It defies dialectic (ie logic), because dialectic is
very artificial, even though we tend to equate its results with reality.
Now there's a black hole!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Eliot's Indic Studies
> Ken Armstrong wrote:
> > One of the many things I liked about my old professor's study of
> > Norton and the other Q's was its explication of the purposely rendered
> > false note of the first lines of BN. Strictly speaking, as a moment's
> > reflection may reveal, there is no time present. The phrase is a
> > contradiction (not a paradox). This exceeds any parameters of
> > discussion which, in its figurations, is still time in a bottle, so to
> Probably neither a paradox nor a contradiction but merely a curiosity.
> Cf. the following two series, which baffled many medieval philosophers:
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . .
> 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 . . .
> The total number of numbers (odd and even) is the same as the total
> number of odd numbers (and for that matter, the total number of numbers
> divisible by three is equal to the total of all numbers, etc). The
> resolution is the definition of an infinite class as a class containing
> an infinite number of infinite classes. (This isn't quite precise --
> it's been a long time since I messed around with this stuff.)
> 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.
> > Ken A.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/584 - Release Date:
12/12/2006 11:17 PM