DISCUSSION
The
following discussion took place in answering a mailed
question on the nature of time. Anyone wishing to
respond to these articles or the comminication here
may send an e-mail from the
feedback-page.
Tue, 26 Mar 2002
Time
Time
is defined only as "the way that our
primitive minds separate reality into a
linear fashion to keep us from going
insane." This is known as perception, and
this dictates our reality as it is our
only tool for gathering information. True
time is unknowable on the physical
plane.
Do
you sell many clocks?
Please
take the "time" to repond to my statement,
I am curious as to your thoughts on
this.
Darrin
Lee, Minneapolis
|
We,
27 Mar 2002
Dear
Darrin Lee
Thank
you for showing your interest in this
subject.
Time
for itself and time as we have made it is
the main concern of our interest with The
Order of time. There is the natural time
that we can observe in the changes of the
universe, the sun, moon and the stars.
Next there are the divisions of standard
time as they are made by human effort.
These two make different types of
consciousness. Thus we indeed have what
you could say is the primitive effort to
create divisions of time to keep us from
insanity. The latter idea of keeping sane
that way though we do not take as an
unequivocal truth. It could just as well
be a way of keeping attachments with
pragmatical motives and thus breed
insanity with a false and rigid idea of
time as much as we hope to fight it. It is
in the single linear vision of time and
the uncorrected fixations thereto that the
schizoid of the cultural neurosis of
modern time takes place. Time is as well
of a linear as of a cyclic nature. Next it
is not rigid as we pragmatically maintain
in culture, but dynamic of nature. We
propose to respect the time as we can know
it in both aspects and decry setting up
one notion against the
other.
Time
in its entirety is certainly as Bergson
said as inscrutable as the Sweet Lord
himself. Dynamic time escapes its own
fixations in culture obliging us into leap
days and leap seconds (and why not
leapweeks and leap minutes?). In fact
indeed we can never fathom the complete of
its operation as we, as Einstein says are
bound to our own frame of observation. But
inscrutable as it is, it is not
unknowable. We certainly can know and must
face the time and not take heed of
escapist theories that declare that to
know of our conditionings and planning and
being determined by the natural and
cultural of time would be impossible. The
whole science of psychology is built on
the knowledge of our conditioning and
every decent society endeavors with a
timesystem. It is our idea that as far as
we can know of the operation of as well
natural as cultural time we have the
obligation of respecting it in its
entirety and not flee from the complexity
with whatever excuse.
We
do not sell clocks by the way. As yet we
have found no clockmaker willing to get
the real time pieces out the museum
upgrading them to the
tempometer as we have designed
it.
As yet we will have to do with regular
watches corrected
to the
sun
to have an idea of the natural dynamics of
time in comparison with regular
uncorrected clocks. So be it. Its only a
small ritual compared to all the fuzz of
regular religion to meet with 'the will of
God'.
Hoping
to have answered your questions
satisfactory.
René
P.B.A. Meijer
Webmaster,
servant of the Order of
Time.
|
Discussion on the nature of time
response
message
= We have been aware since 390 AD that
time is something in the mind. Book XI of
the Confessions of St. Augustine contains
a long and fascinating exploration of
time, and its relation to God. During the
course of it Augustine raises the
following conundrum: when we say that an
event or interval of time is short or
long, what is it that is being described
as of short or long duration? It cannot be
what is past, since that has ceased to be,
and what is non-existent cannot presently
have any properties, such as being long.
But neither can it be what is present, for
the present has no duration. (Obvioulsy
the present must be regarded as
durationless and I will not go into the
specious present at this time) In any
case, while an event is still going on,
its duration cannot be assessed.
Augustine‚s answer to this riddle is
that what we are measuring, when we
measure the duration of an event or
interval of time, is in the memory. From
this he derives the radical conclusion
that time itself (or, at least, the past
and future) is something in the mind. We
notice time through perception of other
things.
Further,
evolution has ensured that we do not
experience anything other than the very
recent past in our attempt to rationalize
of environment. Information having been
registered, needs to move into the memory
to make way for more up to date
information. For, although things may
change slowly relative to the speed of
light or of sound, they do change, and we
cannot afford to be simultaneously
processing conflicting information. So our
effectiveness as agents depends on our not
continuing to experience a transient state
of affairs . Describing this as "schizoid
of the cultural neurosis of modern time"
seems odd when faced with the fact that
this method of perception is a major
factor in our survival as a species to
this point.
Darrin
Lee, Minneapolis
|
Dear Darrin Lee
Whatever
Augustine might say, we depart from the
fact that time exists independent of the
observer and has an order to the cyclic
reality of our planet of its own. Of
course do we construct mental images,
patterns if you like, to predict the
planetray movements to time so that we can
cope with the dynamic reality. This we do
by leaping methodically. We prevent the
schizoid of a division of time running
away from the objective reality of time.
But the problem is that we do not do so
consequently. We manage standard time and
a rigid sevendays week sequence that
clearly is out of focus with the cyclic of
our planet and the moon. Thus we suffer a
psychology of compensation and repression.
We compensate neurotically by restlessly
changing in our ego's of material interest
instead of changing our clocks and
weekorder to find peace with the living
nature and we repress the idea that we
would be wrong in our pragmatical offenses
against the natural order according the
law of cognitive consonance. Thus we are
caught in a psychology of being unaware of
the independent but determining,
conditioning reality of natural time. The
pope calls this illusion of subjectivist
control a consequence of primal sin, the
psychologist calls this a neurosis of
unawareness. Both science and religion
agree upon a method of penance and
selfcorrection. Religion, i.c. the
catholic order, calls this the confession
and the psychologist calls this
psychotherapy. Both have the same goal: to
overcome illusion in oneness with the
objective reality of the creation and its
creator or mover that is the Time and thus
to restore the power and effectivity of
reason.
Dear
sir, the subjectivist approach to the
objective of creation moving with time is
in our opinion a heresy to the divinity of
a Creator, religiously speaking, and an
illusion to the scientific method that
demands proper reference to an independent
point of measurement to be af an
unequivocal un-neurotic consiousness.
Neurosis, or the disturbing awareness of
sin if you like, as such is thus the
suffering of the nervous system of a
conflict in the perception without as a
person being aware of the underlying
equivocality.
hoping
to have served the cause of non-illusion,
René
P.B.A. Meijer
webmaster
The Order of Time.
N.B.:
We do not considerer it coincidental that
we engage in this discussion at the
occasion of the switching worldwide of
summertime: our minds seek
order.
|
Tue, 26 Mar 2002
Well,
I certainly did not want to seem a
heretic. I was only attempting to better
understand your position by stating what I
understood as accepted convention and
inviting another viewpoint. I hope I did
not offend.
Darrin
Lee, Minneapolis
|
Dear
Darrin Lee
We
are very cautious with accepted
convention. If one wants to solve problems
one will have to be critical about ones
own (Christian) conventions. I know of
Augustine and I think Confessions is
exactly the right title for his book.
Since he confesses he is himself, nor you,
a heretic. He only confesses it. Augustine
represents Christianity just after it, by
Constantine in 325 AD , formally
introduced the civil weekorder as we have
it now. The difference is that I am
critical about abolishing the julian
division of the solar year. Constantine
gave in to commercial/pragmatic pressure
of the civil population before he turned
to Christianity but the catholic order
kept the julian order in the monasteries.
Thus did the last Emperor become the first
Pope more or less. The child of the Julian
division was later on by Gregorian reform
at the end of the Middle Ages also for the
church itself abolished. Thus we have what
we now know as the reformation: the
constant trouble with denaturalized
commercial timeschedules and conditioning.
Our viewpoint is: abolish all legal
impositions of whatever timesystem so that
each religion and conviction can search
its own conscience about it. It is not the
duty of politicians to preach a conviction
of timemanagement. That abolishing would
really be postmodern chaos: freedom and
trust to the selfrealizers. Away with
paternalistic
imposition.
I
treat your courage of association as the
same as with Augustine. You're welcome.
For
the Truth and honor of our Christian
confession,
René
P.B.A. Meijer
webmaster
The Order of Time.
|
