Print

Print


At 03:11 PM 9/11/2006, Diana Manister wrote:

>Ken, with respect to your question about the dissolution of the 
>self-object duality in wave-particle perception,

  Thanks, but I actually don't know what that phrase means. I also don't 
know what Cartesian duality, in relation to self/other, means. From where I 
am sitting, by myself, it looks to me like there is me here and you there, 
and nothing Cartesian about it. Other than that, I didn't notice any 
dissolution. Really. I was just trying to get clarified what you meant by 
self/other. I'm doubtful that anything to do with selves and others is 
analagous to or determined by the physics of wave-particle perception 
(perception? not theory?)

>I can only say that self/other self would perpetuate the duality. The very 
>phenomenon of wave includes the observer, as does the phenomenon of 
>particle, since which phenomenon is perceived is dependent on the 
>observation itself. The old Cartesian model does not obtain. The other 
>cannot be separated from the self in this scenario.

   Still don't see how waves, particles, selves, and others compute. To say 
that self and other cannot be separated in this scenario does not mean much 
more to me than to say they are in a relation, a dynamic one if you like, 
and the relation is part of the scenario. I'm good with that. But there are 
still selves and others.



>You wrote: "I thought time in Einstein's theory was relative, not subjective."
>
>Einstein's relativity describes time as relative to the observer's speed. 
>At very rapid speeds, time slows down. A twin returning to earth after 
>time spent in high speed space travel would have aged differently from his 
>sibling. Time is subjective in that sense.

   OK, but that is not what "subjective" is normally employed to mean. I 
still think your last sentence there would make more sense with the word 
"relative" than "subjective."


>There is no absolute time in Einstein's theory.

  Perhaps that is its deficiency? I'm just guessing. Absolute time is 
perhaps what occurs to me when I know I'm going to die, and not 
subjectively or relatively, but absolutely.


>Further:
>
>I wrote:  At the speed of light, there is no time -- consciousness
> >travelling at that rate would be timeless. In a timeless state,
> >considerations of cause and effect do not obtain, since chronology
> >is a function of time.  Diana
>
>You wrote: Sounds like a faux eternity.
>
>"Eternity" is figure of speech. Forever is pure speculation.

    Well, sure, and what isn't a figure of speech. At bottom, all speech, 
all language is figurative. "Forever," however, and "eternity" do not reach 
for, or participate in, the same end.

  Ken A.