Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:12:11 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Re: MB: Writer and Place


On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Samuel J Saks wrote:

> David: I don't mean confined to Spacetime as confined to anywhere, that
> is I don't mean to preclude any event whether it be time like seperated,
> light like seperated, or space like seperated. But I was not really
> making a comment of physics. 
> 
> I was not clear before and I don't know how clear I can get but let me
> try. 
> 
> I tend to think that the writing is above space and time (if only in that
> it doesn't speak to one person but to many, and it doesn't speak at one
> time but at all times at once) here I think of Whitman "distance avails
> not, time avails not." And I also tend to think that the reading is above
> space and time (if only in that it is not read by one person but many and
> not at one time but at any given time, and the text does not stop
> speaking.) But think of the text itself. Every letter takes up space on
> the page and takes a certain amount of time to read. What part does this
> play if any in literature? How can authors present simultaneous events if
> this is the case? Can they? 
> 
> But this is not my major question. Perhaps it the above plays a certain
> part in the general concept of place and the text. 
> 
> -Samuel
> 
Samuel,
thanks for taking my question about the "Positive Light Cone"
seriously. I understood what your point was. The purpose of my message was
to "protest" against a  certain use of the scientific vocabulary
out of context. You used the word "Spacetime", with a big S moreover. Why
using  such a word which is in the dictionnary of modern physics
as you know. It immediatly refers to the issue of "Light Cone",
"events" etc ...,.as apparently you are aware of. Why using the word
"Spacetime" ? does this add anything to what you want to say! It
makes much more sense to me when you explain it as  above.
Sorry for arguing about something whis was not your major question.
I am a physicist ! 
 
best regards

David Hansel