Movement Gives Meaning to Time

[modest]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

I agree that you have to have space to have movement, and I also agree that there is movement involved in the process of pigment fading (the earth rotating on its axis and around the sun). The question is, would the pigment fade anyway if there was no movement? I think that the answer is yes.

No. It's got nothing to do with the earth moving. Pigment fading is a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions are the movement of molecules. Atoms bond with different molecules and create different molecules. All of that is movement. When I say pigment cannot fade without space and time or movement that's what I'm referring to. It also would be impossible for light to bump into the pigment in order to initiate the chemistry that results in change without movement.

Nothing can change or move without space and time. No example can be given otherwise - it's a simple fact of geometry. Movement is space/time.

~modest

[coberst]

I would say that Becker and Lakoff are my principal teachers in matters of human nature. These teachers inform me that the ‘id’ or the ‘it’ is the ground from which the ‘I’ is born. The id is instinctive life undignified by conscious control.

The id is instinctive reactive control and the ‘ego’ is the word we have assigned to indicate the human “organ” that develops control of the id and distinguishes the human animal from the other animals. The ego gives coherence and order to the activities of the brain.

Without the ego all other animals know not time; humans know time because they alone know of their own death. Psychoanalysis claims that the ego creates time by “binding” it, i.e. “the individual gives the world of events a fixed point of self-reference”…This is what allows man to live in a symbolic world of his own creation.” Other animals live in the continual world of “now”.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by modest

Nothing can change or move without space and time. No example can be given otherwise - it's a simple fact of geometry. Movement is space/time.

I agree that movement is impossible without space and time. I'm just not sure that the same is true of change. I see change as, in principle, being dependent on time, but not necessarily on space. However, I agree that I cannot think of an example of change that does not involve space. Therefore I must concede that it is conceivable that change unavoidably implies motion.

[paigetheoracle]

The way I see time is a measurement of change. I'd also say that time cannot occur without motion (Point A to point B) and is just a way of combining the two as a concept

[coberst]

I have been reading “The Meaning of the Body” by Mark Johnson, the coauthor of “Philosophy in the Flesh” with George Lakoff.

In writing about our human visceral level of contact with the world Johnson points out the philosophical nature of “objects” and “subjects” as portrayed by Kant, Dewey, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

Kant points out that “subject” and “object” are counterparts inseparable in experience. Maurice and Dewey show us “that subjects and objects are abstractions from the interactive process of experience out of which emerge what we call people and things. There is no split of self and other in the primacy of our experience, and so we are never utterly separated from things.”

I wonder if it might be proper to think of space as the contribution of the ‘outer world’ whereas time is the contribution of our ‘inner world’ to experience.

Movement is the tie that binds the outer world with the inner world as the foundation of experience.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by coberst

I have been reading “The Meaning of the Body” by Mark Johnson, the coauthor of “Philosophy in the Flesh” with George Lakoff.

In writing about our human visceral level of contact with the world Johnson points out the philosophical nature of “objects” and “subjects” as portrayed by Kant, Dewey, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

Kant points out that “subject” and “object” are counterparts inseparable in experience. Maurice and Dewey show us “that subjects and objects are abstractions from the interactive process of experience out of which emerge what we call people and things. There is no split of self and other in the primacy of our experience, and so we are never utterly separated from things.”

I wonder if it might be proper to think of space as the contribution of the ‘outer world’ whereas time is the contribution of our ‘inner world’ to experience.

Movement is the tie that binds the outer world with the inner world as the foundation of experience.

Nicely put and I'd agree with this description of the last two points as for the Kant point, your post on the ego covers this I believe i,e, the brake on/break with reality that creates object/ subject as opposed to the connection that links both, welding the dichotomy together through action as opposed to separating it through thought (analysis is taking things apart to understand them as synthesis is putting them together to make them work)