At 02:24 PM 12/13/2006, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Probably neither a paradox nor a contradiction but merely a curiosity.
>Cf. the following two series, which baffled many medieval philosophers:
>The non-existence of the present is a curiosity in the same way that
>this is a curiosity. Both infinite classes and infinitesimals produce
>such apparent weirdness. As E.M. Forster observed 80 years ago,
>apologizing for his own mucking about in the matter, very sophisticated
>metaphyscians have fallen flat on their face trying to talk about time.
Interesting, though the numbers series is unrelated to the question of
"time present." Also: the contradiction of "time present" is not the same
thing as saying time doesn't exist. Existence is right where time comes
into play. To say this is a curiosity rather misses the mark, whether in
Burnt Norton or in "life itself." (Has anyone else noticed that that
phrase seems to be gaining again in currency?) The release in Burnt Norton
depends on getting through the misapprehension that leads to the
formulation "time present." At the end of the first of 4Q, this is not a
minor thing or oddment.