial events as, by > > definition, an event must occur at some place at some time. And, I'm > > afraid, THAT'S the governing logic here. > > > > As a concrete example consider that you are looking out at a river and > > > suddenly everything starts to turn gray. They whole scene then becomes > > > gray. There is no way you can turn around or look left or right as > > > there is only gray. Then imagine that even that ceases. You can see > > > nothing. That does not mean that you see black simply that you do not > > > see. However you hear. You hear one note. A sound that just continues. > > > Now at that point there is an entire intentional structure: "you" > > > "are" "hearing" "it" and that structure "is". However the reality (the > > > sound) is not spatial. Other senses, like smells are also potentially > > > not spatial. > > > Nope. You hear because air is being compressed at different rates. > > The sound waves move through the air (this takes both time and space, > > the time it takes for the wave to leave its source, travel through a > > medium and land on your ear). The air exists within space-time. > > Smells are also received by chemicals that are passed past one's > > olfactory bulbs when one breathes. This takes time, and space is > > involved, again, as the medium through which the chemicals pass. > > > > Whether this will happen in reality is doubtful given current theory > > > but those theories are empirically justified - essentially its like > > > saying it won't happen because it hasn't happened yet - and > > > technically that is a non sequitor. > > > > This means that there is another property besides existence that > > > places us within space-time. That property is the spatial nature of > > > the universe. It is real but it is not essential with respect to > > > existence. It is an accident (in the medieval sense of being something > > > that can change and the thing will still be what it is - not in the > > > sense of "car accident"). We exist *and* our existence happens to be > > > spatial. To say it is spatial is to say something other that the fact > > > that it exists. > > > Whilst I agree with your last statement, I fear it's for other > > reasons. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean in my passages above where > > I point out the spatio-temporality of things you thought had one side > > missing. I'm intrigued by but unsure what you mean by 'the spatial > > nature of the universe', as, since Einstein, we've come to understand > > the universe as not spatial and temporal but spatio-temporal. That > > is, our universe is a space-time continuum with NO missing (spatio- > > temporal) points. As there are no missing points in the continuum, we > > know, then, that the future is already just as much a part of it as is > > the past, and that all events within said continuum are within a cause- > > and-effect framework, that is, no uncaused events can occur. This > > understanding, in a sense, does away with the medieval understanding > > of 'accident' by demonstrating that everything that exists MUST have a > > cause (or many causes) and, therefore, could NOT have been changed, as > > the event was already a part of the space-time continuum anyway. I > > hope that helps clarify what I meant, but, I expect it may also clash > > with your paradigm (especially if you believe in free will). > > > > On Mar 10, 5:34 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 9 Mar, 15:11, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Just to make sure I get your soul concept right, Pat, how would you > > > > > describe the difference between a ghost story and a fairy tale? > > > > > A ghost story is a story about ghosts; a fairy tale is, usually, a > > > > folktale derived from some local folklore. There is some overlap, as > > > > ghost stories may develop into fairy tales and some fairy tales > > > > (because of the former reason) contain ghosts. None of this, though, > > > > has anything to do with the soul. My concept of a soul or spirit is > > > > 'a coherent field of energy'. And, in the above, I extrapolated that, > > > > in order to maintain coherence, the field MUST exist within space- > > > > time, therefore making it a spatio-temporal object. In fact, in order > > > > for it (or anything) to exist, it must exist at some place and at some > > > > time (feel free, though, to put forward an exception if you can think > > > > of one). Existence itself is the property that places us (and > > > > anything) within the confines of space-time. > > > > > > On 9 Mrz., 14:00, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6 Mar, 18:54, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Speaking purely theoretically - I accept Orn's point completely, > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > discussions about reincarnation are pure theory - I don't see the > > > > > > > problem. If there is a soul (theoretically speaking, since I have > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > idea what a soul IS), upon disincarnation it (presumably) leaves > > > > > > > space- > > > > > > > time. That's space-TIME. So, > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
