Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:00:06 +0100
From: Daniel Haines <daniel-AT-tw2.com>
Subject: Re: boundaries in flow


Kalapsyche-AT-aol.com wrote:
>> Or are there
>>  even more temporalities into which it divides? Would these be according to
>> the  perceivers? At the car accident, 4 human witnesses, 26 ants, 6 birds, 2 bees,
>>  3 plants, one tic, and a partridge in a pear tree? So eachly of these eachly
>>  perceives "the" event, so that we really have AT LEAST 42 events here, at
>>  least on the manifest plane???
>>   

>   Your latter remark involving the 42 events seems to be the most profitable
> way to go.  However, it is not 42 events, but 42 perspectives on an event.

why do you want to reduce this multplicity to a unity?  what could be
further from d&g? it is (at least)42 events, each of which is (at least)
42 events...

> This is the way in which events enable the possibility of co-ordination.  In
> short, for our sorts of beings an perspective is always organized around a
> manifestor, a denotation, and a signification that are clustered around the
> sense or event that organizes them.  As far as the issue of splitting time
> goes, we can think about this in terms of Zeno's paradoxes and the
> impossibility of crossing space.  No matter how hard I look, I can never
> locate the precise happening of the crash...  But nonetheless, there is an
> ontological category to which the crash belongs and this is the event.

isn't this just word-play? okay, a "crash" is an event not a "thing" so
you cannot point to it is space-time - but so what? as i said in my
previous post: zeno's paradox reflects back on our ways of thinking, not
on space - i have to make the supposedly "common-sense" refutation and
just say "but we can cross space", it is obviously not impossible. 

> Because of this inability to locate the precise moment or happening of the
> crash, the sense-event of the crash structures itself as a division of time
> into the "about-to-be" and "has-been".  Since about-to-be and has-been are
> temporally indeterminate categories, they take on the characteristics of being
> eternal in character. 

only if linguistic categories determine the structure of space-time.

 No matter where I am in time, an event is either about-
> to-be or has-been.  etc..

this seems to adhere to an either/or logic that i can't relate to d&g. 
what you say is true in relation to quantatively identical units of time
only - but not in relation to the flow of matter... to immanent,
desiring-production...

dan h.
-- 
Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.

We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.